I agree that for too long the need to invest in agriculture has been a low priority issue. The time has come to place agriculture higher on the policy agenda and to focus on the needs of smallholders.
It is true that for the first time in history more humans live in urban rather than in rural areas. This has been true of Australian society for many years with a break down resulting in the understanding by urban society of the costs and problems of the small minority of our society who live on and work the farms. Australian farmers are amongst the most productive farmers in the world, ready to use modern technology to preserve the land and increase crop yield.
Australian farmers have always been price takers and this has resulted in an inability to get a return on their product. They have been leaving the land and drifting to the cities to obtain a living wage.
Within Australia there is arable land lying fallow. There are crops wasted every year because the price is too low to warrant the cost of harvesting.
Only if there is a radical change in the attitude of governments ensuring changes to policies to protect and assist Australian farmers, plus a change in the attitude of the urban population willing to pay a higher price for Australian produce, will the Australian farmer be able to assist during the predicted food famines of this century.

Relying on science, particularly when the science budgets are being significantly reduced and are increasingly forming smaller parts of total budgets, is hardly conducive to an integrative approach to the food problem or crop sustainability problems. Shouldn't the approaches be widened? It is apparent to most that the world cannot continue to support the numbers it currently has, let alone cope with any significant increase. Science just won't do it so I question your desire to rely on it to provide answers. It most certainly has a place but not on its own.

Oil supply is now decreasing and phosphate resources are approximagtely 75% depleted. These factors alone make continuation of modern industrial agriculture (aka the "green revolution") impossible. The only way forward is population stablization and then reduction (will be forced on us the hard way by mother nature if we don't) and then localisation of agriculture, recycling of human wastes back to crop-growing soils and much higher human labour inputs. This sounds radical but there is literally no alternative - other than collapse and starvation.

Arctic dog identified the elephant in the room - ie overpopulation. Unless we can find another planet or two, providing lots more affordable food will simply lead to even more mouths to feed, with a consequent devastating effect on the environment.

True, economic development, as in Europe, has reduced the numbers of children in families, but a more pro-active approach such as China's one-child policy, is overdue.

Australia can do its little bit by reversing the Harradine-inspired refusal of overseas aid where family planning is practised. However, with the number of Roman Catholics in Parliament, and the religiously and socially conservative nature of our PM, this may prove difficult. Rather than the Harradine approach, it would be more sensible that family planning be a pre-requisite for Australian aid!

I come from a low income farming background, but must admit to being a bit wary of the approach recommended by "Country girl". Not sure at all that "policies to protect and assist Australian farmers" are the answer. This usually means handover of more subsidies to promote uneconomic activites.

Arcticdog observes correctly, population pressures are the most significant influence being ignored in this article.

The advances in science have improved food production significantly, over the past few decades, thus the supply side of the equation has responded to the need.

What is not happening is the demand side, which continues to outstrip the limits of sustainability.

We acknowledge the world is a finite place, that growth cannot continue and some resources are under stress. The bleeding obvious thing is to address the demand side of the equation and stop population numbers. That applies especially to burgeoning third world populations.

To country girls “Within Australia there is arable land lying fallow. There are crops wasted every year because the price is too low to warrant the cost of harvesting.”

I guess when the economics turn and food [production becomes more critical, it will attract the sort of economic returns which will make it viable.

Like Protea I believe throwing subsidies at any industry, be it agriculture or manufacturing, only warps the market at the expense of the tax payer and for the benefit of a minority vested interest.

We have moved, in the past two decades away from the “protectionist” model more toward the free-market model of economic activity. Protectionism begat protectionism and ultimately harms the consumer and the national economy through tax-payer subsidy of inefficient and incompetent business sectors which draw in resources away from new opportunities.

The author says “Farmers need access to the information and tools – inputs and technology – that will allow them to make the right choices to address sustainability”.
True enough, they need such access – but “sustainability”, by any reasonable definition will still be pie in the sky. “Not by bread alone” can it be achieved, and it is a cruel hoax to pretend that it can.
When will CropOlogists stop such pretence? Rather than merely cramming more human sardines into the limited planetary sardine-tin, could they not ask for action in minimizing what has become an attempt at perpetual increase in food-hungry communities?
Unless such action is addressed, all the good works they envisage do nothing at all for that magic term sustainability. While there is not a squeak out of them to ask for attention to the fundamental problem, should they expect to be taken seriously when waving the “sustainability” banner? By all means, Paula, get back to your good works – but please give the disinformation a miss.