When you walk around your local supermarket amid shelves bursting with a plethora of fresh, frozen and processed produce, both grown in the UK and imported from far and wide, it seems difficult to imagine that the world could ever lose the ability to feed itself.
But escalating populations, depleting land availability, the global exodus from rural areas to the towns and diminishing oil reserves have got experts across the world seriously concerned that, in the foreseeable future, the world may struggle to produce enough food to meet rising demand, and our once assured sources of supply in the UK - both domestic and international - could dry up.
A number of high-profile public figures have lent their voices to the debate. Conservative Party leader David Cameron, speaking at the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) conference in February, told the UK’s agricultural industry: “[Food security] is barely on the national radar - indeed, the government hardly ever mentions it. Some analysts are beginning to make some very worrying, very stark predictions - that competition for resources will become intense; that food prices will continue to rise; that there will be world shortages of food. And these analysts say that politicians should start to rank the issue of food security alongside energy security and even national security… We face the potential prospect that the abundance of food that we all take for granted will come to a crashing end.”
So what exactly are these “stark predictions” Cameron refers to? Sir Ben Gill, ex-NFU president and English Apples & Pears chairman, outlined just a few such facts and figures for delegates at annual international top-fruit conference Prognosfruit, held recently in Kent. At the millennium, he explained, 47 per cent of the world’s population lived in an urban environment. By 2030, that figure will stand at 60 per cent. “That is substantial because when people live rurally, they have a subsistence diet. When they move to cities, they need to be fed - and that changes the dynamics of the food market,” he told delegates.
Predictions are that by 2050, world food demand will double as a result of the rising global population and increasingly wealthier lifestyles. The World Bank estimates people in developing countries with incomes above £8,000 per annum - enough to feed a family of four for a year - will rise from 352 million in 2000 to 2.1 billion by 2030. That will clearly affect the food industry, especially coupled with trends in bio-energy production. In 40 years, warned Sir Ben, we will have to triple total food production on less cultivable land.
Speaking at the NFU conference, the union’s president Peter Kendall said: “It is of absolutely primal importance that the world has the ability to feed itself… We need to double, maybe treble, food production in the next 40 years. The scope to bring more of the world’s land into production is limited, and we are rightly concerned about deforestation.
“Climate change is a real factor and a serious menace. The recent Cabinet Office report on food points to the potential loss of half the world’s arable land by 2050. Similar projections show that northern Europe, and the UK in particular, will become a more favoured area for agricultural production.
“We all know that water availability is a huge and growing constraint worldwide, and that a combination of the depletion of aquifers and climate change-induced drought is very serious. Some 70 per cent of the world’s available fresh water is used in agriculture. In the UK - and this isn’t to deny that we have issues too - the figure is less than two per cent. All this tells me that production in this country is going to be very valuable - not only for us, but for the world as a whole,” said Kendall.
The risks these kind of worrying statistics pose have recently started to make almost daily headlines - and that is largely down to food inflation, says Dr Julian Little, public and government affairs manager at Bayer CropScience and chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc). “The idea of food security is a combination of a media phenomenon and a real risk to food supply across the world,” he tells FPJ. “Pressures around food security have emerged over a number of years, and the press has finally cottoned on - because of food inflation. Food inflation is the side effect of food security that consumers actually see, and when that happens the media sits up and pays attention.
“I welcome this - finally people are recognising that the price of food is dependent on what we can grow. This is not a scare story - the media is reporting on an underlying issue.”
And yet it was not until January this year that the government actually realised the importance of the issue, says Little. DEFRA recently issued a paper entitled Ensuring the UK’s food security in a changing world, and is looking for responses from the food industry during its consultation process until mid-September. “It was not until as late as January this year that [the government] accepted there was a need to do something about this,” says Little. “But the UK has really spotted this issue first, which is no surprise given our roots as a trading nation and the way we look at things on a commodity basis.
“There has been a sea change in the government in the last year and that is for two reasons: traditionally, inflationary pressures in the economy have been offset by negative inflation in food. But with food prices going up, they are now leading inflationary pressures. Anything the government can do to alleviate that is good for the economy. We welcome this consultation from DEFRA and will be contributing to the debate in many respects.”
