Food and agriculture

How to feed the world

Business as usual will not do it

See article

Readers' comments


J C Riverview

Not very surprising is the fact that the article and comments see money based activities as the only solution. There is never any mention that the actions of our sick society need to change. The fatcats get fatter (literally and metaphorically) while children will continue to go to bed hungry and die. That's right children will die of hunger. Think of how that would feel to you or yours.
What I mean by this sickness is what behaviour that money causes in this society. As long as the only solution is monetary based there will always be fatcats hoarding for themselves and the poor who suffer. I thought we were the smartest species on the planet, but we can't even form a symbiosis with ourselves. We've brought upon ourselves behaviour from the time when competition ruled our lives: Money. It dictates what we do: work 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, spend it on stuff to try and be happy, never succeed. Ask yourself honestly if you enjoy your 8 hours at work or if you'd rather be doing something else... something more fulfilling.
My honest answer is that I'm at my job for the money and if I had the opportunity I would go into the science field.
Back to the argument its pretty obvious that since competition rules some have to suffer and as the rich get richer the non-rich will get poorer. Monetary solutions will never fix this problem, simple as that.


The core logic is not debated in polite society

a) the planet is bounded
b) the tricks the top animal can dream up and sustain are bounded
c) the top animal can breed without bound
d) the top animal can consume without bound.

If ever the planet needed to reach consensus on not-quite-nice topic, this is it. We need leaders with stronger (and emptier) stomachs than the current crop of nineteenth century posers and grabbers. Else war.


australian2225: i think that in order to bring down the natality rate, the only possible way is to increase revenues and life standards of the poor. it was named demographic transition, happened in europe, usa, latin america


We don't need to increase food production. We need to decrease the birth rate in cultures that think it's just great to have more than 5 children each, sometimes with multiple wives producing upwards of 30 offspring.

that includes quite a few African countries where the norm is 6-9 babies per female regardless of capacity to pay.

Nobody should be having more than 2 or at most 3 children.

The planet just cannot cope.



i would interpret it more like we need to review our lifestyle and tax meat heavily. why not a carbon tax on livestock?
according to a recent report, the livestock industry (including pigs, cows and chicken) contributes to up to 50% of all GHG. Very high figure and i havent seen the technical report, but it is a pretty strong statement and i believe it. have turned pretty much vegetarian since.


There seems to be no mention on the effect of american and european subsidies to agriculture on the food market. these subventions distort market prices and deeply affect farmers in poor countries which end up bankrupt, suiciding or selling their land. Europe and USA export their agricultural goods worldwide at the expense of the taxpayers money which makes it impossible for farmers in poor countries to build up capital, know how, and generate LOCAL revenues. If you allow this farmer to progress whithout unloyal competition, the generation of wealth will follow and the local economy will benefit from it, which i think is one of the most important problems when trying to feed the world. its of little use for the UN, europe or USA to keep sending humanitarian aid filled with THEIR agricultural products, aty leats on thre long term.

As for GM crops, they tend to need more pesticides and create a financial ball and chain for agricultors. Even if you give the seeds, you need to buy your pesticide, fertilizer etc to Monsanto. so no, there is no free lunch. Finally i think that GM have only a limited role to play as i think that they tend to reduce global biodiversity, which i think makes us more vulnerable to plagues and minimizes our chances of survival in the long term as a strong biodiversity is what will allow us to adapt our crops to the intensified climate variability that we are experiencing.

AB ve

When talking of technology in agriculture, there is no out of the box thinking. Why no replace sugar with a substitute. In the same way as iPods replaced walkmans.

Why is so important for the rich and the newly rich to move to consuming exotic fishes and animal meat. Why not question the effects of promoting overeating and obesity.


This is quite naive and wishfull thinking because it dosn't mention the threatening scarcity of energy. Did the author never hear about 'peak-oil'? A commentator above rememebered.
Oil is a strategic ressource for modern agriculture and in spite of IEA's forecast the situation is grim. Providing enough food for a rising population in a situation where oil-ressources are running low and where reserves are rapidly downsized will be a nightmare and a real threat to all civilized societies (and everybody else).


Theocratic fundamentalists of all religions reject family planning to follow God exhortation to go forth and multiply.


No solution is in sight until the poors stopped producing too many mouths than they are able to feed. Condi Rice used to whine at the Indian for consuming too much food.


With reference to Pakistan the following problems are proving hindrance in agricultural production. Similar problems may be in other developing countries:

i. Pakistan is facing shortage of irrigation water and the problem is worsening due to violation of Indus basis treaty by India. Diverting water and building dams on rivers given to Pakistan is causing agricultural crisis in Pakistan.

ii. Per hectare yield can be increased by using better quality seed. Using better seeds alone can increase production by 20-25%.

iii. The governments should make a policy for use of agricultural land. Cities are sprawling and agriculturally fertile land is being converted into unplanned residential areas and industrial complexes. {their waste again damaging agricultural production}

iv. Transfer of technology- instead of stressing transfer of technology in weapons, the poor countries should be given technology of food production.


