Our Dwindling Food Variety

As we've come to depend on a handful of commercial varieties of fruits and vegetables, thousands of heirloom varieties have disappeared. It's hard to know exactly how many have been lost over the past century, but a study conducted in 1983 by the Rural Advancement Foundation International gave a clue to the scope of the problem. It compared USDA listings of seed varieties sold by commercial U.S. seed houses in 1903 with those in the U.S. National Seed Storage Laboratory in 1983. The survey, which included 66 crops, found that about 93 percent of the varieties had gone extinct. More up-to-date studies are needed.

 

click here...
National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

Taste Evolution: Seeds, genes and feeding the future

 

Its incredible to think that the food crops that we eat are the product of thousands of years of human selection, which started even before we started farming!

 

By collecting wild plants and spreading the seeds, humans, like their animal counterparts, started the process of selection. Choosing the juiciest, biggest fruits and scattering seeds in swiddens near their settlements, humans selected certain genes, and encouraged them to proliferate.

In starting to collect seeds and cultivate wild plants; farming, humans made further selections, based on various factors such as taste, disease resistance, yield.

 

Farmers shared seeds and traded. With increased movement of people, seeds and crops were exchanged over longer distances. Genetic information travelled, and overtime the crops adapted to their new climates, soils, pests, diseases and consumers tastes.

 

Simple evolution.  All important processes to enable the species to survive. We have been genetically manipulating plants for thousands of years!

Speeding up the process

This process has speeded up over the last 100 years or so. With improved selection processes and plant breeding, hybridization techniques and most recently genetic modification. All with the same intention – to adjust plant genetic material to improve certain elements such as disease resistance, yield, sugar content, stalk length. Whatever the highest bidder requires.

 

Modern farming systems favor efficiency and monocultures. Monocultures enable economies of scale. Predicability, They enable the whole field to be treated with the same chemicals and produce standardized products. All very desirable qualities.

 

But they mean fields full of genetically identical plants.

At the same time, the seed exchange has globalized. The number of different varieties available has decreased. Hybridized seeds often contain ‘terminator genes’, therefore seeds cannot be saved year to year and varieties cannot evolve to local conditions – such as soil types, climatic conditions or aspect.

Globally we are dependent on an increasingly narrow spectrum of genetic material. Most of the worlds population depend on 3 crops; rice, wheat and maize for around 60% of their calorific intake. With improved varieties the genetic diversity of these crops is reducing rapidly.

 

Plant genetic diversity is important for a number of reasons. We just need to look to nature to see that with diversity comes greater resilience to shocks such as drought and disease.

 

But most importantly genetic diversity is also a resource for future generations, Losing genetic information is like losing the key to our future solutions. Once lost we can’t get it back.  

Losing genetic diversity makes us very vulnerable.

 

What is being done to protect agricultural biodiversity?

Lets take a case study of Nepal.

 

Due to its impressive topography Nepal boasts a huge range of agro-ecological zones, and consequently varieties, landraces and cultivars of wild and domesticated plants adapted to local niches. Evolved over generations through their relationship with man.

 

 

However, increasingly farmers are encouraged to use imported seed and there is considerable evidence that Nepal is rapidly losing its plant genetic resource.

 

Working with an agricultural cooperative in the Kaski region earlier this year I was inspired by farmers that were very conscious of preserving their seeds.

 

I met Tara Devi Gurung. Here she is below showing my colleague Tanka a selection of here carefully saved seeds. They are local varieties of spinach, sponge gourd (a traditional crop to the Himalaya).

 

 

Tara explained how she preferred local seeds over imported varieties for a number of reasons. Firstly, she had been stung by hybrid seeds which didn’t grow from her saved seeds. She had to buy them again!

 

Secondly the taste. She cooked us marpha, a local variety of spinach with a big leaf and deliciously sweet flavor. She explained how the area was famous for it and in the markets of Pokhara the local marpha demanded higher prices for its supreme flavor (and perhaps a bit of nostalgia for the food from the village..!)

 

Thirdly, Tara had found that the imported seeds (promoted by an NGO ahem!) in some cases had a higher yield but in others they did not perform as well as locally bred varieties – presumably as they were not adapted to local conditions, pests and diseases.

Like many farmers in the Himalaya. Tara recognized the importance of seed saving and preserving local varieties.

