By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH

Indiana Correspondent

FORT WAYNE, Ind. — While farmers have used advances in technology to improve efficiency and production, some consumers may prefer less science when it comes to their food, according to a Purdue University professor.

The world’s population – currently about 7 billion – is expected to rise to 10.9 billion by 2100. “How do we solve this problem of feeding these additional people in the next hundred years or so?” asked Jayson L. Lusk, a distinguished professor and head of the university’s Department of Agricultural Economics. “One of the best solutions is to invest in agricultural research to improve productivity. We’ve got to figure out how to get more with what we have.”

In a survey, he asked consumers if they would prefer the adoption of more technology or more natural agriculture to best address the challenges of feeding the world’s growing population. Nearly 24 percent indicated additional technology such as science and research. More than 76 percent preferred more local, organic and unprocessed foods.

“It was one of the more depressing results I’ve ever generated,” Lusk noted. “What can we do to talk to consumers about innovation in agriculture and the food sector?

Lusk spoke Dec. 7 during the Indiana Farm Bureau’s annual state convention in Fort Wayne.

One reason for the disconnect between consumers and use of technology in growing food is people have less connection with agriculture than they used to, he said. In 1900, there were 75 farms per 1,000 people. In 2009, there were 6.7 farms per 1,000.

In addition, the percentage of disposable personal income spent on food has fallen over the decades. In the 1930s-1940s, consumers spent about 25 percent of their disposal income on food; in 2010, the number dropped to about 10 percent.

“As a food consumer, this is great,” Lusk stated. “Farmers wish they’d spend more. What caused it to go down? We’re producing more with less.”

U.S. consumers have indicated in surveys their most important food values are taste, safety, nutrition and price, he said. Lower on the list are appearance, animal welfare, convenience and environment.

Liberals may be more concerned about animal welfare and environment while conservatives may focus more on price, Lusk pointed out.

The agricultural community should understand that cultural values shape public risk perceptions, he said. Individuals conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact to values that define their cultural identities, Lusk added.

“If you want to engage with people, talk to them in the way they’re accustomed to,” he explained. “Different people have different moral foundations. It’s not just information flowing from experts, but who the expert is.

“My take is we need an optimistic, forward-looking vision for the future of food. There’s no silver bullet here. With precision ag, it may help to tell the story through the eyes of someone passionate about the technology. How many consumers know you can collect this kind of information about your farm? Consumers have very little idea these technologies are being deployed on your farm.”