Theoretical approaches to multifunctional agriculture often posit a dichotomy between ‘productivist’ and multifunctional agriculture. However, this theoretical dichotomy runs counter to the tendency among many ‘productivist’ farms to now rely, to varying extents, on newly‐developed multifunctional activities. In this article we identify four of the main controversies within the complex theoretical and political debates about multifunctional agriculture. These concern whether or not multifunctionality is: (1) a survival strategy mostly followed by small and marginal farms, (2) at the expense of food production, (3) primarily driven by governmental programmes, and (4) only relevant at the farm‐level. We use the results of a representative survey among 795 larger farmers across Italy in order to empirically evaluate these arguments. The research results show that larger farmers are also investing in new, multifunctional activities, alongside investments in food production; in fact, these farmers are keeping pace with, or moving ahead of, farmers who only invest in food production. They consider investments in new activities to be a ‘life‐jacket’ that strengthens their agricultural activities. The results also show that government programmes are not decisive factors for farms engaging in or further developing multifunctional activities. The main drivers are family centred, with some farmers also having ‘broader’ motivations and seeing the wider benefits of multifunctional agriculture.