|
 |
Food Security: Framing the Issue
Back to Food Security main page. By most accounts, the planet produces enough food to feed everybody in the world. Yet 840 million people, many of them children, are chronically hungry. Either they can't obtain enough food, can't afford it, or don't know how to use what's available to make a diverse, nutritious diet for themselves and their families.
Most of the world's hungry people—an estimated 799 million—live in developing nations, and most are poor. As the world's population increases to a projected 8.1 billion by 2030, most of the growth will be in the very countries that already experience chronic food shortages. Producing more food on a global scale won't solve the problem, nor would it be possible to do so without damaging the environment.
Affluent nations and charitable organizations often respond to hunger with food aid. While food aid has done a lot of good to help people during crises such as drought, floods, and war, it is not a long-term solution. Moreover, only 5-10% of the world's hunger is precipitated by a crisis.
Generally, hunger has deeper roots. Thus, solutions must be aggressive and integrated. Beyond humanitarian aid, the developing world needs investments to improve family incomes, infrastructure, education, agricultural research, agricultural productivity, and political stability. Moreover, international assistance must collaborate with local people, organizations, and governments in countries where hunger persists, to accommodate their interests and needs. Hunger is an international problem, but the solutions are local.
The issue: food security
 The goal adopted by many international hunger-relief organizations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is a long-term measure called food security. The term embraces both immediate food supplies and the ability to sustain adequate production in environmentally sound ways. Food security means having access to enough food at all times for an active and healthy life. As defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food security has three dimensions:
- Availability. A safe, adequate food supply is and will be physically present in the vicinity of a population.
- Accessibility. People have the means to produce, buy or obtain food in socially acceptable ways (e.g., they don't have to steal or dig in the garbage for it).
- Utilization. People can derive enough nutrition from available food to sustain life.
Hunger prevails in parts of the world—including parts of the United States and other industrialized countries—when one or more of those dimensions are missing. Food may not be available to a community or a family because there are no roads to get it there, for example. A family may not have access to it because they are too poor to pay for it. Or, because of preferences, beliefs, or ignorance, a family may not be able to utilize what food is available to make their diet nutritious.
For example, in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, vitamin A deficiency is a serious public health problem. It contributes to many deaths and is the leading cause of blindness in children. Sweetpotatoes are a popular crop in Africa and a potential vitamin A source. The orange-fleshed American sweetpotato is rich in beta carotene, the building block of vitamin A. But African consumers, who eat sweetpotatoes as a staple, prefer a bland, starchy product, and most such varieties are low in vitamin A. Scientists are looking at ways to breed more beta carotene into these varieties to improve the crop in a way that accommodates local tastes.
Food security doesn't mean much at the international level if food doesn't get to individuals who need it. It's at the household level where "food security" becomes a truly meaningful term. It's a measure of well being, including health, economic status, and opportunity. Despite the abundance of food in the world's bread basket, at the household level, food security of the rural poor remains a major problem.
The cost of hunger
 Reducing hunger is in everyone's interest. "A world without hunger is the only really secure world," write two former U.S. Senators, George McGovern and Rudy Boschwitz, both of whom have turned their attention to the world's food needs. McGovern is now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations World Food Program, and Boschwitz is advisory chair at the Center for Global Food Issues.
Hunger borne of poverty is often passed on from generation to generation. About 167 million children under five years of age—almost all of the developing world's children—are malnourished. (Per Pinstrup-Anderson, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute, in the foreword to a report, "Overcoming Child Malnutrition in Developing Countries," 2000.) Many will die in childhood of diseases that adequate nutrition could prevent, such as diarrhea and viral infections. If they survive, they will have difficulty learning and will reach adulthood unable to be productive. In turn, their ability to feed their own children will be compromised.
At the individual level, the cost of hunger includes stunted physical and mental development, constricted opportunities, blighted health, shortened life expectancy, and premature death, according to the FAO. At the national level, the costs include political instability and lack of economic development that depresses household income. International security is at risk when some people don't get enough food for their daily lives, because hunger and conflict go hand in hand. "Have-nots," with nothing to lose, are vulnerable to exploitation by those trading empty promises for political or social power.
