This column appears in the May 2021 issue of Sugar Producer.
“Changing our mind is one of the most difficult things we do. It is far easier to fool yourself into believing a falsehood than to admit a mistake.”
This quote came from our work on the misperceptions of biotechnology, but it’s a universal truth. We still fight the misperceptions of biotech, but as I’ve shared with you before, we are spending more time in the nutrition and chemical space than ever before.
Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its massive 2019 Food Safety and Nutrition Survey. FDA posed hundreds of questions to thousands of adults across America about consumer knowledge, perceptions, preferences and behaviors regarding food safety and nutrition. Respondents’ perceptions or lack of knowledge is stunning. As we know from the quote above, these findings are not easily corrected. Here are just a few key results you should know:
Seventy-one percent are trying to reduce their sugar intake. Eighty percent see packages with no or low sugar added. Forty-three percent purchase products with low sugar. Fifty-two percent purchase products with no added sugar. When looking at the Nutrition Facts Label, 52 percent look for total sugars, and 34 percent look for added sugars.
A large share of respondents believe organic fruits and vegetables are less likely to cause long-term health problems (48 percent), are better for the environment (57 percent), and are more nutritious (39 percent).
Forty-four percent know little or nothing about GMOs. Thirty-one percent think they are less nutritious, but 33 percent don’t know. Thirty-nine percent believe they cause long-term health problems. Thirty percent think they are worse for the environment, but 36 percent don’t know. If consumers have a choice between a GMO and non-GMO product, 36 percent are likely to buy the non-GMO.
Eighty-one percent of respondents are extremely or very concerned about pesticides in their food, with only 4 percent who didn’t know or were not concerned.
As the Sugar Association’s surveys have demonstrated many times, consumer sentiment around sugar is all over the map — though perceptions about sugar, balanced diets and wellness are improving. Many consumers, as noted above, are still very confused. Their lack of knowledge is hijacked by product marketing campaigns, fad diets and other wonder cures. A lack of knowledge does not prevent consumers from forming opinions on the matter and letting those opinions be known. Rather, it drives legislative and regulatory agendas. This creates a real challenge for our industry. It’s why we constantly must pursue the truth and educate policy makers and thought leaders.
Another huge policy debate facing our nation is climate change. We are deeply involved with this issue. We, as an agriculture industry, must create our own pathway and structure in this space, rather than being told what we must do. First, for context, we must understand where in the greenhouse gas landscape we fit. Globally, the biggest emissions creators by sector are:
- Electricity and heat generation (25 percent);
- Agriculture and forests (24 percent);
- Industry (21 percent);
- Transportation (14 percent);
- Other energy (10 percent); and
- Buildings (6 percent).
Almost two-thirds of CO2 emissions come from five countries:
- China (28 percent);
- U.S. (15 percent);
- EU-28 (9 percent);
- India (7 percent); and
- Russia (5 percent).
Within the U.S., agriculture accounts for 10 percent, while transportation is 28 percent, electricity is 27 percent, industry is 22 percent, and commercial and residential is 12 percent.
Secondly, production agriculture is diverse and varies across the country in different climate zones and soil makeups. Root crops growing below the soil present unique challenges. Peanuts, sugarbeets and potatoes are the three largest crops in this category. The consensus by the broad spectrum of agriculture producers and policy makers is that whatever is constructed by Congress needs to be voluntary and incentive-based. It also must deliver a meaningful revenue stream to the producer and not to a middleman. While the hope is always to come up with simple solutions to complex problems, it is harder for agriculture climate solutions. Private companies are signing up acres for carbon credits, but Congress is looking for a more holistic approach to land, animals and forests. In short, pay close attention to this issue. It could pass as standalone legislation, or it could be connected to the next Farm Bill.
Trade also remains a very chaotic space. Not long ago, the Senate unanimously confirmed Katherine Tai as the U.S. trade representative — a rare glimmer of bipartisanship. What brought 98 voting senators together in agreement? China. Tai is a China expert. It was a clear message with a clear objective: to counter China’s drive to be the world’s economic, political and military leader. If you want a better understanding of China’s strategy, I suggest you read The Hundred Year Marathon by Michael Pillsbury. It illuminates China’s century-long strategy to position itself through knowledge (educating their top students in American universities), tools and technology (stolen or otherwise), and a range of other maneuvers to overtake the U.S.
Trade is one of the playing fields where we can counter China without overt hostility, while also taking better care of domestic industry and our own citizens. We can partner with our allies, rebuilding bridges, without compromising principles. The supply chain disruptions experienced in the pandemic was a wake-up call to so many industries, especially outside of agriculture. Look what one container ship blocking the Suez Canal did to disrupt the global supply chain. Watch what unfolds in the months ahead.