Hunger: Agriculture has role to play - Truth About Trade and Technology

Home

Written by

Thursday, 01 January 2009 08:25

Feedstuffs.com By SARAH MUIRHEAD

ANOTHER 40 million people have been pushed into hunger this year, primarily due to higher food prices, according to the U.N.'s Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The group's just-released estimate brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, which compares to 923 million in 2007.

"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," FAO Assistant Director-General Hafez Ghanem said in presenting FAO's latest hunger report, "The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008."

"For millions of people in developing countries, eating the minimum amount of food every day to live an active and healthy life is a distant dream. The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," Ghanem said.

He warned that lower prices and the credit crunch associated with the economic crisis could force farmers to plant less food and unleash another round of dramatic food prices next year.

While the vast majority of the world's undernourished people -- 907 million -- live in developing countries, there also is a growing hunger concern emerging in the developed world as a result of economic instability.

This past week, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and Feeding America jointly called for immediate actions to ensure the availability of a sufficient food supply for all Americans. Specifically, the organizations asked for the release of food commodities and funding to provide "critical relief" to emergency food assistance providers.

A survey by Feeding America shows that more and more Americans are turning to food banks, soup kitchens and food pantries to put food on their tables during difficult economic times.

In fact, during the week of Dec. 22, the organization formerly known as America's Second Harvest reported a 30% increase in demand for food at food banks over the previous 12 months. Even more troublesome, Feeding America said, is the number of food banks that have reported their largest spikes in demand during the last quarter of 2008.

"We are in a national crisis," said Vicki Escarra, president and chief executive officer of Feeding America. "Unemployment is the primary reason for the most recent increases in requests for emergency food assistance. Projections indicate that unemployment is likely to get worse in the near future, so we do not anticipate the increases in demands reversing anytime soon."

"Food is not an optional commodity for anyone, regardless of income demographics. As a farmer from Indiana and a national farm leader, I find it appalling that anyone in America or the world goes to bed hungry," said NFU president Tom Buis.

Cost of removing technology

While unemployment and economic hardship have been largely to blame for the growing hunger crisis in America, unnecessary limitations on the use of technology at the farm also negatively affect the nation's ability to produce affordable food while providing for the interests of farm animals and the environment.

Dennis Erpelding of Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, Ind., said he believes sustainability and affordability go hand in hand when it comes to the overall food production system. If the food produced on U.S. farms and ranches is not affordable once it arrives at the retail or foodservice level, then true sustainability really hasn't been achieved, he said.

In the next 40 years, it is estimated that the amount of food that will need to be produced to feed the world's growing population will be greater than the amount already produced throughout the history of humankind. That is a huge challenge for farmers and ranchers around the world, and as Erpelding explained, it is only achievable through continued access to technology, improvements in genetics, proper animal care and efficiency in production.

Just as producing more food is an increasing challenge of the future, so, too, is the issue of choice at both the production and retail levels of the food system. As Erpelding explained, producers must be allowed to make choices regarding the technology they apply in their operations, and retailers must be allowed to provide consumers with products at all price points.

Gary Vanic of Hiram, Ohio-based Great Lakes Cheese Co. Inc. also believes sustainability and affordability are equal and important goals for the food sector.

"As a company, we spend a great deal of time trying to understand the needs and the priorities of our many customers, which, in our case, is the retailer or the foodservice operator. At the end of the day, our job is to make sure our customers have choices, ... and they decide what's most important," said Vanic.

Vanic pointed out that consumers ultimately decide what retailers put on their shelves, yet consumers are not all alike, and that is why it is important for retailers to make the effort to understand which products are the best fit for consumers in their respective markets. Product safety, wholesomeness, convenience and affordability are most often the deciding factors, he said.

Future depends on it

"In the U.S., we enjoy the safest and lowest-cost food supply of anywhere in the world, and we've only been able to accomplish that through the implementation of modern business practices and adoption of technology," said Chris Policinski, CEO and president of Land O'Lakes, a St. Paul, Minn.-based company with two-thirds of its business involvement in agriculture inputs and one-third in dairy products.

