Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 13, 2017
4 Possible Futures For The Global Food System
Somehow, despite the fact that the global food system produces so many calories that 2.1 billion people are overweight or obese, it also leaves 800 million people without enough to eat. The agriculture sector is responsible for 29% of greenhouse gas emissions, plus a host of environmental problems, from polluted waterways to deforestation. Food waste is an enormous problem. And, climate change threatens to reduce yields and deepen shortages, especially as the developing world gets a taste for Western-style diets and the global population reaches 9 billion-plus. The food system is, to put it lightly, a mess.
How can it change so more people are fed nutritiously and sustainably in the future? That’s the subject of a new report from Monitor Deloitte, the consulting firm, on behalf of the World Economic Forum.
“Shaping the Future of Global Food Systems” outlines four possible future scenarios based on current trends:
Survival Of The Richest
In the “survival of the richest” scenario, food consumption is resource-intensive, markets are disconnected, and there’s stark food inequality between calorie-rich countries and calorie-poor ones. This best describes our current situation, says Shay Eliaz, Deloitte’s strategy principal and one of the authors of the report.
unchecked consumption
In the second scenario, technological innovation produces ever more food, but at the expense of deepening existing environmental problems.
open-source sustainability
This more optimistic scenario sees governments embrace international trade, there’s more transparency in commodity markets, and we have greater consumer awareness of the side effects of food production.
local is the new global
And, in the final scenario, countries move toward self-sustainability and away from international trade. Environmental performance improves, but, as a whole, the global system fails to benefit from “comparative advantages” between countries (i.e. that it’s better to grow certain crops in certain places). As a result, those nations without the means to grow certain foods struggle and “hunger hotspots proliferate.”
Eliaz says the recent election has made him more pessimistic about the prospects for international cooperation in the global food system. Hence that’s why he thinks we’re in the “survival of the richest” scenario where it’s essentially every country for itself. “It’s not good for a large swath of the [global] population,” he says.
He’s not worried about the world producing enough food in the future. As the developed world exports technology, like better seeds and refrigeration, to the emerging world, the latter will grow and store more food, filling in hunger gaps. The problem is that in exporting modern farming methods, we’ll also be exporting modern environmental problems. “How do we produce all this food in a way that doesn’t break what we have?” he asks.
The report calls for a “systemic transformation.” Companies should invest in “products and advertising that promote healthier diets,” improve transparency in international markets (to reduce the risk of supply shocks), pay workers living wages, and push forward with technology like the internet of things, gene editing, 3D printing, robotics, and big data, all of which could produce food more efficiently.
Meanwhile, governments can help consumers appreciate the “true costs of food systems”—for example, that meat consumption has a higher environmental footprint than eating plants. And “public subsidies could be redirected toward highly nutritious crops, lowering the price point of nutritious foods,” the report says. Currently, the federal government effectively subsidizes the junk food industry.
Above all, business, government, and consumers need to work together. “The challenge you have is that no single government or company can solve this by themselves,” Eliaz says. “Much of this needs to be solved in a multi-stakeholder partnership.”
Read more from the report here.
10 Comments on "4 Possible Futures For The Global Food System"
onlooker on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 7:52 am
Of those four scenarios only the Local is going to be able to be practiced. Food is very energy intensive the way it functions currently. Even in the third world the use of Pesticides for example has been widely adopted as the articled linked at the bottom chronicles. Also, if one takes into account all the extra nitrogen/carbon added into the soils around the world from synthetic fertilizers one can see that the food supply quite probably will be reduced substantially once Nat. gas and FF are depleted. Not to mention pollution runoff etc. So, any viable future for the remaining humans must have as a cornerstone responsible ecologically centered farming and food producing done locally to maximize yields and avoid needing any industrial farming products which are for the most part harmful and attained over transport from farther off areas and trading that also will begin to disappear
Davy on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 8:38 am
“Survival Of The Richest”. Let’s adapt that with “and those rich ones rapidly dropping to poor levels”. Economic decline and peak oil dynamics will make industrial agriculture problematic to say the least. Poor food choices and insane production of process food poisons will continue because of economics of behavior and infrastructure. In the meantime a steady eroding of the green revolution will pressure population growth and exacerbate ecosystem failures.