 

Luckily she has a few friends on her side.

 

We visited the Lumle Agricultural Research Centre where we met a friendly scientist working with farrmers in their fields to develop local improved varieties and hybrids, combining desirable qualities of imported seed with those of local. One successful example was the Bhaktapur local, an improved cultivar of a local cucumber which had a longer growing season and delivered higher yields than both local and imported varieties. In Taras village Bhadaure, many farmer are benefiting from the market advantage of off-season production of Bhaktapur local.

 

 

Such ‘Participatory plant breeding’ enables scientists to engage farmers in the process, ensuring that varietal selection is based on the qualities that they seek and that are appropriate to their fields and markets.

 

Tanka and I also visited LiBird, a fantastic organization (supported by Bioversity) who work with local communities on a range of projects to protect biodiversity. Their work includes community seed banks; where communities collect, document and store local varieties, farmer to farmer research and a local radio show to raise awareness of the importance of preserving agricultural diversity and local varieties, sharing experiences. They also work with farmers to market and add value to local varieties and traditional crops such as finger millet.

So after thousands of years of cultivating, domesticating and co-evolving with our food plants, we are at a critical point. We are losing our botanic heritage.

When I look at the fields full of genetically identical wheat plants in our fields I wonder were we begin, But these inspiring efforts in the Himalayas bring me hope that we can preserve plant genetic information for future generations, improve food security and resilience and produce tastier, healthier, more lucrative crops!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmers must feel proud of feeding the population!

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/our-conferences-mainmenu-28/6-jakarta-2013/1419-we-want-people-to-feel-proud-of-feeding-the-population
 

Putting the Soul back into Science: Can agricultural research help feed 9 billion people by 2050?

"The ultimate source of happiness for human society very much depends on the humans spirit, on spiritual values. If we do not combine science and these basic human values, then scientific knowledge may sometimes create troubles, even disasters"

The Dalai Lama

Pedalling around New Zealand I have two books. One on Buddhism and Science and Colin Tudges 'Good Food for Everyone Forever'. Beleive it or not in the last couple of days both authors touched on the same topic, one which I have been pondering for a while..

They both point out that science is a wonderful thing.  In the past, science was an almost religous art. It has brought us many advances that improved the well-being of the whole planet.

We could be using advances in modern science and technology to create a better world. However, to a large extent we are now deploying science and high-technology with the aim of advancing short-term profit and human greed. Science has become dominated by that 20th century monster. The Corporate Interest.

Thats just the way the world is. Profit is king. Its true. But is there not another way? Where is our scientific moral compass?!

In the context of agriculture I beleive that in the right hands, modern advances in science; understanding soil biology, genetics, plants and animals could help us to feed the 9 billion by 2050, if that was the we set out to do. However, in the increasingly complex global market, it is not as simple as that.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of genetic engineering. We are continually told how we will all starve without them. I do beleive that modifying plant varieties, by transgenetics, gene marking or something we havent thought of yet, could potentially support a chemical free agriculture, help improve yields nutrition or food security (although technology on its own is not a silver bullet) if such research and technology was in the right hands, independently owned and funded and publically available. However, such science and research is an expensive endeavour. Someone has to pay. And as it stands, less than 10% of the research into GM crops is independent.

As such, manipulation of a life form warrants ownership not only of the research, but of life itself. Of genetic codes, seeds and organisms, and the rights to use them can then be sold to farmers.

The vast majority of research and development in Agriculture is funded by corporates, directly or indirectly. Most of it can be traced back to the likes of Syngenta, KWS and Monsanto. It is pretty much impossible for the British farmer to access truly independent research these days. Even if they think it is independent (I had a hard time convincing Dad of this until he found out that trusty old ADAS has long since been privatised on the quiet!)

So science has to pay for itself. The objective of the scientific endeavour becomes about creating products.

As such, lets be honest, modern agricultural research and development is primarily with the intention of generating ongoing profits. Hybrid seeds will not regerminate, and even if they do, you better pay your royalties or face a huge fine if they are found in your field! High yielding varieties improve productivity, but ensure that farmers buy the required cocktail of agricultural chemicals to make them grow into 'healthy plants'.

We know very little about what is happening in our soils and yet they are one of the mainstays of civilisation. Rarely do we talk about soil biology in mainstream agriculture. Modern agricultural science sees the soil as a blank canvas to add chemicals to. If farmers know too much, they might not need to buy so many expensive products. Thats no good!

