Jacqueline Rowarth: Why Kiwi farmers are ahead of Aussies

Opinion

At the beginning of the year, Aussie newspaper The Age ran an article on "The Australian miracle".

The "miracle" was acceptance that rhetoric associated with excessive dependence on primary production is wrong.

Myths - such as those suggesting agriculture and mining are low-tech industries - will be exploded in a book to be written by the Science Minister's former adviser.

New Zealand could do with a similar miracle. However, with the activities of the universities and Crown research institutes over the last few years, the country is somewhat closer to achieving it than is Australia.

New Zealand is a small country, and information is spread more easily. Universities and CRIs have capitalised on this to achieve a revolution in communication.

Check back through the media and you will see that not a day passes without some statement from one of the research organisations - and many of these statements are connected with primary production.

Check further and see how many of them are related to health.

You are, after all, what you eat.

Then consider how many of the articles relate to food preparation (recipes to tempt the palate) and to dieting (easy exercises to counteract the effect of the over-tempted palate).

Think further to how many New Year's resolutions will have been focused on "losing weight and getting fit"; those resolvers will now be searching the internet for ways to keep their resolutions, and so will be even more focused on food than in the past - smart food, that is - food that meets their dietary needs, whether it be low Glycaemic Index, low cholesterol, gluten free, high anti-oxidants or any of the other emerging requirements.

There is not a consumer untouched by the activities of research based on the production of food. And it would be hard to find a farmer or grower who has not been affected similarly.

For them the research has allowed improvements in efficiency of production, vital as land values and labour shortages increase.

Furthermore, it has not only allowed improvements in the yield and quality of their production, but also allowed them to make these improvements within an increasingly restricted context.

Some of these restrictions are due to legislation (use of fertilisers and pesticides), some are due to shortages (water for irrigation). Still others are based on requirements of society - organic production systems and those using or not using genetically engineered organisms.

The next stage will be to move into production of smart foods at farm level by increasing production of smart ingredients. This may require changing cultivars, breeds and even species; all changes are likely to require a change in production systems, and all must be done within the context of climate change and increased challenge from pests.

All of this will require research, adoption by the farmers and growers, and appreciation by the consumer.

It will cost the country in terms of the research, but that is why the universities and CRIs have been doing their best to show the value of research to society.

And ultimately the cost will be recouped multi-fold in terms of better health in New Zealand society. You are what you eat.

Smart foods, meeting the individual needs of the consumer, will improve individual health, and so reduce medical bills for the country.

The collective New Year's resolution for New Zealand should be to celebrate the country's ability to produce smart food - efficiently, with high quality and great diversity.

Australians might consider New Zealand getting there first as a low blow, but when have New Zealanders minded winning?

* Jacqueline Rowarth is director of the Office for Environmental Programmes at the University of Melbourne.