Self Sufficiency and Markets/Trade are not mutually exclusive. FOOD SECURITY should be viewed in the same perspective as SUSTAINABILITY.

Minimizing the food miles is as important as food security, I suppose!


Population growth must be acknowledged and tackled,if an unthinkable future is to be averted:technology will only provide some of the solutions.
Education for women;access to family planning-with western aid.Will it happen any time soon?
As a lifelong vegetarian,I would obviously also advocate a switch from meat consumption,but I realise many people will not agree.
Do governments have the will to commit to a fundamental policy change?
Not much evidence at the moment.


This article is “politically correct” to the point of being useless.

I should think that some discussion of big food stuff producers (their yields and subsidies etc.) like the US, China, France, Japan, India and Indonesia for instance were in order.


AAppalling article as it did not mentioned once, the major factor which will affect food security, namely peak oil. It even promotes the intensification of oil and derivative uses !!!!

The author of this article may not know (that would hardly be pardonable for a journalist) that the present food production system requires 10 calories of oil (fossil fuel for machinery, fertilizer,……) to produce one calorie of food (even much more for a meat calorie). That is the bottom line. When these 10 calories will not be readily available (which is going to happen) we will starve if we did not ready ourselves for a low carbon situation.!

Oil stock is declining faster than predicted. The IEA has lied about the remaining stock in order not to upset the market. Once again the mighty market, around which everything should revolve despite the fact that it is the major cause of our unsustainable way to live.

As other commentators mentioned, It is really irresponsible to promote more of this stuff from oil/cooperate/GMO/trade instead of self reliance, permaculture, in short local production for local communities with local resources… as the climate changes and peak oil issues require ??????

But in any case I would have hoped that the Economist would stop such badly researched (or sold out) article because its duty is to present an accurate not a biased picture of issues. Moreover, it sends a wrong message, the wrong solutions, which, as it has been mentioned by a few commentators worsen the situation. Best regards PL Lemercier - renewable Energy Centre Port Elizabeth - South Africa


Castigating the greed and self absorption of humans as being the cause for the impending crisis is rather pointless. To paraphrase the great Gordon Gecko, greed is a defining quality of humans.

If greed were the sole vice of our species then we would not have a problem as enlightened self interest would dictate a modulation of our actions to ensure long term survival.

Instead we are plagued by short sightedness and denial as well. A problem is only recognized and dealt with when its effects manifest themselves.

Unfortunately, in the case of the degradation of the resource pool that our way of life (and even existence, if you believe some of the more extreme doom mongers) depends on, the cause occurs well in advance of the effect. As a result the half measures being taken today are based on the effects visible at present, which in turn are the result of our actions in decades past. Todays actions will show their impact further down the road, and the reaction then will be scaled to the magnitude of that impact.

The only way to break this vicious cycle is wideapread awareness and foresight that will allow present pain to be endured for future gain.


I met an entrepreneur who invests in food companies and agriculture land. He made two important observations:
a) Hectares of arable land per person is declining throughout the world, while the population continues to grow.
b) At the same time, global annual % yield improvement per farm land is growing at a much slower pace.

Interestingly, he also states two other observations (which are pertinent to emerging economies):
a) As countries get richer, the population tends to eat more meat; and
b) Producing meat is expensive. To produce 1 kg of beef, you need 8 kgs of feed. Similarly to produce 1 kg of chicken you need 4 kgs of feed.

If you combine the points, it basically means higher prices for agricultural produce going forward. Anyway way you look at it.


Are you kidding me? An article in the Economist concerning the difficulty in "providing" a resource. Social-Economist magazine seems more appropriate, how bipolar.


Human greed & power hunger are the root cause & primal force behind the looming global food crisis.

If the rich & developed/developing nations, put a drastic end to their profligate spending on developing/researching on new armaments & nuclear weaponry & instead channeled the resulting billions of funding saved, into improving & implementing innovations in agriculture, the world would be for ever free of the scourge of hunger & famine.

But will the powers-that-be see the monstrosity of their brazenly selfish & arrogantly self-absorbed ways & change directions?

I have my grave misgivings..


You all known nothing of food public policy. FACT From 1970 through 2004 farmers in America were subjected to a national cheap commodity policy. The only reason farmers stayed in business was because the farm program subsidy provided a slight profit to the American farmer. When commodity prices soared for many reasons but one not being shortages, the American farmer produced and that was reflected in above cost of production market prices. In third world areas, civil wars, bad government policies and cross border wars have destabilized food production, distribution and consumption. The rise in food commodity futures last year was driven more by hedge fund speculation than by market fundamentals. We can produce the food but how are the third world countries too pay for the food? Give away programs did not work in the past and will not work in the future. There is too much corruption in the distribution network. Food is delivered in a black market with kickbacks, food for sex, and drugs. For the first time since Earl Butts' plant "fence row to fence row" policy in the early seventies, the market is rewarding the American farmer for what they produce. I will give you the governments' subsidies for ethanol created a bubble in the commodity markets however by and large it was the American farmer who financed the ethanol boom and the American farmers who has lost capital stranded by the ethanol craze. The people in the cities are so envious of us that no matter what we do we are atacked.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