If the advancement of science and genetic technology lies solely in the hands of companies whose prime aim is making a profit, without any kind of moral regulation, that is clearly putting ourselves in a hugely vulnerable position. I fear, like the Dalai Lama, that with profit as the main (and pretty much only) objective of science. With corporate interests literally owning life. Then we will create a disaster.

But what is the solution?

We need truly independent research, publically available, open-source and transparent. Truly compassionate science, whose main objective is the greater good of mankind and the planet.

We need deeper understanding of soil biology, plant and animal genetics and to be able to share information freely with farmers. Colin remembers fondly that in the 1970s Britain had over 30 government-supported research stations and Experimental Husbandry Farms providing new insights into all aspects of agiculture, developing new crops and finding new ways of doing things. It was all shared directly with Britains farmers. In the 1980s they were closed down or privatised. Revitalising them could be a powerful way of reliquishing a bit of control!

Farmer led research in Nepal with local drought resistant rice

On a recent trip to Nepal I was impressed by the work of LIBIRD (http://www.libird.org/), who (in partnership with CGIAR and Bioversity International)  conduct on farm research into local knowledge and agricultural biodiversity and actively work to its protection, promoting seed diversity and farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing.

The Soil Association, funded mainly by its members, has an interesting programme of on-farm research and funds some academic research into soil preparations such as Biochar. At the Oxford Real Farming Conference I was delighted to meet John Letts, who has field trials of ancient landraces of wheat and proving (excuse the pun) that they make an excellent loaf!

Of course farmers themselves are also always experimenting on their own farms and sharing knowledge (and seeds where they are allowed!). Despite the fact they are all essentially in competition, at every opportunity; out of tractor door, at the cattle market or even on the internet, I have seen how they are always keen to share learnings and better ways of doing things with each other. As in Nepal, this knowledge could be documented, formalised.

The challenge is credibility. Its all too easy for the other interests to dismiss such 'anecdotal' research, or refute studies such as those linking cancer with GM. These studies need much more funding.

If we can't change the legislation to protect life from patents, then public research could create public or 'open-source' patents. Patents that can only be used within certain social criteria. To enable seed sharing, open use of science and technology advances. Farmer-to-farmer learning.

Its a huge challenge. But I think it is doable. We just need to put the soul back into science!



High hopes: small scale cash cropping in the middle hills of Nepal



Feeding a growing World population is a huge moral concern of our times. Some believe that the only way to achieve this is through the industrialisation of farming.

Increasing productivity demands more technology in particular plant improvement, improved agricultural chemistry and increased mechanisation. By default this paradigm assumes that economies of scale are necessary and as such farm size will increase and the number of people engaged in farming will decrease. Small scale 'traditional' farms are inefficient and must commercialise in order to facilitate global food security.


In contrast, others argue that small-scale farmers can and already do contribute significantly to local (and thus global) food security. The IAASTD report found that small-scale farmers feed more than 70% of the population.

I suggest that in the context of Nepal, rural depopulation and a growing urban population mixed with extremely remote communities a number of approaches are necessary in different contexts to enhance local and global food security in the long term. It is not as simple as increasing productivity.



In February I was lucky to talk to small-scale farmers, agricultural researchers and work alongside a local agricultural cooperative in the Kaski region of Nepal. This has cast a new light on the issues surrounding feeding a growing population.

This case looks at the middle hills in the Pokhara region where there is improving access to local urban markets and cash cropping is growing.

Blessed with a huge diversity of agro-ecological zones due to dramatic topography, Nepal is able to produce a large variety of foodstuffs over a relatively small area. However, once self-sufficient in food Nepal has become increasingly dependent on imports to meet demands, making it ‘exceedingly vulnerable to price shocks” FAO, 2013.

An estimated 3.4 million people in Nepal are highly to severely food insecure as a result (FAO, 2013). A number of factors have been attributed to this including natural disasters such as drought and landslides, rural-urban migration (which reduces the population available to work whilst creating a growing urban population which needs feeding) and inability to compete with imported food prices (often from India) due to high costs of accessing inputs and the market.

