Science for sustenance
Huge proportions of the world’s population remain starving, while many more suffer from food poverty. Giles Crosse overviews the problem, and ponders ways to make things better.
It’s one of the great tragedies that whilst we can create seemingly more advanced televisions, computers and commercial goods, global society as a whole has failed to address one of the simplest aspects of living: hunger.
Lack of infrastructure, war, desertification and corruption are some of the reasons people in places like Africa, India and Brazil have historically suffered from poor basic nutrition, and in many cases lack of access to safe drinking water too.
It’s tough to judge the precise pathways to improving this. Many argue genetic modification for food crops could massively increase production, offering a solution. Others still suggest it’s better to develop skills, offering farmers a chance to own and take ownership of land.
Yet more theorists argue the true solutions might come from scientifically developed synthetic superfoods, pumped full of synthetic vitamins or other elements to enhance the value of what we are all eating.
On safe ground
It isn’t just about the actual food itself either. Greenpeace India has launched its ‘Living Soils’ campaign from August 3, 2010.
This is worth noting, because India is one of the key countries where hunger has a widespread impact. Ironically then, Greenpeace is worried the government is failing to protect the land from harmful chemical fertilisers, which might lead the very resource that could help feed people to disappear.
“Any policy in agriculture will be successful, only if we have a vibrant soil ecosystem. If the soils are dead, all investments in agriculture will go to waste. So there is an urgent need to act on a comprehensive policy to support ecological fertilisation practices. This is critical to ensure food security of the country,” said Dr Amiya Sharma, Executive Director, Rashtriyia Gramin Vikas Nidhi (RGVN).
Greenpeace India says that, ‘Every year central government spends around Rs 50,000 crores on chemical fertiliser subsidies, and this is a major driver that catalyses intensive chemical fertiliser usage. The Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) policy which was brought in to correct this problem continues to support only chemical fertilisers, and hence fails in its own cause. The new policy proves to be an old wine in a new bottle.’
NBS came in from April 2010, hoping to address soil degradation. But Greenpeace reckons without support for organic fertilisers, it can’t work properly. And it seems there are just reasons for concern.
According to the organisation, ‘A recent study in the Malwa region of Punjab has shown that drinking water was heavily contaminated with nitrates. 20 per cent of all sampled wells had nitrate levels above the safety limit of 50 mg per litre as established by the World Health Organisation (WHO).’
Remarkably, Greenpeace India statistics say total emissions from the manufacture and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers represent six per cent, (three per cent from manufacture and three per cent from usage) of India’s total emissions, comparable to sectors like cement or iron and steel industries, and to emissions from the entire road transport system.
“On one hand our Union Government worries about the declining agricultural productivity due to soil degradation and food security and on the other hand they continue to support chemical fertilisers. Support for organic fertilisation practices in mainstream agriculture is very minimal. This anomaly can jeopardise the agriculture production system,” said Tapan Sharma of Diamond Club Community Center, Sipachar, Darrang.
Chemical crisis
There are other suggestions that the chemical route may not be the way to go when it comes to world food supply. The EU has recently changed its laws to make labelling more stringent for foods containing synthetic dyes, following concerns over their links to hyperactivity in children.
If there’s a need to warn consumers, should synthetic options really be part of a plan for the future at all? In the US, a country which has historically been more adventurous than the EU in terms of food science, there is equal disquiet.
Washington’s Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently argued that ‘Food dyes used in everything from M&Ms to Manischewitz Matzo Balls to Kraft salad dressings pose risks of cancer, hyperactivity in children, and allergies, and should be banned.’
In the new report by CSPI, a top government scientist agrees, and says that food dyes present unnecessary risks to the public. Some of the details might make you wonder whether these synthetics should be used at all.
‘The three most widely used dyes, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, are contaminated with known carcinogens,’ says CSPI. ‘Another dye, Red 3, has been acknowledged for years by the Food and Drug Administration to be a carcinogen, yet is still in the food supply.
‘Despite those concerns, each year manufacturers pour about 15 million pounds of eight synthetic dyes into our foods. Per capita consumption of dyes has increased five-fold since 1955, thanks in part to the proliferation of brightly coloured breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, and candies pitched to children.’
“These synthetic chemicals do absolutely nothing to improve the nutritional quality or safety of foods, but trigger behaviour problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, co-author of the 58-page report, ‘Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks.’
“The Food and Drug Administration should ban dyes, which would force industry to colour foods with real food ingredients, not toxic petrochemicals.”