Policinski said a comparison of agriculture's productivity today versus the 1940s illustrates the progress that has been made on farms and ranches.

In the 1940s, a single farmer/rancher fed 19 others. Today's U.S. farmer/rancher feeds 144 other people.

As the world's population grows, diets improve and the demand for inputs broadens, Policinski said it is important that we carefully consider the decisions we make to ensure that science and fact guide those choices rather than emotion.

He noted that farmers and ranchers, as well as universities and the food production sector as a whole, need to openly and aggressively talk more about the productivity gains achieved throughout the history of agriculture and food production, the resulting reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the efficiencies gained in land and water use.

While Policinski's comments were directed at the agriculture sector in general, Mary Ledman of Keogh Ledman Associates Inc. of Libertyville, Ill., has looked more specifically at the issue of productivity as it applies to the U.S. dairy industry. In fact, her recent analysis showed that productivity gains have resulted from the adoption of technology, as well as improvements in cow genetics and management practices.

Over the last few decades, the U.S. dairy industry has achieved increased milk production despite a corresponding decline in cow numbers (Figure).

However, in 2008, Ledman said for the first time in 25 years, higher cow numbers are driving milk production growth rather than productivity per cow (Feedstuffs, Dec. 22). She and others find this concerning, particularly considering the assault that has been mounted against certain production technologies.

They believe that if productivity per cow continues to be negatively affected in the years ahead as a result of the removal of technology, particularly recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), affordability of dairy products at the retail level will be significantly influenced, and the overall sustainability of the food system will be compromised. Additionally, consumers and producers will be unduly restricted in their available choices.

Vanic noted that "rbST provides a proven economic benefit at the farm level that ultimately translates to more affordable dairy products at the consumer level. That's important (when) recognizing the economic struggles our families are facing today with rising food costs."

According to Ledman, the goal of reducing the carbon footprint in tandem with feeding a hungry world is only possible through improving productivity with the technology used at the farm level.

A study published earlier this year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences illustrates well the benefits of technology in reducing the carbon footprint of milk production (Feedstuffs, July 7). That work was conducted by Cornell University Liberty Hyde Bailey professor Dale Bauman, Cornell post-doctoral research associates Jude Capper and Euridice Castandena-Gutierrez and then-Monsanto scientist and Cornell alumnus Roger Cady.

"Environmental sustainability is an important consideration in agricultural production, with an emphasis placed upon meeting human food requirements while mitigating environmental impact," the study's authors summarized.

As the global population reaches 9 billion people in the first half of the 21st century, they said U.S. milk production will have to increase to 5.62 billion gallons to meet the U.S. Department of Agriculture's dietary recommendations for three 8-ounce glasses of milk per person per day.

The most sustainable way to increase U.S. milk production, they noted, is to improve production per cow and assess the total population environmental impact per unit of milk produced.

Increasing milk production efficiency reduces the feed required per unit of milk by diluting the fixed maintenance feed requirements over more units of milk. This means less manure is produced per unit of milk, and the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that could potentially run off into waterways is reduced.

The carbon footprint also is decreased when the same amount of milk can be produced with fewer animals and less feed, translating into greater overall sustainability at the farm level and affordability for consumers.

"The total reduction in the carbon footprint conferred by rbST supplementation of 1 million dairy cows is equivalent to removing approximately 400,000 family cars from the road or planting 300 million trees," they said.

More cows will be needed to meet the projected dietary demand of the future, but through the use of approved technologies and husbandry practices, the required increase in productive efficiency potentially can be greatly reduced.

Cornell University estimated that 8% fewer cows would be required in an rbST-supplemented population, whereas a non-rbST production system would require a 25% increase in cow numbers to meet future production targets -- a production cost increase that most certainly would be passed on to the consumer in the form of even higher food prices.