WORLD FOOD SURLUS

Millions hungry despite world food surplus

Of the roughly 7 billion people in the world,an estimated 870 million suffer each day from hunger.

That's hunger from malnutrition or not eating even the lowest amount of daily recommended calories—1,800—while often enduring food insecurity, or not knowing where the next meal is coming from.

The consistently massive population of hungry people—along with variables like severe weather and economic downturns—sometimes spark warnings that the planet faces impending food shortages.

And yet more people in the world—1.7 billion—are considered obese or overweight from a daily caloric intake that in some cases is at least six to seven times the minimum.

This paradox is nothing new, experts say. It just shows the problem isn't that we have too little food, it's what we do with the food we have.

More than enough food?

"We have two or three times the amount of food right now that is needed to feed the number of people in the world," said Joshua Muldavin, a geography professor at Sarah Lawrence College who focuses on food and agricultural instruction.

"A lot of people aren't analyzing the situation correctly. We can deal with short-term food shortages after a disaster, but fixing long term hunger gets ignored," he said.

"We don't have food shortage problem," said Emelie Peine, a professor of international politics and economy at the University of Puget Sound.

"What we have is a distribution problem and an income problem," Peine said. "People aren't getting the food, ... and even if [they] did, they don't have enough money to buy it."

If there is enough food, a major problem causing scarcity is what we do with it, said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, an advocacy group for US farmers.

"Something in the area of up to half of all that's produced is wasted," said Johnson, who runs his own farm in North Dakota.

"In the undeveloped world, the waste happens before the food gets to people, from lack of roads and proper storage facilities, and the food rots," Johnson said. "In the developed world, it's the staggering amount of food that's thrown out after it gets to our plates."

Of the near billion who go hungry, some 852 million live in developing countries, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (WFO).

But the world's largest economy— and the richest country on Earth—is not immune from hunger.An estimated one in six people, or some 50 million U.S.citizens, are unable to afford to buy sufficient food to stay healthy, according to the Department of Agriculture. Nearly 17 million are children.

"Our services are needed now more than ever," said Ross Fraser, a spokesman for Feeding America, a nonprofit hunger relief organization. "With so many people out of work, it's not hard to figure out why."

"Many low income seniors use us on regular basis. We serve some three million a year," Fraser said. "They have fixed incomes and with other costs they have like medical bills or just paying the rent, they're often in need of food assistance."

Seniors or anyone else trying to get a handle on food costs are constantly riding a see-saw of inflation.

In 2012, according to the WFO, global food prices rose to near-record levels, rising 6 percent last July alone.

But according to the Global Food Security Index, food and beverage prices worldwide should drop by 5.7 percent through 2013, mainly due to bumper crops of corn and wheat resulting from favorable weather conditions.

"Food inflation and scarcity go hand in hand," said Mary Lawton Johnson, a food specialist, chef and author based in Palm Beach, Fla.

"Given a natural disaster, food and other items naturally go up in price," she said. "Once that scarcity is gone, food inflation reduces."

Plenty of solutions?

"It is ironic that good or healthier food like apples are more expensive than the food laced with sugars or fats," said Peine. "We need to be more thoughtful on what food we grow."

But the reason for the higher prices is fairly simple, said the National Farmers Union's Johnson.

"Crops like vegetables and fruits are more perishable, so they are more expensive to grow," he said. "Unlike other commodities, they are just less profitable for farmers."

A further irony in the world's hunger problem is that farmers—outside of developed countries—make up a majority of the world's poorest and hungriest people.

"Many farmers don't make enough to live on each year," Ron Johnson said. "Underdeveloped economies and some global trade are pushing them to the side."

The WFO cites various causes for hunger and food insecurity—poverty, war, climate change, shrinking land and water resources, economic and political disruption. 

Suggested solutions are just as plentiful.

"We don't need more corn and soybeans, which have become part of the ethanol focus to be energy efficient, and for feeding livestock," Peine said. "What we do need is to produce food to eat rather than industrial commodities."

Technology could be a key to ending food scarcity, said Charlie Arnolt, CEO of the Center for Food Integrity, a nonprofit group with business members including ConAgra and DuPont.

"We should be using more genetically modified crops that would produce stronger and sturdier crops," Arnolt said.

"We need to move food from where it is to where it isn't and that means investing in agriculture development using the best technologies we have," Arnolt added.

But technology comes with risk, said chef Mary Lawton Johnson.

"I'm not in favor of genetically modified foods to feed a starving world," she said. "The health side effects can be dangerous in my opinion."

