Commentary.

President Obama in his State of the Union call to arms on restoring the U.S. to its preeminent role in science and technical innovation waxed eloquent on the contribution home-grown technology makes to the overall economic health of this country. That call came on the heels of an executive order instructing all federal agencies to review regulations pending and on the books to ensure they’re not “job-killers.” Both of these public commitments by the White House are encouraging, giving support to his inaugural pledge of following the “best available science and the rule of law” in dealing with federal rulemaking.

I hope he’s serious.

And I hope his folks who wrestle with things agricultural and food-related understand such acknowledgement by their boss must extend to those innovations and technologies – both in practice and on the not-too-distant horizon – that keep this country well fed, safely and at a price all consumers can afford.

The naïve purist in me would believe President Obama’s declarations means the shrill voices of the anti-technology forces arrayed against production agriculture will be met with a deaf ear at the White House, and that USDA, FDA, EPA and others in the federal camp will be equally dismissive of the activist call for a return to 1930s agriculture.

That belief, however, is predicated on those who make the policy decisions understanding that what they do when it comes to the technology of food production affects how we do business. It means that uppermost in their minds is their ability to make the connection between erasing technological advances and surrendering the goal of food security, both at home and abroad. It means they understand that succumbing to the demands of activists that we do away with antibiotics on farm, delay unnecessarily the approval of biotechnology-enhanced food animals, by telling us we can’t use certain housing or handling technologies – or worse, dictate those practices which can be used – will, in fact, drive industries overseas, cost farmers and ranchers their livelihoods, and ultimately, force consumers to pay significantly higher prices for the foods they need.

This Administration has for the past couple of years essentially viewed conventional food production as a bit of problem in need of a solution, spending a good chunk of time and money promoting organics, digging up federal lands to plant “peoples’ gardens,” urging local purchasing, etc. There needs to be a more holistic view; the White House needs to come at ag-related policy decisions in a context that no one system is superior to another, that different doesn’t automatically translate into better, and that what’s always been the hallmark of food production in this country is innovation and the uncanny ability of producers, processors and retailers to create niche markets to satisfy consumer desires.

I thought it interesting that when the Chinese dipped into our soybean market and scarfed up the largest one-day purchase of soybeans since USDA began issuing daily sales reports in 1977, Secretary Vilsack said this was evidence of how the Chinese see the U.S. as a reliable market for quality product. Inherent in that trust, however, is a technological ability to continue to innovate to meet such demand.

There is no way U.S. farmers and ranchers – now less than 1.5 million strong – can continue to grow the crops and raise the animals that feed this country and big chunk of the world without technology – biotechnology, animal health, animal science, housing, climate control, transport, etc. – and I’m hoping the White House gets it.