Hi. Welcome back to the lesson on the quantitative analysis of food metabolism. I would like to include in our work quantitative analysis, also a reflection of what it means by quantitative analysis. What are quality of the food that cannot be cast by an analysis of quantities. In particular, we want to look at what is the meaning of the food for the society or why it is important to reflect on this point. So, we saw before then the agriculture, our role in society changed. It changed from a system that was reproducing both rural and urban community and preserving tradition, the meaning, and the identity of the society to a system which just producing feeding the city with cheap food. And so basically, there are two narratives that we have to address about the role of the food. That food is something special, is associated with the identity of a community that is reproducing itself, and food that is essentially reproducing itself because we are what we are eating. Or, the narrative that the food is just a commodity. So in this case, what are the attributes of the implication of adopting this? Now, let's start with the concept. If the food is special because you reflect the special history and a special place where it is produced are consumed. What are the implications that the identity of a food product reflect their special preference. The identity of the consumer and the special characteristics, the identity of the process of production and the producer. So, in this case where history and place matter and food products help preserve the identities. So, the consumer express the identity, the taste they get it for something. Especially, that some want to eat caviar in China or want to eat the parmigiano-reggiano in Los Angeles. And also, moral values by choosing the product that they want to buy organic or they want to preserve the local farmers. The consumer by choosing their food product help the reproduction of the process of production. And also, these make possible for the producer, the farmers to be proud of their work because they see that is appreciated and they can make a decent living out of it. If food is just a commodity, then the place or the history related to the production of the food problem is irrelevant. So, what is important about the food is that it has to be reliable supply, to be safe and be affordable. These are the three characteristics of food that are considered when we are considering it a commodity. In this case, all history and place that do not matter. So, the identity of the consumers and the producers do not matter. Everyone is eating the same things everywhere. So, what are the implications of the farmer? If they are selling commodities, they really do not have much to say. They are forced to do what they do by regulation, by technology, by the seeds they are available. So, they have to provide the supply which is a programmed and defined by the urban. A consumer- so, the price might be competitive because there is nothing special. So, you have just to be cheaper than the other. And then, moreover, there are a lot of subsidy regulation that implies that they feel that they are not playing a level field. There are farmers that had more than the other. There are farmers that are protected more than the others. They are all that especially in the international market. Moreover, since they must comply with standards at times the fact that they have a special product is a negative point. Because, they are to standardize so they have to use the same variety on the other. This is implying a major disaster in terms of diversity of races within the species they are produce and all species all together. We are just eating a very limited amount of plants and animal species in our diet. We are really destroying a variety of knowledge about what can be eaten. How can be combined in the diet that was accumulated for thousands of thousands of year. So, we can look at long and short food chain. This was a European project that just ended. And then, try to add is this conceptualization whether we are using special product or commodities. And then, you can say that for as a small- as short food chain so that there are local production, local consumption. If they are special, you will have local farm markets or organic commodity from local community or you have in terms of commodities. Is the worst case scenario, you have marginal farming systems that are trying to sell cheap the product they are producing without getting any protection for the fact that they are the local products are special. If we are going on a large geographic domain then they are along food chain. We could have a product there exported and they can have a high value. So, this could be good for the farmers. Again, this is a fancy wine, special type of food we mentioned before. Blue cheese from France or other type of special pasta from Italy and so on. Or you could have the international commodities that is what is the main part of what is commercialized in the world at the moment. And now, there is something new kind. There is an industrial organic agriculture as well. So, you could have organic farm they are still into the under interface between commodities of special products. In this framing of the analysis. So, what happened is that local farmers- local farmer markets are very good. But, I mean they are not solving the problem of Agriculture sustainability agriculture. The DOP the denomination of protected origin- protected and all this labels that you are using to keep provide high value to food product. Of course also, is a good. But, this was only for rich people in the sense that, these imply a much higher cost of the food. Ooopss, Extinct is part. So that the expensive commodity for a longer and marginal farmers are not good alone. Because, this imply the extinction. And, this is a big attractor is excessive attention commodities on the international market. That this, is what we are doing at the moment. But, this is not sustainable we saw because, this is implying eliminating basically the rural community and making industrial agriculture more and more dependent of technology forsee in age. So, if there exists a string of technical development or production system in agriculture are not sustainable. What we could do? So, of course there are two magic worlds for the future of rural development. That is multifunctionality and reconnection with urban society in the sense that, we have to stop to assume that the farmers are there for producing cheap commodities for feeding the cities. And, that in the rural areas we have to do additional things and not just producing monoculture. And then, that urban and rural society have to be integrated and interact much more at the moment. So, I accepted this points that it is not only a good