"What we need is more localization of food-growing. Let the crops natural to the land grow instead of pushing crops that are not meant to be there," she said.

Food shortage solutions includes taming the investing markets, said Sarah Lawrence's Muldavin.

"The market trading of commodities is overboard and not helping food prices," said Muldavin. "Why does a bushel of wheat have to be traded five times a day?"

"I think we need to step out of the way of the market place and let it take its course," said Tim Richards, a professor of agribusiness at Arizona State University. "We're destroying local food markets around the world by forcing them to buy U.S. commodities."

"We should stop global government support for farmers. The market does a fantastic job of sorting out prices and food production," said Richards. "If we just stay out of the way, food shortages could be eliminated."

Change the food debate

Last October, the WFO issued a warning saying a global food crisis could happen in 2013. The alarm was over rising food prices, lack of grain reserves and extreme weather conditions. 

All those conditions have receded this year as prices have pulled back, reserves have increased and some areas of the globe have seen better weather.

But eradicating world hunger won't be as simple as drought-ending rains or silos full of wheat, said Muldavin.

"A lot of folks have different opinions on how to solve the problem of hunger," he said. "But we have to reframe the debate from food shortages to understanding why so many people are not accessing good, nutritious food."

GM brinjal

BARI to launch GM brinjal varieties 

The government is on its way to release four varieties of genetically modified brinjals in the country containing the Bt gene owned by the controversial American seed giant Monsanto.

Environmental activists have raised concerns of biological and health hazards that may be caused by these genetically modified plants.

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (Bari) developed the varieties — Bt Uttara, Bt Kajla, Bt Noyontara and Bt Isd 006 — from local varieties by inserting the Bt gene.

The gene, named Crystal Protein Gene (Cry1Ac), taken from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis popularly known as Bt, is patented by Monsanto.

Bari claims that the Bt varieties will reduce the use of pesticides remarkably as they are resistant to the most common brinjal pest Fruit and Shoot Borer (FSB) that is thought to be liable for 50-70% damage to brinjals.

“These varieties will reduce the use of pesticide in fields and will thus help to produce more healthy vegetables,” said Md Rafiqul Islam Mondol, director general of Bari, adding that it would also reduce the cost of production.

Environmental activists expressed their concern that it would affect biodiversity and also cause severe health hazards to humans, animals and plants.

Farida Parvin, executive director of Ubinig (Policy Research for Development Alternative), said these genetically modified brinjals should not be released without having any studies on human and animal health as it is a trans-genetic issue.

Bari developed the Bt brinjal varieties after seven years of experiments since 2006 with the technical support of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) in which the American seed giant Monsanto has 26% stake.

Mahyco’s brinjal varieties, developed with the financial support of USAID, were banned in India in 2010 after their harmful effects were exposed.

Rafiqul Islam Mondol told the Dhaka tribune that the Bari has already cultivated the Bt brinjals in their fields located at Joydevpur, Rangpur, Ishwardi, Jamalpur, Jessore and Hathajari of Chittagong.

Bari sent their application last week to the National Technical Committee for Crop Biotechnology.

After the committee’s review it will go to the environment ministry which will look into the environmental and biodiversity aspects. After getting the ministry’s clearance, the agriculture ministry will start demonstrating the varieties to farmers.

Farida Parvin expressed her outrage that Bari had done the experimental cultivation of Bt brinjal in open fields.

“Such GM (genetically modified) experiments in open fields should never be done. It could have devastating impacts on other indigenous brinjal and crop varieties through pollination,” she added.

She said experimental cultivation of Bt brinjals in open fields was a clear violation of the existing Genetic Engineering Policy.

When asked about possible negative impacts of Bt brinjals on human health, the Bari director general said they had not found any harmful impacts on mammals like rats and monkeys, during their laboratory tests.

Studies across the world have reported health and biodiversity hazards caused by genetically modified crops.

One test, titled the Safety Testing Guideline for Genetically Modified Organisms conducted by the University of Canterbury, New Zealand said in its recommendations, “There is accumulating evidence of potential adverse effects of GM plants producing Cry proteins, and there is documented peer-reviewed evidence that feeding trials that regulators have been relying upon were inappropriately designed to reduce uncertainty about the safety of using these crops as food.”

“There has been no published testing using cooked and processed ingredients made from Bt plants and prepared, as humans and not farm animals would eat them. While the developer heated and cooked Bt brinjal, it only tested for presence of the Cry protein using undisclosed reagents with unverified sensitivity and effectiveness, which is not the same as testing for adverse effects,” the report also said.

