DR. RICK GRANT
Press-Republican
---- — We have all read the headlines of food shortages, riots and dire predictions of escalating global food insecurity. The theme for this year's World Food Day, set for Oct. 16, is "world food prices — from crisis to stability."
Increased global demand is driving food prices higher. By 2050, there will be 9 billion people, and we will need to grow more food in the next 50 years than has been produced in the last 10,000 — essentially 100 percent more food than we currently produce. And to preserve our planet, we will also need to freeze the environmental footprint of food production. Consequently, the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that about 70 percent of the increased food production will need to come from efficiency-enhancing farming practices and technologies if we are to stand a chance of feeding the world's growing population while sustaining the natural environment.
The World Wildlife Fund's Dr. Jason Clay asserts that solutions to the global food crisis will come from intensification of agriculture and intelligent use of genetic enhancements of crops and technology.
Recent research suggests that high-yielding farms spare land for more wild species to exist. Improvements in food-production practices have continually reduced the use of water and land for crop and animal production.
As an example, adoption of technologies over the past six decades that boost production efficiency has reduced the carbon footprint of milk production in the United States by more than 60 percent. Our relative food security enables consumer choice of either intensive or low-input food production methods and debate about which is ultimately better for society.
The typical U.S. consumer spends 10 percent of his or her income on food, whereas in India it is 50 percent. A researcher in Nairobi issues this challenge that I like to share with our environmental science students at the Institute: "You people in the western world are certainly free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first?"
The debate over the best global food-production practices will undoubtedly continue, but The Economist earlier this year reported that traditional and organic farming might possibly feed Europe and America but not the entire world. So, it is fortunate that recent surveys show that 95 percent of consumers worldwide are either neutral or supportive of using advanced technology to produce food.
A Nielsen survey this year found that 98 percent of U.S. consumers consider taste, cost and nutritional value the top three most important factors when making food-purchasing decisions.
Can U.S. farmers feed the world? That has long been a rallying cry for American agriculture. We all should know that today's U.S. farmer produces food and fiber for 155 people here and abroad.
Interestingly, a survey conducted this year found that 40 percent of U.S. consumers felt that American farmers should not be responsible for addressing world hunger. A majority of consumers, in fact, feel that it is more important for the United States to teach developing nations how to feed themselves rather than exporting food to them.
This is food for thought. Regardless of the path we choose, the United States must lead a global effort to address food security. We talk about local food production and locavores — thinking locally but acting globally.
When it comes to feeding the world and the proper role of global agricultural practices, thinking beyond our North Country borders has never been more important.
Rick Grant is president of the William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute.