But others are less complimentary about the government’s involvement. NFU president Peter Kendall said: “[Food security] is a phrase that makes our government nervous and can cause misunderstanding…
“Food security is a worldwide concern. Our part in it needs to be seen in a worldwide context. I know that the government tends to see food security as a code for government intervention, production targets and subsidy. It is emphatically not. It is a plea for everyone to wake up to the fact that farming matters; that production farming matters; and to start acting accordingly.”
Robin Maynard, campaigns director at the Soil Association, says that the organisation has been concerned about the food security issue for many years, but up until now has been largely dismissed by the food industry and the government as having a historical viewpoint looking back to World War II. “DEFRA’s last major report on food security was in 2006 and it was very complacent, saying that the UK is a trading nation and we can look to world markets to supply us,” he says. “The Treasury’s hand was all over the document. In 2008, we have seen a slight change, and the report has been more carefully phrased. But it is still looking to global markets to supply us. At the Soil Association, our concern is that the torpedoes that hit boats during the war and that cut off two thirds of our food supply then are slightly bigger now - the torpedoes of oil prices and climate change.”
Europe has gone through a period of overproduction, says Little, and for a number of decades incentives not to grow things and initiatives to reduce productivity have been introduced. “However, there is no longer overproduction with so-called wheat mountains and wine lakes,” he explains. “On a global scale, we are now looking at underproduction and people are worried about securing supplies.
“The change has come from countries such as India and China, which are becoming more affluent societies. As soon as you earn more money, you eat more meat. As an example, in 1980, the average meat consumption in China was 20kg per capita a year. In 2007, that same figure was 50kg - that is a two and half times leap in 27 years, which is huge.
“Population growth is one of the underlying trends raising food security as an issue. The world has realised that we will have to produce a lot more very quickly, and the only way to do that is to increase productivity, as there is not a lot of prime farmland left. These risks are not new, it’s just that we’re starting to hit a tipping point where pressures are up, and that is starting to affect food prices. There is therefore a fairly small window to respond.
“The UK is an affluent nation,” adds Little. “But if you’re in the lowest demographic of this country, you’re spending 20-30 per cent of your salary on food - and once you see a cost increase of 10-30 per cent in food prices, that demographic will be the hardest hit.”
But others say the UK is in a better position than most to weather any potential global food shortages. Séan Rickard, a senior lecturer in business economics at Cranfield University, explains: “In rich countries we have been trying to control production with measures such as milk quotas, etc, and in the next 15-20 years those production restrictions will have to be lifted. Slightly higher prices will bring forward new technologies and investment in GM and biotech. There is only a danger to food security if we don’t put a great emphasis on bringing science and technology to bear on agriculture.
“The UK is a rich country and we will be able to afford to buy food in the future,” continues Rickard. “Of course, as with anything, higher food prices impact most on those with the lowest income, and in the future I would expect our social payments to be adjusted for that.
“There is a lot of political agitation on the back of food security from farmers’ groups, and it’s a back-door route to protectionism and a way of getting us to pay more for our food.”
Food security does not present a risk unless we listen to those who demand protective barriers to support production of our own food, says Rickard. “We import most of our fruit and vegetables, and the government believes our greatest security is to trade with many parts of the world, so that if there is a problem in one - be that the UK or Brazil - we have back-ups. Security comes from a number of good food supply sources.
“The best protection for growers in the UK is if they can produce fruit and vegetables at prices people feel are delivering value - the higher price has to be worth it, or we may as well import fruit and veg and turn our attention to other areas.
“Of course, we want people to eat healthily by making fruit and vegetables accessible at the lowest possible price to consumers. Take apples - over the years the UK has grubbed up orchards because we cannot compete against imports, and there are plenty of countries such as France and New Zealand willing to send us product. I can’t see the problem with imports, as long as the food is tasty and fresh. I remember greengrocers in the 1950s - there was a limited range of stuff available all covered in spots, and now when you go into any retailer the transformation is amazing.”
So do analysts believe the fresh produce industry will be particularly affected by food inflation? “I have heard a number of commentators with real concerns about the 5 A DAY scheme,” says Little. “When people look at their food consumption, they look at the expensive part - and perishable produce, which is often bought and then not always eaten, gets knocked off the list. The lower demographic will be the first to cut that out of their diet and that will impact on their nutrition and health. Ironically, those who need it the most are probably the most likely to cut back.”