According to Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council (Barc), brinjal is cultivated in 64,208 hectares of land in the country, producing 381,420 tons annually.

One of the big concerns of environmentalists on introducing GM crops in the country is that poor farmers will be forced to buy seeds from multinationals, once the Bt brinjals get approval.

The Bari head said Bari itself will produce the seed of Bt brinjals which will be distributed among farmers through government channels like the Bangladesh Agriculture Development Corporation.

In addition to India and Bangladesh, the same group earlier developed genetically modified brinjal varieties in Philippines which was stalled by court order, considering its health hazards. 

Britain's GM strategy

Food industry boost set to unite farmers and retailers

The Government will on Monday pledge millions of pounds to boost the research, investment and commercial development of food production with the launch of Britain's first agricultural industrial strategy in half a century.

David Willetts, the Science Minister, will unveil radical plans to unite science, farming and retailers in a bid to overhaul Britain's food production. The strategy also includes funding for research and development of Britain's genetically modified (GM) farming industry.

A new Agri-Tech Leadership Council has been formed and charged with implementing the plans, which forms the final plank in the Coalition's industrial strategy launched in 2010.

As well as MPs, the Council members include Judith Batchelar, brand director of J Sainsury; Ian Noble, a director of Pepsico; and Ian Crute, chief scientist at the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Their task will be to implement the new strategy which includes:

- An Agri-Tech Catalyst which is tasked with converting science research projects into commerically viable companies. The Catalyst is the latest in a series of Government-backed initiatives to ensure Britain's research & development, in areas including aerospace, medicine and space, are converted into companies, jobs and exports.

- A series of Centres for Agricultural Innovation where the latest farm technologies from computer-driven tractors to water saving devises and high-yielding crops can be road-tested.

- A Centre for Agricultural Informatics and Metrics of Sustainability which will, for the first time, gather data from traditional, organic and GM farming methods in order to identify and track the most efficient methods of food production.

George Freeman, chairman of the All Party Group on Agricultural Science and Technology, said "Rising world population and rapid development of emerging economies means that by 2050 the world will need to almost double food production using roughly half as much land, water and energy.

"Consumers also need to know this is being done properly, not by chucking horsemeat into the food chain. This includes GM but it's also far, far bigger than that. It's about developing tractor technology to reducing plastics, conserving water and breeding new strains of disease and drought resistant crops. By better commercialising our science base we can help UK improve its productivity, spawn a new generation of start-ups, and attract major new research investment and export markets."

The strategy, which combines the efforts of the Department for Business, DIFID, and DEFRA, is the fourth plank in the growth plan that started with Life Sciences and included the Aerospace and Medicine strategies too.

The aim of the latest push is to improve the agricultural process at home but also help British companies and scientists develop and exports ideas to help emerging markets boost food production too.

Experts have warned that, with the global population set to rise from 7bn people to 9bn by 2050, the demand for food, water and other resources such as fertilisers is set to soar. Volatile weather conditions have also highlighted the vulnerability of food production around the world.

Financial investors are beginning to invest in advances in biosciences, technology, and farming practises that are being developed to address the problems. Through the Catalyst, the Government wants to unite venture capitalists with scientists and industry developers.

Last month Owen Patterson, the Environment Secretary, delivered a key speech backing GM crops insisting that they would "improve human health".

Mr Patterson, who is trying to persuade Brussels' officials to ease the restrictions on growing GM crops, said: "Used properly GM promises effective ways to protect or increase crop yields. It can also combat the damaging effects of unpredictable weather and disease on crops. It has the potential to reduce fertiliser and chemical use, improve the efficiency of agricultural production and reduce post-harvest losses."

He warned that people "thwarting" their production are putting lives at risk.

Monsanto May Be a Monster

Monsanto May Be a Monster, But We're Running Out Of Food

One doesn't have to look far to find vehement public disgust with Monstanto's less than savory business practices. As the world's leading biotech giant, Monsanto's behavior is often compared to that of the oil lobby — peddling a disputed product to the masses while utilizing cutthroat tactics to neutralize their competition. But however repugnant their greed, corruption, and thirst for power may be, the GMOs (genetically modified organisms) they sell are not all inherently evil and still count among our best hopes for remedying global hunger.

