Support for “we” visions and for broadening the scope in the debate on alternative forms of agriculture

In recent years, the need for profound changes in agricultural practices has become increasingly acknowledged, and it has given rise to an intense, and rapidly intensifying, debate among experts and in the media. Before the general framework under which this debate currently unfolds become too set in stone, it would seem useful to devote some time to a reflexion on how discussions should be approached in order to have the best chance to result in practically workable, sustainable solutions. In a recent, provocative article, Amundson (2022) voiced very strong opinions in this respect. In particular, he criticizes the emergence in the general public of “we” visions about alternate forms of agriculture, he argues that key current stakeholders (i.e. farmers) imperatively have to be included in the discussions, and he opines that the debate should not attempt to solve “social wicked problems”, which tend to remain long-standing because no one can manage to solve them. In the present article, I propose an in-depth reflexion on these three aspects of the debate, and adopt very different perspectives than Amundson’s (2022). After decades of laboriously trying to get members of the general public engaged with soils and agricultural issues, “we” visions with which members of the public may come up need to be resolutely welcomed, carefully analyzed, and responded to, soon after they emerge. Furthermore, I argue that stakeholders who are currently in the agricultural sector may not necessarily be the most likely to eventually implement changes and therefore should not be allowed to sway the debate in a direction that suits them in the short run. Finally, I contend that the lack of willingness, or the reluctance, of decision-makers and the private sector to envisage fundamental changes, thereby giving the impression that some problems cannot be readily solved, should not constrain in any way the scope of the reflexion.