So what is the key to securing adequate food supplies to feed the world in the future? Improving productivity is the clear solution, says Little. “There is no more land, so you need more food from the same land - which can either be achieved through judicious use of pesticides or biotechnology. A recent report from the Cabinet Office report acknowledges the potential of biotechnology and DEFRA is welcoming submissions on genetic modification as part of the food security solution.”
But GM is a contentious concept, and the idea has generated plenty of high-profile criticism for many years. Only last week, Prince Charles warned that the development of GM crops could lead to the worst environmental disaster “ever”, telling The Daily Telegraph that relying on “gigantic corporations” for food production, rather than small farmers, would lead to an “absolute disaster”.
The Soil Association welcomed Prince Charles’s comments, feeling his views are in line with those of public opinion and also those of a recent international agricultural assessment by 400 scientists from around the world, which questioned whether GM crops offered any solutions to global poverty, hunger or climate change.
But Rickard takes a rather different view of the biotechnology debate. “We really need to be wary of vested interests,” he stresses. “Food security will only be an issue if we listen to people like Prince Charles - if we leave it to science and technology, we will happily feed ourselves.
“Global warming will create problems with production in countries around the Equator, but production will increase in other areas, especially the northern hemisphere, and Europe and North America will become more important as food suppliers.
“Population growth is slowing by one per cent annually and will continue to do so,” says Rickard. “The West has doubled food production in the last 25 years by doubling productivity - science and GM will have to deliver again, not only by creating higher yields, but by using less energy, maybe improving flavours and even perhaps reducing waste.”
However, even if the British government does in the future acknowledge the use of biotechnology as a sustainable way of securing food supply, Little says the actual implementation of any measures would take far longer as a result of Great Britain’s EU membership. “That would be the key roadblock,” he says.
The EU’s recent proposals to limit the amount of pesticides available to growers have also baffled the UK food industry. “It seems strange that at a time when food security is in the headlines, Europe is travelling at ever-increasing speeds down a cul de sac to decreased productivity,” says Little. “We need all the tools out there to increase productivity, and if the EU makes draconian and unreasonable cuts in pesticide availability, food supply in the EU will be put at real risk.
“The UK has campaigned very hard against this legislation - the government has recognised what it will mean and has lobbied for a scientific, and not a political, approach,” adds Little. “The UK has a great opportunity to increase production - Thanet Earth, for example, is a real chance to increase productivity of certain crops.”
The well-chronicled glasshouse project in Kent has attracted criticism from some corners of the national media for its technological approach to food production, but Little believes we must weigh up any issues surrounding an initiative such as Thanet Earth and compare it to the alternatives. “We have a finite amount of land,” he says. “Do we get to a situation where we rely on imports from countries that may not be able to export the quantities we need in the future? Or do we do the best we can in the UK? An idea such as Thanet Earth is a good option and can form part of an overall solution.
“There is no more land available and one thing is clear - organics have lower productivity, and any independent person would recognise that’s why organic food is not an answer to the food security question.”
But Maynard disagrees, feeling that in certain countries and with the implementation of the correct farming methods, organics can prove a key part of the solution to potential food shortages. A greater level of self-sufficiency will help the UK, he argues. “Oil prices are going up and, therefore, so will food prices. This will make non-organic farming more vulnerable - the costs of pesticides and fertilisers, which are oil-based inputs, have soared. So in some way the UK, which has gone down the highly mechanised farming route, may be more vulnerable than regions that we have always traditionally associated with food security issues, such as Africa and South America. More of their farms will easily adapt to low-input, high-labour agriculture, which is what organics is all about.”
Over the past 60 years, the UK has let slip a lot of the infrastructure that enabled farming, says Maynard. In the 1940s, there were 1.5m farm workers in the UK and 500,000 farms - that figure has now more than halved. At the turn of the 20th century, 40 per cent of the population of this country was employed in food production, Maynard says, whereas now less than one per cent is employed in the sector.