As temperatures rise to record-breaking heights, humans are sharing a very painful collective lesson in the cause and effects of modern technology, unchecked pollution, and our growing populace. Our biggest addiction undoubtedly remains a suicidal fixation with fossil fuels. Oil, once the seed of our industrial revolution, is far-too-slowly being recognized as our environment's most cancerous affliction. And yet, we are still too complacent to break off our dependence of this supposedly "essential" product and too comfortable to truly pursue healthier or smarteralternatives. Oil conglomerate pimps continue to peddle countless barrels of liquid decay, corruptthe sovereignty of untold foreign nations, decimate our environment, suppress scientific research, and shower open-mouthed politicians on both sides of the aisle with limitless funds. They've made a mockery of our democracy, and continue to cynically push their next "safe" energy alternatives. Their hunger for profits blind them to the fact that their children will also inherit the desecrated planet they so casually leave in their wake — acting like modern day pharoahs, building pyramids of wealth atop our broken world.

With this Oil industry example as the pinnacle of so-called success, Biotech companies have been eager to mimic the model of greed in their own creative fashion. Monsanto's behavior has shifted the public debate over GMOs away from feeding the hungry masses, stabilizing fragile crops, or discovering nutritional genetic combinations, and towards bankrupting small farmers, patentingplant genes (including the self-destructive "terminator seeds"), pushing unhealthy foods on the public, and toxifying the soil with pesticides only Monsanto plants are immune to.

In the aftermath of Monsanto's recent aggressive and underhanded political maneuverings, the public trust for GMOs in general is starting to wean. This represents a problematic shift, as researched and vetted GMOs remain one of the few hopes we have to achieve pragmatic and environmentally conscious solutions to world hunger.

The problem with a company investing too heavily in one product, whether it be oil or a pharmaceutical pill, is the inherently massive financial incentive to ignore or outright undermine the viability of competitive alternatives. If you run a mega cattle ranch, you can't afford to quander the environmental costs of cutting down dense forestry so you can warehouse thousands of corn-stuffed beef balloons. If you're part of the gas-fracking gold rush, you have to placate any fleeting guilt you might feel over potentially poisoning people's water supplies by telling yourself that if you don't do it someone else will. Similarly, Monsanto has a clear financial motivation to transform the rich biodiversity of our complex food chain, into a simple and manageable alternative:

But many scientists would urge us to distinguish between Monsanto's lust for profit and power, and the potential global benefits of well-designed, diverse GMOs. Norman Borlaug was the Nobel Peace prize-winning father of the Green Revolution, and is often hailed as the "man who saved a billion lives." Using plant pathology, he created high-yield, disease-resistant wheat, which allowed several countries (including Mexico and India) to drastically increase their food security — saving millions of people from starvation. His initial experiments encouraged scientists in the biotech field to pursue a variety of food modifications. From rice packed with diverse vitamins totomatoes that can tolerate cold climates because they've been blended with the antifreeze genes of certain fish, GMOs have increased food security across the globe. Obviously consumers have met this explosion of experimentation with mixed responses, and Monsanto's aggressive pursuit of only the most profitable avenues has served to muddy the waters even further.

The point stands, however, that GMOs offer us a way to significantly increase crop yields, ignore temperature and climate restrictions, and surge our food's nutritional value. Meanwhile,advocates for a purely organic and GMO-free world must face certain harsh truths and admit that most alarmist myths have been thoroughly debunked. We've been meddling with our crops and food since we first planted seeds in fields thousands of years ago. Perhaps we could theoretically produce enough natural grain to feed the world, but most of it would rot in a field before we could deliver it. Unless we're prepared to invest billions of dollars in delivery infrastructure, transport, harvesting machinery, train tracks and railroad cars (especially in vast countries like Russia) as well as dramatically improved storage silos, we must accept that GMOs offer a far more viable and lasting solution.

Unlike solar or nuclear energy alternatives to oil, we are nowhere near ready to implement radical food alternatives at our current level of consumption. With futuristic super pills jam-packed full of nutrients still a distant sci-fi fantasy, the "foods of tomorrow" list still reads like a mixed bag of awkward alternatives.

Synthetic Meat (or lab meat/in-vitro meat) is an efficient alternative to producing beef or chicken that doesn't require any animals … or farms for that matter. Specialized proteins are applied to a few sample animal cells to encourage growth and duplication — theoretically producing millions of pounds of meat without emitting greenhouse gases or using arable land. There are many hurdles to pass before this option can be brought to market, not least of which is taste! Algae-based cuisine is another contender, and algae bio-fuel is already being looked at by shipping and airline companies as a fuel source. Algae can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, act as a fertilizer, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and provide sugars, oils, and fats. Again, there is a taste and presentation hurdle, seeing as few people are lining up to eat an algae burger. This leaves the most interesting option of all: Insects. Entomophagy is already practiced throughout Asia, South America and Africa, but assimilating the Western world to insect consumption may prove a little more cumbersome. Despite the creep factor, insect farming requires far less land than regular animal farming, converts plants into edible meat at a far more efficient rate, emits almost no greenhouse gases, and offers a rich diet of proteins, calcium, and iron (also low in fat!).