idea but a necessity. Because, it is not working not in developed or in developing countries. And, given the acceleration of the speed of change that we are experiencing now, it will be important to start discussing about how to deal with this problem. So, rather than keeping doing more of the same. We should start using common sense and nobody will go to a dentist that is paid in terms of dollars per kilo of teeth taken out from the mouth of the patients. So, why do we want to have farmers that are paid in terms of dollars per kilo of food taken out of the agro-ecosystems? A dentist has to take care of the health of the mouth of the patient. It is not just in terms of what he does to the teeth, it is also what he does to the mouth. And, a lot of other criteria of performance will be considered. So, farmers are not just producing commodities, they are taking care of the health of the society by providing natural food. They are taking care of the health of the ecosystem by preserving biodiversity and environmental services. They are taking care of the health of rural communities generating an adequate income for their families. And then, they are preserving the cultural heritage of the society in terms of tradition and historic landscapes. So, as in the case with dentists, farmers should be paid for it and not just for the production of commodity. So, it is- there are a lot of points that are making easier to make this discussion. The national government wants to change because, they understand they especially in rich country they are spending a huge amount of subsidies and they are not getting much out of it. The consumer want to change because they more and more are no longer happy to eat junk food and cheap commodity done by damaging the environment. So, they want more organic and more healthy food. Farmers will be able to change, to get back, to be decision maker, to understand what happening in the ecosystem, deciding how to produce the things they want to produce. There are financial resources or the amount of subsidy we invest in rich country in agriculture is enormous. But, this is not happening. Always very difficult to change the status quo. And why? Because, there are very strong lock-in. All the university, agricultural college, they want to keep what they are doing. There are big companies producing the inputs that they are- input agriculture although they are producing fertilizers ,they are producing pesticides, machinery, seeds. All the bureaucratic administrative structure, all the ministries of agriculture, farmers association, political lobbies all saw- all these institutions of course they are trying to resist changes and it's not their fault, it's their job. So, one important point to be considered is that there is what is called a sunk-costs. If we change the act to a paradigm industrial agriculture there will be economic sunk cost, social sunk cost and personal sunk cost. For those that are familiar with the consequence sunk cost. We can explain something called the Concorde syndrome. If the youngest among you will not remember this. This is the Concorde was a super- supersonic liner produced by the Air France and British Airways linking Europe and United States. It was a fantastic engineering achievement. That was a very bad commercial. I mean, because you never met money as a matter of fact, was a big economic loss. But, in spite of the fact that the airplane was not making money and was losing a lot of money. They've been keeping flying these for years and years and years. And then, from there exactly because of the sunk cost. What is the sunk cost? Is that after you invest a lot of in something , a lot of technology, a lot of money and then you realize that this was a bad idea. You get into I can't stop now. I cannot stop now otherwise, what I invest would be lost. It is true that the sunk cost imply a lot of losses. But, if it doesn't work it really doesn't make any sense to keep continuing doing this. So, we are producing a lot of food in developed country where it is not needed. We cannot produce food in the same way in developing countries where it is needed. And then, it is time to reconsider our choice on agriculture. So, this problem of how to get out of the Concorde syndrome. How to rediscuss a different path of development of rural areas is not a technical problem, it's not a scientific challenge that can be achieved by having more innovation. Even though science and technology must and will play an essential part in finding a desirable solution. But, in order to make more sustainable agriculture,` what we need is wisdom, visions, values and above all that we care for our farmers, the environment, our health, our culture, our identity, the future of our children. Both the productivity or higher return on investment with the business as usual narrative of progress more innovation will do it. As a matter of fact, will not do it. So, what is the conclusion here. It is very important to have quantitative analysis of agriculture, understanding from where you are getting food, how you are using, where it goes, how changing your diet or changing the technology or the way you are producing things will affect the different criteria. But, we have to be aware of basic principle. Food is not a commodity. It can not be a commodity. It should not be considered a commodity when discussing policies. The services of ecosystem cannot be replaced. We fully depend on them. So, we should not be monetarized. You can monitorize the only things that you can substitute with something else. You cannot monetarize the value of your mother or the mother of the value of your children. You have to respect and protect them. Then, what is happening now more and more, the separation of our society and second rate rural community that they're just for producing cheap food for cities and urban elites. Taking care of the business is immoral and stupid. It doesn't work. And, if we continue do more and more and more of the same. Now, we are getting that the urban elites are will be replaced by international financial elite. So, you can see already that the middle class urban elites are getting more and more squeezed. And then- so this doesn't work. It doesn't work. So, what is happening? The urban elite are eating the rural elite. Now, we have international financial elite, they're eating the urban elite. And so, we have to stop this. It's time to reflect. It's time to reconsider what we want to do and trying to do something else. Exactly, for this time of reflection, the type of analysis we are presenting in this course, the possibility of understanding better how we are producing and using food. And how this is affecting the rest of the society is an essential part of the story in order to make a better informed reflection.