“Unchecked consumption” Let’s adapt that by saying “is not an option”. Technology will fail to innovate at the same time environmental problems deepen. Oceans are dying and the hydrologic cycle of prime food producing regions is being destabilized by abrupt climate change. More and more people are going to go hungry and food insecure. Famine will begin to be common in the 3rd world. Food choices of the rich will decline and availability of many foods gone.
“open-source sustainability” Globalism is a trap we are stuck with but it is a system in decline. Nationalism and a declining global economy will ensure less food is produced by global monocultures. Distribution will be dictated by an increasingly distorted world trade arrangement. Poor nations will fall through the cracks. This is a future that is not sustainable and equitable.
“local is the new global” Local and perma culture is absolutely vital but it will never amount to much in respect to 7BIL people. It is vital for locals to embrace local food production to lessen the effects of a rapidly failing global world where global monocultures produced by industrial agriculture break down. The failure will occur with economics of distribution and increasingly from adverse climate effects hurting producers. Local is not going to replace industrial agriculture but it is our only hope to plug the gap that an industrial agriculture system increasingly fails to provide. Local is something every person on this planet can get involved with. It is something the global world should be promoting in the third world instead of more global industrial monocultures. We should be empowering sustainable farming in the third world instead of destroying it.
This consulting firm is a typical quasi -think tank promoting techno optimism with a kinder and gentler market based capitalism. This is hope based globalism with sustainable development. We blew that opportunity 30 years ago or more. We should have listened to Jimmy carter and read and reread the Club of Rome Report on limits of growth. None of these scenarios has a positive future because human agriculture’s future is in a long term decline and failure. The future is anything that can be made to work and that will be a variety of ad hoc and salvage arrangements as can be done in desperation of a failing system.
Jef on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 9:14 am
As I have said before we are not feeding the population of the planet now. Just like industrial livestock production is not feeding animals.
We cram a tiny, narrow selection of grains into the bellies of living things to keep them alive or fatten them up but none are healthy thriving creatures.
However this does work out well for a handful of wealthy folks and the “health/sick care” industry.
I am always amazed and sickened at all the discussion about how we can keep up or even increase the production of 5 grains in order to barley keep billions from dying so we may continue to add more.
penury on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 9:42 am
Everyone has a dream. However the dream of humans increasing their number on a continuing basis and still producing everything that humans desire without fail is not a dream but a chimera designed to keep people content while the elites do what they want without complaint from the sheeple.
Sissyfuss on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 10:18 am
As long as Dancing with the Stars is playing and the local Micky D’s has the new Soylent burger available, then Boat will tell us all’s right with his world. Oh, and Jef. Your’re saying that barley is one of the five grains? Very interesting.
Marty on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 11:45 am
All should Study Rudolf Steiner and the Biodynamic way of food production. A system that respects Nature !
onlooker on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 12:11 pm
Well said Jef. I was just watching awhile ago how they are trying to genetically modify rice so it will be more nutritious. As it is perhaps the main staple of food for so many on this planet. Grains are not natural edibles they became so when we started cultivating and farming the land. Their broken down to sugars which are patently unhealthy. So we have sacrificed quality for quantity
onlooker on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 12:15 pm
Sorry, here is link to widespread pesticide use in the third world. https://ensia.com/features/developing-world-pesticides/
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 12:45 pm
Survival Of The Richest. The rich can afford to fatten up their livestock with copious amounts of life saving antibiotics. What could possibly go wrong?
A Woman Was Killed By a Superbug Resistant to All 26 American Antibiotics
She won’t be the last.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/a-superbug-resistant-to-26-antibiotics-killed-a-woman-itll-happen-again/513050/
Risk of getting a superbug in hospital is getting worse says union
““They say the risks are growing and the superbug infections are getting worse. But hospital environmental service staff believe that government and hospital policies are making this growing threat even worse.”
https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/risk-of-getting-a-superbug-in-hospital-is-getting-worse-says-union-507449
‘Nightmare’ Superbug May Have Spread Outside Hospitals
“Six people in Colorado recently became infected with a “nightmare” superbug that until now, has mostly been limited to people in hospitals, according to a new report. The new cases suggest the superbug may have spread outside of health care facilities.”
http://www.livescience.com/57248-nightmare-superbug-cre-infections-community.html
Ahhh yes the good ole days are making their return.
kenxxx3000 on Sat, 14th Jan 2017 4:56 pm
Only one future and y’all are on the menu.