Synthetic Meat (or lab meat/in-vitro meat) is an efficient alternative to producing beef or chicken that doesn't require any animals … or farms for that matter. Specialized proteins are applied to a few sample animal cells to encourage growth and duplication — theoretically producing millions of pounds of meat without emitting greenhouse gases or using arable land. There are many hurdles to pass before this option can be brought to market, not least of which is taste! Algae-based cuisine is another contender, and algae bio-fuel is already being looked at by shipping and airline companies as a fuel source. Algae can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, act as a fertilizer, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and provide sugars, oils, and fats. Again, there is a taste and presentation hurdle, seeing as few people are lining up to eat an algae burger. This leaves the most interesting option of all: Insects. Entomophagy is already practiced throughout Asia, South America and Africa, but assimilating the Western world to insect consumption may prove a little more cumbersome. Despite the creep factor, insect farming requires far less land than regular animal farming, converts plants into edible meat at a far more efficient rate, emits almost no greenhouse gases, and offers a rich diet of proteins, calcium, and iron (also low in fat!).

Meanwhile, back in reality, the House passed the farm bill without including food stamps for the fist time since 1973, so food shortages may soon become a very real problem for Americans. CBS'sFace the Nation host Bob Schieffer called out his guest Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) on the shameful act of depriving children, vets, the poor and the elderly of food assistance:

"You pass a farm bill in the House. It gives billions of dollars, much of it to large corporations that own farms. It's almost like welfare for the wealthy. But you don't include a dollar for hungry people for food stamps. What kind of a message is that you're sending?" 

It's clear that food production needs to be taken away from a crippling monopoly of rich owners, and desperately diversified to meet our evolving demands. Few things are more intimate than what we choose to eat and what we allow our children to eat. We should be exploring every possible inventive solution. There are too many people in the world, and we've run out of room for cattle to graze or corn to grow. It's vitally important we have informed discussions about which long-term solutions can benefit our health and environment and distinguishing between the genetic splices that can actually save lives, versus those that solely serve to increase a company's profit margins. We should be attacking Monsanto's monopolistic ambitions, but not the field of science we can still use to save our agriculture.

Supreme Court on GMO Food

SC committee says no to GM crops for time-being

A Supreme Court appointed committee had recommended an indefinite moratorium on field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops till the government fixes regulatory and safety aspects and a ban on introduction of GM varieties in regions of their origin.

The final report submitted to the court last week and made public on Monday does not mention 10 year moratorium on field trials of GM crops as suggested in the interim report. Instead, it has imposed four conditions for “meaningfully” consideration for allowing trials.

The conditions suggested are setting up a secretariat of experts to look into bio-safety issues, housing the new bio-technology regulatory in either environment or health ministry, identification of specific sites for conducting of field tests and mandatory stakeholder participation as part of risk management strategy.

Once these conditions are met, the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) had suggested that the trials should be only allowed on land owned by GM crop application and not on leased land as done presently.

The TEC did not find any “compelling” reason for allowing commercial release of BT for food such as rice and brinjal first in India and gave global example of where transgencis such as soyabean, corn and canola are primarily for oil or feed after processing.

Another major recommendation of TEC could result in non-introduction of developed BT brinjal and rice in places where they are domesticated such as West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar as it can result in reduction of “diversity” and “genetic purity”.

“Oryza nivara, medicinal rice, can also be at risk if GM rice comes to dominate the crop as has happened for cotton in India,” the report said, adding that India was not facing any shortage of foodgrains like in 1960s to allow GM crops in its area of origin or diversity.

The committee has also said no to herbicide tolerant crops on the ground that they would exert a highly adverse impact over time on sustainable agriculture, rural livelihood and environment. “The TEC finds them completely unsuitable in the Indian context,” the report said.

The most of the new GM crop applications received by bio-tech regulator --- Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) --- are of herbicide tolerant varieties.

The recommendations of the report if accepted by the court could have serious implications for future of bio-technology and GM crops as it means no commercial release of them in the near future.