Of course it’s unfair to argue all synthetics might necessarily cause similar risks. But if these dangers are only now being brought to light, when CSPI claims that ‘Back in 1985, the acting commissioner of the FDA said that Red 3, one of the lesser-used dyes, “has clearly been shown to induce cancer,’’ then the questions of safety in terms of chemicals used in foods, and transparency of testing and use do need to be given some attention.
The CSPI’s work illustrates that either way, we must pay close attention to how we tamper with foods, if doing so is to offer a safe way out of global hunger. But routes are required urgently, and decisions need to be made quickly to slow the damage being done.
On the ground
On 23 June 2010, the UN was again forced to call for aid for the starving in Niger, endangered by ‘prolonged drought and crop failure in West Africa’s arid Sahel region’.
The UN says, ‘Humanitarian agencies in April requested $190.7 million to enable them respond to the crisis in Niger, where almost half of the country’s 7.1 million people face the risk of starvation.
‘Last year’s poor rains have led to a 30 per cent decline in cereal production in Niger compared with 2008, while forage production is some 62 per cent below requirements. Food prices remain high, despite a decline from their peaks in 2008.
We have about 46 per cent of what we asked for and we are continuing to appeal with a great deal of urgency to the donor community to recognise the seriousness of the situation, to recognise that we can stop it turning into a disaster, but only if we act quickly,” John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, revealed.
And on 27 July, 2010, the World Food Programme’s Director for West Africa, Thomas Yanga, explained: “Most people in Niger rely on rain-fed agriculture or herding for food.
“But the rains last year were too little and too late, which caused massive crop failures and dried up much of the grazing land. At the same time, high food prices from the year before have never quite come down, meaning that people who didn’t grow enough food this year can’t afford to buy more.
“It’s crucial to help communities build up their livelihoods so that they’ll be more resilient to droughts in the future,” he went on.
“We can also help to build “safety nets” that protect people from going hungry when harvests fail or prices rise unexpectedly. Long term, higher agricultural output and lower population growth would make these crises less likely. But that means improving living conditions in rural areas and providing farmers with access to water, credit, education and healthcare.”
Yanga’s words illustrate just how complex solving these issues is, requiring a mixture of policy, aid, infrastructure and education. For these reasons, it seems unlikely any 100 per cent scientific based solutions can really meet the needs in the world’s poorest places.
Feeding the future
“Application of scientific knowledge gained through years of research in ecological models of farming is what is needed in advancing food production,” says Gopi Krishna, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India.
“Agriculture systems should be close to nature and should nurture natural cycles within the ecosystem. Technologies like genetic engineering that work against nature should be completely avoided. In short, application of agro-ecological principles is the key to advance food production and sustain it.”
Krishna reckons vitamin combinations, chemicals, supplements and vitamin packages have a very limited role to play alongside conventional food sources, saying healthy food produced in an eco-friendly way is important for healthy living.
“Any system that doesn't follow or respect natural systems and cycles cannot last for long,” he continues, describing potential synthetic alternatives.
“Ensure proper distribution systems,” he goes on. “The world can produce enough food to feed the hungry. The problem is with distribution. Reduce wastage of food, change food habits - use more locally produced food,”
“A shift towards commercial crops and biofuels in farming should be checked, and localised food systems should be promoted. Consume food that is available and can be produced in your locality. And adopt ecological farming to sustain production.”
Krishna also suggests the international scientific community should refocus its research priorities to do more research on agro-ecological practices. “The recommendations of International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge Science and Technology (IAASTD) should be implemented. International donors should create programmes and projects to promote ecological farming and research.
“A holistic approach is needed. Distribution systems should be strengthened. Industrialised agriculture should be discouraged and local food systems should be encouraged. Natural resources should be treated with respect and care. We cannot exploit and abuse them for our own benefits. If you continue this it will lead to a complete breakdown,” he concludes.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Read more articles with reference to Sustainable Agriculture/Food , Politics, Health/Wellbeing and Population. Sign up to our newsletter for twice monthly news.
Resources:
Green Peace Report: Chemical fertilisers in our water
Centre for Science In The Public Interest - Food dyes a rainbow of risks
World Food Programme reports:
Food Procurement Annual Report 2009
Rapid Emergency Food Security Assessment in Osh and Jalalabad
NORTHERN GHANA FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION MONITORING SYSTEM - Monthly Bulletin
