All of sudden all things "food" are sexy and media worthy, from recalls of tainted peanut products and spinach—and the accompanying rallying cry from Capitol Hill to reinvent food regulation—to the increasingly self-righteous call for all things edible to be local, natural, holistic and pure.

We endure journalism professors from Berkeley writing books about how we should eat, academics from New York City telling us what's safe and what isn't, chic restaurateurs adding their two cents, and Hollywood types trashing us for everything from our alleged systemic animal cruelty to dire "documentary" warnings that corporate agribusiness is the newest sign of the global Apocalypse.

All of this noise frankly makes my head hurt. It's a whole lot of folks who've done selective research, folks with the economic wherewithal to pay for food whatever price salves their ego, folks who sit with fawning media types - who know or understand less about food production than their sources - handing down declarations from their self-defined moral high ground.

Missing from this cacophony is the voice of the farmer and the voice of the average consumer. I'm positive no one among these food elitists is engaging the 90% of U.S. buyers who won't or can't pay premium prices for their food in a discussion of whether the days of "cheap food" policy in the U.S. should end. Nowhere do I see a discussion among these folks about costs, whether to the consumer or to the farmer/rancher.

Let's get a couple of things straight: Is food production in this country perfect? No, but it's the best system in the world for delivering safe, abundant, nutritious and affordable food to 300 million Americans and a big chunk of the world. Is so-called "conventional food production" the only system worth supporting? No, there's room for organic, natural, vegetarian/vegan, local and any other source you choose, but it's conventional that will keep that 90% of us fed at prices we can afford.

The added frustration is that to promote this locovarian philosophy, supporters don't provide facts and data; they trash the conventional system using allegation and innuendo. They play to the "big-is-bad" mindset, they conjure corporate villainy, they foster a distrust of technology, and they ignore what will inevitably be dismissed as the unintended consequences of what they demand.

Farmers and ranchers are adaptable—to a point. Should this demand that all food be produced naturally, organically, etc. etc. etc., be codified, some producers - those who could afford to do so -- could convert. However, what this holistic system may ultimately lead to is tiny, local producers selling their wares to local restaurants and farmers' markets, and a whole lot of rank and file producers consolidating - translate "getting bigger" - to handle the additional labor, land, environmental management and processing costs of production. So much for your "small family farm." So long cheap food; hello two-tiered food system. By this I mean, those who can afford it get to choose; those who can't afford it, get what's left.

This comes down to an issue of food security. Can we produce enough affordable food to feed those on the planet today and the 9 billion or so who will occupy the globe by 2050? The answer is "no," not if we continue this self-indulgent debate over food "sourcing," while ignoring availability and cost.

It's time to remind consumers, politicians, the media and this new generation of foodies that without you and yours, any vision of food production sustainability will not, cannot exist. And while the good news is the latest census of ag numbers shows there are more smaller farmers joining your ranks; the bad news is that in North America, more than three quarters of the land mass still cannot support crops - unless we start cutting down forestland. On a global basis, nearly two-thirds of the land mass can't support crops. And, according to Jacques Diouf, head of the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, to feed the planet's growing population, we will need to double global food production by 2050. Implicit in Diouf's message is the continuing imperative to pursue, perfect and exploit technology.

What this comes down to is this: Producers - the men and women who actually farm and ranch day in and day out - must come out of the closet and reconstruct our relationship with consumers. We need to reinvigorate the trust city folks have long held in what we do. Consumers must hear us talk about who we are, what we do and how well we do it. We must take control of the food debate, or at the very least, make sure our voices are heard.

###

About the Author: Prior to joining Policy Directions Inc., Steve Kopperud was senior vice president of the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) for more than 18 years. He is also former president of the Animal Industry Foundation (AIF), and chairs the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition (FAWC). In a prior life, Steve was a reporter for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the San Diego Union, and he has also worked as bureau chief and Washington editor for ABC's publishing division.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published by Brownfield.