“Some of the island communities in Scotland have realised that we are at the end of the oil boom and they are looking at how to be more self-sufficient, and how they can feed their community themselves,” he says. “I don’t think the government is thinking about this at all. It sees the cornucopia of produce available and cannot see the problem. But our food system is embedded in oil and fossil fuels.”
Maynard estimates that the UK is 60 per cent self-sufficient in the food it consumes. In the 1840s, we were 90-100 per cent self-sufficient, but by World War I that had dipped to 40 per cent, he says. In the 1930s-40s, it was around 30-40 per cent, he says. But self-sufficiency picked up - because it had to - in WWII, says Maynard, and after the war, various subsidies and the agricultural act helped make the UK even more self-sufficient.
“But now imports are rising again. In veg, we are around 40-50 per cent self-sufficient, but in fruit the figure is much, much lower - partly, of course, due to bananas, citrus, etc. However, in apples we are less than five per cent self-sufficient, which seems madness when we are in arguably the best country in the world for apple production, with 2,500 native varieties. Why are we importing from New Zealand and Chile? What about UK plums, gooseberries, rhubarb and damsons?”
But Rickard believes the government will continue to promote global trade links to address any concerns around food supplies, and that the UK’s farming industry may end up taking much more of a back seat in the future. “A globalised free trade environment will protect our food supplies much better than a protected environment,” he says. “Without a shadow of a doubt, the EU and the UK government will take away funding from farmers. If people get worked up about food inflation, the most there will be is a slowdown in the rate at which funding is removed from farming. But it will be removed.
“We will never go hungry in this country. It will be more of a risk in other countries - but again, only if we listen to those with vested interests.”
But the Soil Association is not anti-trade, stresses Maynard - plenty of organic produce is brought into the UK and international trade is great at building positive relations with other countries. “But as fuel prices rise - and that will affect shipping rates too - the price of imports will go up and other countries will start to think about addressing their own food security issues.
“I am not saying organics is perfect, or that we don’t have adjustments of our own to make,” continues Maynard. “The whole farming sector will have to think about what the targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 per cent will mean for them. The organic sector is resilient as it doesn’t rely on oil-based inputs - we can build fertility from the system.
“The recent international assessment found that organic systems were more appropriate for small-scale farmers in developing countries,” says Maynard. “But we have to get our own house in order too - growth of a local market and distribution network is vital. We need mixed farms with a greater variety of crops, and we need to see a change of farming practice to meet these markets. The UK needs a more resilient food economy that is relevant to the world around us.
“However, I feel the government is not asking these questions, and still feels that oil prices will go down and that international trade will solve any food security problems.
“There is no shortage of food in the world overall. But 2bn people are overweight to obese, while 1bn in the South are malnourished. There are plenty of food calories in the world, but not if you want to feed everyone in the world the diet of an average American - organic production could not cut it in this case. In the UK, we could produce the calories we require by more sustainable methods - less oil-based and energy-intensive production, and changes to our diets.”
Maynard explains that work published last year at a UN food and agricultural conference revealed that if the world was to totally convert to organic production, yields in developed countries would dip, although not as dramatically as one might expect. “However, in developing countries, yields would actually increase by 80 per cent,” he says. “These growers cannot afford pesticides and fertilisers, but they can afford the most modern organic farming methods, using manures and composting, etc.
“The GM movement always tries to make out that the organic movement is very Luddite, but with the most modern organic methods you can get pretty good yields. We are lacking R&D, as most has been diverted to non-organic farming - in the same way that most R&D on energy has gone into nuclear power, rather than renewable energy.
“GM crop yields are at best the same if not worse than non-GM crops - they were not engineered to increase yields, but actually to give disease resistance,” adds Maynard.
There is no doubt that leaders across the world have some tough decision-making to do in the future if they are to tackle the food security risk head-on. While the debate has stirred up longstanding rivalries between the pro-GM and the organic movements, and even thrown up controversy around whether the UK needs a viable farming industry at all, there is no denying that the government is now engaging with the debate on some level and has shown its willingness to study a range of solutions.
“There is no one-size-fits-all solution,” adds Little. “We need a combination of options, with plenty of ways of producing high-quality, affordable food. There is no one method of dealing with food security - but to tackle global food shortages, it is clear that we have to improve productivity.”
No comments yet