The Green Revolution
Since the 1960s, the world has made great progress in reducing hunger. The Green Revolution, a concentrated effort to improve crop productivity through genetics, particularly rice and wheat, is credited with saving an estimated 1 billion lives in Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. It began as a response to drastic food crises in India and other Asian countries. International agricultural research organizations, with the support of the Ford and Rockefeller foundations and many developing country governments, helped develop crop varieties and production methods that have revolutionized agriculture around the world.
One of the greatest success stories of the Green Revolution occurred during the 1980s in China. China increased its own food security by investing in agricultural research and rural infrastructure, particularly roads. The result was an increase in grain production and a decline in poverty. "Never before in human history have so many people escaped deep poverty and food insecurity so quickly," IFPRI reports. (Governance and Food Security.) China has been able to feed its growing population on less land, keeping fragile lands out of agricultural production. Today it is the world's biggest food producer.
 The story is very different in today's sub-Saharan Africa, where the most acute hunger persists. Africa did not participate in the Green Revolution. Soil and climate conditions are harsh and diverse, keeping productivity low. Destructive farming methods that deplete soil nutrients are common, because of both lack of awareness and sheer desperation. The political instability of so many African governments worsens the problem. Armies take people away from farming, and soldiers sometimes rob the rural poor. Trade is often impossible. Hopelessness and a raging AIDS epidemic rob people of energy and initiative. There is little agricultural research. As evidence of food shortages, the prevalence of underweight children in sub-Saharan Africa increased from 29% in 1990 to 31% in 1995, whereas in most other developing countries it was the same or went down.
But serious questions have been raised about the Green Revolution's emphasis on technology. For example, wealthier farmers were better positioned to benefit from the new technologies, and poorer farmers were sometimes disadvantaged or displaced. The combination of fertilizers, pesticides, and enhanced seeds caused ecological problems, including pesticide poisoning, in some parts of the world. Researchers today are seeking more sustainable approaches, such as integrated pest and nutrient management.
Of particular concern to critics is the "second Green Revolution" that some scientists and policymakers call for today. A second Green Revolution would use biotechnology to enhance crops genetically. For example, it would produce crops that could be productive even in marginal conditions, and enriched, more nutritious foods, such as sweetpotatoes with more beta carotene. Although production of biotechnology-enhanced crops is increasing in many developing countries, some Europeans and Americans resist them, fearing their unknown, long-term consequences. Some developing countries have taken their cues from this movement, turning down food aid that included genetically improved grains.
 For many people, including many agricultural scientists, the most important issue for the future of agricultural technology is equity—making sure that the most vulnerable households benefit from new investments and innovations. Rather than develop technologies that give an advantage to those who can afford them, science needs to learn from farmers in developing countries about their crops, systems, needs, preferences, and constraints—and then work on solutions that enable the farmers to achieve their own goals.
Even the strongest advocates for the Green Revolution agree that its benefits have reached their peak and that projected population increases will dwarf its successes. "Mushrooming populations, changing demographics, and inadequate poverty intervention programs have eaten up many of the gains of the Green Revolution," says agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the Green Revolution. (30th anniversary lecture, Norwegian Nobel Institute, September 8, 2000.) He argues that gains can still be made, however, in tillage, water use, fertilization, weed and pest control, and harvesting. He advocates use of conventional breeding and biotechnology methodologies to continue developing crops that can be productive even under harsh conditions, such as drought or depleted soils, or in the face of the diseases and pests that plague so many of the world's farmers.
More study of the risks and benefits of a range of agricultural technologies is surely needed. Meanwhile, this contentious debate threatens to stall the search for solutions to feed the world's hungry people.
International food aid
In December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations endorsed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among them is the right to an adequate standard of living, including food.
 Wealthy nations have responded with food donation programs. But these programs, valuable as they are, often represent only a short-term solution to an immediate crisis. In addition, and perhaps paradoxically, they tend to favor the interests of wealthy nations. "In practice," reports Oxfam, an international relief agency, "the rules which govern world agricultural trade benefit the rich rather than the poor." Rich countries protect the interests of their producers with subsidies while forcing poor countries to open their markets to subsidized imports that devalue what they have produced on their own.
This practice is called "dumping," and it means selling goods for less than the cost of production plus a reasonable margin for selling cost and profit. Wealthy nations subsidize producers to make sure they receive a return on their investment. Meanwhile, the goods are sold abroad at less than the cost of production, potentially devastating local industries by depressing prices. Consumers in poor countries can obtain low-cost food, but farmers in those countries may find themselves without local markets. To make matters worse, wealthy nations often exact high tariffs on imports, further reducing the options of farmers in developing countries to sell their products.
