Global Food Insecurity
I returned from the 2nd International Global Food Security Conference last week as convinced as ever that we are facing a catastrophic human population crash this century. The plenary speakers were the titans in the field – M.S. Swaminathan, Pedro Sanchez, Rosamond Naylor, Shenggen Fan, Prabhu Pingali – and they projected, for the most part, a general sense of both informed urgency and kindhearted optimism. Through genetic engineering and other technological innovations, the magic of the free market, and prudent governmental policies, humanity will remain resilient in the face of great challenges: that was the overall message.
However, the scientists who presented their research were not so sanguine about humanity’s future prospects. China has been importing more food every year, and there is nothing on the horizon to suggest it will become less needy or more self-sufficient. South Asia and most of Africa will also need to import significantly more food in the coming decades. However, with fewer net exporters in the world – there are only seven – the competition for scarce food commodities will become fierce. In that environment, food prices will rise, and countries like Bangladesh and Egypt will not be able to compete with wealthy countries like China and Japan. The poor, population-dense countries—mostly in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East – are facing a very dark future: that was the implicit message in the carefully worded, dispassionate language of statistics and mathematical equations.
In personal conversations, the scientists were even gloomier. What was implicit in the mathematics was voiced explicitly at dinner and at the bar. A naturally optimistic, compassionate, and committed lot, the many scientists, economists, and specialists with whom I spoke in these three intensive conference days could muster little evidence to support a rosy future. The forces of expanding population, climate change, massive soil degradation, and inequality continue to strip forests, acidify oceans, and leave billions malnourished.
It’s not materially depressing for everyone, of course. The wealthy billion on the planet have little to fear (besides their usual fare of obesity, overworking, psycho-spiritual strain, etc). In terms of food security, the outlook for the temperate zone, wealthy “Northern” nations are good enough. The United States, Canada, Europe, Brazil, and Russia produce plenty of food, and along with Japan and China can buy what they lack. One particularly bright spot was João Leite’s assessment of Brazilian agriculture. More food is being grown, more cattle pastured, and more ethanol produced on less land, while Amazonian deforestation is decreasing. Rainforest deforestation in the Amazon was only a little over a million hectares, officially. That’s about the size of the state of Connecticut, or about an acre every ten seconds. Hey, but that’s good news.
Sadly, what humanity gives with one hand it takes with another. So, Eric Lambin from Stanford University alerted the audience to a new deforestation ”hot spot” in the Gran Chaco, a sparsely-populated region, most of which is in Paraguay. While NGOs are carefully monitoring deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, the lack of regulations and scrutiny in Paraguay make this last agricultural frontier a magnet to entrepreneurs.
This year, the conference was hosted by Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, a choice that served as an unavoidable and unconscious analogue of the global dilemma. Cornell University is home to some of the greatest minds in the world and some of the most expensive, state-of-the-art facilities. Cornell’s students and faculty, much like the attendees at the conference, are some of the most aware, well-intentioned, and cosmopolitan citizens on the planet. Proportionately, there are probably as many vegetarians, locavores, mixed marriages, polyamorous relationships, recyclers, and bicycle riders as anywhere in the world. And, as a group, these winners of the world probably fly more miles, eat more expensive food, and spend more money (albeit, much of it for research) than most people on the planet, as well.
