In recent weeks, various global government organizations, such as the United Nations, have also sounded the alarm bell by issuing grim warnings about the urgent need to exponentially improve year-on-year crop yields.
In fact, the world faces a permanent food crisis and global instability unless countries act now to feed a surging population by doubling agricultural output, a report drafted for ministers of the Group of Eight nations warned earlier this year.
The report, entitled “The Global Challenge: to Reduce Food Emergency”, warns that global food production needs to double by 2050 to feed an additional 79 million-plus mouths each year. The G8 also warns of the food production challenges posed by “pronounced climate changes,” leading to water shortages, as well as “higher input costs.”
My Comment
No news is real news these days. It’s all about manipulating public sentiment in ways that make money for someone. Food prices came down last year, but they’ve begun creeping up again this year. Adding to the drum-beat started by Bob Zoellick, the new World Bank president, former US Trade Rep and ex Goldman functionary, the big Potash companies have begun to push potash as essential to increasing food yields. The message is targeted to population rich countries like India and China, which haven’t been getting with the potash program.
All the more reason to advocate for organic farming, which is less capital intensive and makes use of what these countries have in abundance, people.
Foor crisis or just too many people?
Recall the green revolution (Borland a genius) enabled wheat production to become easier and heartier and viola–more wheat==more bread=cheaper food=more people.
Why is it so forbidden to point out the obvious–the biggest threat to sustainability is well so many people. In my lifetime (and I am not that old) the population went from 4 billion to closing on 7 billion. Seems like we had the fool production issue pretty well defeted to go from feeding 4 billion to 7 billion in 39 years–its actually amazing if you think about it.
Nothing wrong in the world that a one child policy in poor countries (rich ones too—oh we laredy have that by defualt!) would not fix–happier kids, better environment, and less crouds, more health etc………
P.S. On the food thing—be careful with advocating vegetarian diet for some reason for a lot of americans a vegetarian is somebody who eats a lot of processed carbs, sugars–all simple carbs with occassional frozen veggies.
In fact—see Devaney. most health problems are not from fats but from all the fake stuff and the processed carbs–margarine and anything that comes in a package and won;t spoil. I am a true vegatarian who also eats meat–Taleb–but no bread or grains. Don;t fall for the whole grain myth–if Cargil is selling it I aint buying it….
Hi Robert –
thanks for stopping by.
*Vegetarianism means eating vegetables, fruits and grain (ovo-lacto veg). Vegans do without dairy as well.
*Recent research has shown the Green Revolution had very ambiguous results, at least in India.
*I think people can voluntarily limit the children they have – and that takes place without constraint when women are educated and standards of living rise.
*What’s causing shortages of food isn’t the population at all, but speculation, waste, bad farming and trade practices, and government intervention at all levels. Monbiot himself has said so. He said recently that the world can produce more than enough food for its population. One person in the West consumes far more than whole families in Asia and Africa. Population control smacks too much of eugenics and race fear, and if you go back and read some of the literature, you’ll see that among the originators, those things were concerns
*Yes trans fats, saturated fats, additives of all kinds, msg, animal fats in excess, fried foods, denatured foods ( white flour, milled rice),artificial sweeteners (especially corn syrup)
– these are the problems. But the biggest problem is the marketing industry- which is a factory of lies
There was a woman is a Texas collage a few years ago who did a study and found that we had the ability to feed 8 billion people. So if we are at 7 billion now somehow (is that right?) we still have room to go. The distribution chain is the problem. IMHO.
I could never do vegitarian unless forced. I’m trying to slide into a raw food diet. That is working 1/2 way ok, so far. Smoked salmon, other smoked meats are what makes it work for me.
As if it matters.
~2 cents.
oops,
is a Texas collage = in a Texas collage
Well, fish is great and by all means eat meat. But excessive meat consumption isn’t necessary (great slabs of beef, plates full of shrimp) – meat is a condiment not a main dish, in my opinion, or can be made so, without detriment to health for nearly everyone, and with a great deal of benefit to society as a whole.
Less water consumption, less land usage, better quality food, no waste of our greatest resource, human beings, who are dying all over the world from malnutrition.
Think of the wasted creative ability, the unused faculties which could give us the scientific knowhow to do even better.
And it’s a proven fact that one countries become wealthier, they automatically reduce their population size. But tell me — even here, where the population density isn’t low – we have starvation don’t we? From different factors…
We throw away food, don’t we? So it’s not population…
Monbiot said it perfectly. Put all the obese people who are eating too much and killing themselves and all the malnourished people who are dying because they don’t have enough, and there’s plenty to go around.
It’s bad distribution and wilful actions…
Yes, lots of waste and often issues are interconnected. California rice agribusiness is subsidized with Hoover dam water while abundant sources from SE Asia are kept out. The HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) and related sugar products are only competitive because natural sucrose from sugar cane is excluded.
There are other wastes created by frozen storage and distribution when ESL (extended shelf life) processing is available using aseptic processing and packaging technologies. Refrigerated storage is much less cost and uses far less energy.
Then there is waste at the retail level due to things like salad bars, smorgasbord-type operations and heat lamp operations, as are common in the fast food industry.
The solutions are mostly governmental, but some are technology-oriented. The food industry is conservative…easier to hire a few more mexicans than to invest in equipment that can improve their operations and efficiency.
Well –
one thing I am hoping is that the worldwide organic-permaculture community of farmers support each others’ efforts and that this becomes a strong enough force in public opinion to make the population overlook price differences…
(Although, I’ll bet that once the agribusinesses corner the market, we’ll be in for higher prices).
In fact, that’s just what’s happening. They agribusinesses are sending out a lot of PR in preparation for jacking up food prices – blaming it on demand, when it’s about speculation and control of the market.
Same thing happened with oil.
This is why integrated global markets aren’t the answer. You need a lot of friction and gridlock to prevent a concentration of power in a few hands.
In Asia (eg. Cambodia), S. America (eg. Bolivia) we’ve seen these sorts of resource/ land wars being played out. There’ll be more of them. But it’s not necessary. That’s the crime. It’s not necessary.
Lila, not sure I agree with your last statement.
Historically cartels have never lasted without government intervention of some sort. Certainly organic has it’s place, but I’m not opposed to chemical farming either, since in some products there is no difference in quality but it produces greater abundance and lower costs. Most problems would be solved in the US if the Dept. of Agriculture was simply abolished. A few of it’s legitimate functions (inspection) could be easily privatized.
Hi Jeff –
That won’t happen – so while I do agree with free trade, what we have now isn’t and it has a terrible effect on vast numbers of people at the subsistence level and beyond…those living on fixed incomes.
I firmly believe that capital flows need to be restricted internationally and believe I was proved right recently. India, which had some restrictions in place, didn’t suffer the same banking crisis as the others (although to some extent there were still problems).
In heavily populated areas especially, there should be restrictions on the purchase of land and houses for investment.
I am not in favor of the state expropriating them, but restrictions and penalties are in order.
Same goes for water and the rest of the commons. Privatization in all these areas has been nothing but robber baron looting.
As for government intervention, some forms of regulation (antitrust, racketeering laws) are not properly called regulation for substantive ends. They’re policing and well within the legitimate functions of the state.
Right now, we have a financial syndicate running the system. The most important thing is to isolate and neutralize it. To allow it to spread its influence globally has been and will be an unmitigated disaster.
Re chemicals. I disagree there too. If you include the costs of the chemical factories in terms of other things (pollution, other damage to environment./health). I will bet their prices aren’t cheaper.
As a society – immediate short term costs cannot be the only criterion. Small groups would naturally understand that and adopt the appropriate methods. This isn’t so with large groups..