Nations that can help with food aid and emergency relief are surely obliged to do so. But at the same time, wealthy nations can do much more to help developing countries build their capacity to feed their populations sustainably over time.
The role of national governments
Hunger persists and even worsens in some regions "because of governance deficits and failures at the national, not the global level," notes the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (Governance and Food Security in an Age of Globalization.) Ensuring appropriate conditions for food production and trade are roles of national governments. Securing the supply of food across the globe requires the participation of those national governments whose people most need food.
Two key problems stand in the way of feeding the world sustainably. In Borlaug's words: "The first is the complex task of producing sufficient quantities of the desired foods to satisfy needs, and to accomplish this Herculean feat in environmentally and economically sustainable ways. The second task, equally or even more daunting, is to distribute food equitably. Poverty is the main impediment to equitable food distribution, which, in turn, is made more severe by rapid population growth."
Poverty is not simply a matter of individual fortune or initiative. National governments contribute to poverty by neglecting to provide opportunities and a certain standard of living. By the same token, national governments are best positioned to improve their people's standard of living, as Latin American and many Asian countries did in the Green Revolution.
For example, they can provide sanitation to improve health, roads to transport goods to market, and education to improve household income and awareness of nutrition. Poverty and hunger result when governments fail to provide what IFPRI calls "basic public goods, such as national defense, social peace, rule of law, macroeconomic stability, public education, public health, a public infrastructure for power, transportation, communications, and research." (Governance and Food Security.) Governments can reduce hunger, as China has done, by investing in all or some of these basic public goods.
The role of developed countries
For those who live amid plenty, charitable offerings of food to those in need come naturally. Much more difficult to envision is the complex set of undertakings necessary to change the conditions under which people live and the tools with which they work. Yet the global effort to assure food security is a moral quest that demands no less.
 What can we do?- Invest in public sector agricultural research in the developing world, concentrating on productivity gains for small farmers. Small farmers urgently need crops that can weather drought, floods, diseases, and pests, and that can grow in poor soils. This also includes training young agricultural scientists from developing countries who will dedicate their careers to advancing agriculture at home. Ironically, rather than receiving more support, "the [agricultural] sector receives less investment and support in the very countries where hunger and poverty are widespread," according to the FAO.
- Rewrite the rules about agricultural patents. Currently, most agricultural research is conducted in the private sector and in U.S. universities, which often patent their discoveries, including improved seeds. In turn, small farmers can't afford to pay for the patented techniques and enhanced seeds. Unless small farmers can benefit from discoveries, they can't produce enough food to feed their neighbors. "The public sector can entice the private sector to develop technologies for poor people by offering to buy the exclusive rights and make technologies available to small-scale farmers," says Pinstrup-Anderson. (Feeding the World in the New Millennium.)
- Improve the credit system in developing countries. Small farmers need access to credit before they can grow crops. Small loan programs can pay off in big ways, enabling rural dwellers to earn an income from their crops and feed their families.
- Invest in infrastructure in developing countries. Reliable water supplies, electricity, and better transportation could improve agricultural production and marketing. Better marketing and distribution would help in many ways—enabling farmers to obtain seeds and fertilizer before planting, helping them sell their crops to boost their incomes, and getting food to urban consumers.
- Invest in economic development to improve household income. China's example is illustrative. While achieving broad-based economic growth, China has also reduced poverty and hunger. Only 17% of children in China are malnourished, compared to 63% in India, where similar investments have not been made. (Borlaug.)
- Invest in education. Household income strongly correlates with education, and education correlates with dietary improvement. And, while the link may seem surprising, hunger is lower where women are better educated. In many countries women are the primary agricultural producers. And women have most of the responsibility for feeding their families. Better education translates to more knowledge of what constitutes a healthy diet, better maternal care, and, in many instances, more income available for food.
- Invest in conflict prevention. A peaceful country can afford the infrastructure investments that can make a huge difference in reducing hunger.
Will our best efforts bring hunger to an end? Not within the foreseeable future. Even the most optimistic scenario painted by IFPRI shows 15% of the world's children still malnourished in 2020. But if we do nothing at all, there will be many more hungry children, and those who survive to adulthood will not be forgiving.
|
Next: Resource links
Issue Overview
Back to Closer Look
|