In the Gurung village of Bhadaure in the Middle Hill region of Nepal most farmland in the village lies between 1200 and 1800ft and dramatic terraces make steep hillsides productive. Traditional agricultural systems combine the use of rain-fed upper lands around the village (known as Bari) and lower irrigated lands (known as Khet) for the production of staple crops namely finger millet, wheat, oilseed rape, rice and maize. Home gardens compliment this with the production of local fruit, vegetable and pulses such as lentils and beans and the use of wild foods all for home consumption (with excess being sold locally). 

Fields of Tori (Oilseed) in Bhadaure

Bhadaure is a 2 hour walk from the main road along steep mountain tracks. The only way in and out is walking, horseback or on expensive  4WD ‘Jeeps’ that run in the morning and evenings. Many young people have left – to work in Pokhara and Kathmandu,  in the British and Indian Army or even in Qatar, Malaysia and Afghanistan.

I met Raj Kumar Gurung. He lives in Bhadaure with his wife, his two sons have moved away to work. Two years ago he was growing staple food (maize, millet, wheat, oilseed rape and rice) kept a buffalo and a grew vegetables in his home garden.  

Raj Gurung

His main income came from his Indian Army pension. Now he is growing organic vegetables for sale in Pokhara city, 3 hours by jeep. He grows a range of crops year round including potatoes, cucumbers and coriander. He combines  traditional farming techniques  with skills he learned through training from the local PEACE project (Pokhara Ecological Agriculture Community Enterprise, co-funded by CIDA). He collects urine from his buffalo and prepares composted manure to maintain soil fertility. He combines the use of local varieties, such as Bhaktapur Local (a local cucumber variety which grows year round) with imported hybrid seeds provided by PEACE.

Twice a week Raj takes his produce to a collection centre in Bhadaure where it is weighed and transported by jeep along steep mountain tracks to The Bazaar Agricultural Cooperative in Pokhara. 

The Bazaar was established by local social entrepreneurs Tulsi and Tanka. They are aiming organic local and fair trade produce at Pokharas growing middle classes and ex-pats. One of their retail points is in the popular Saleways supermarket where they rent the grocery section.

 Raj explained how this access to market has transformed his life and brought economic growth to the community.

 “Before we started working with The Bazaar we had nowhere to sell our produce. Transport is difficult and we did not have the links to sell at a good price. Now our income has increased"

 
From this standpoint,by providing the rural poor with access to markets projects such as The Bazaar are helping make markets work for the poor. This could be a valuable opportunity to improve livelihoods and reinvigorate rural areas.

Here is an example of how small-scale agriculture is feeding growing populations. And hopefully at minimal cost to the environment and farmers (who don't need to buy expensive chemical inputs). What worried me a little is if moving to cash-cropping could make these individuals and communities more vulnerable. Firstly because in many cases farmers are taking land out of staple food production, this increasing dependency on bought food and reliance on incomes. From a local food security perspective this could be risky.

There is also  a concern about what happens after the PEACE project ends. Farmers currently receive seed, financial and management assistance (including coordinating  collection and transport to Pokhara) through the project. Although many farmers stated they planned to keep going only time will telI if this is possible.

In addition, production in Bhadaure is currently somewhat informal. There is no specific coordination of supply to meet demand and as such there are no contracts at present. There have been cases where overproduction has led to wastage and others when lack of supply has forced The Bazaar to source produce from India to ensure continuity of supply. Such losses could be potentially catastrophic for small scale farmers.

This is an area The Bazaar are very conscious to improve. During my time in Bhadaure we conducted participatory research to map the seasonality of production in a crop calendar and the farmers requested training and support in crop planning for the market. The Bazaar are planning to hold a workshop with representatives of all their producer groups and other local stakeholders to agree contracts and manage supply across the season. In theory with Nepals diverse agroecological zones it should be possible to ensure continuity of supply of most fruit and vegetables from within a 200 mile radius of the city. The complexity lies in the complicated planning and logistics.

Moreover, the move to cash production, particularly using imported hybrid seeds risks eroding local crop genetic diversity - or agricultural biodiversity. This is a huge concern as local varieties although often lower yielding, have evolved over generations to local conditions, pest and disease. Reducing crop varieties to a few imported hybrids will make farmers more vulnerable to disease and climatic shocks in addition to creating the burden of buying new seed.

Increase in income also does no necessarily equate to an improvement in livelihoods per se. It is an indicator of progress out of poverty, but not an end result in itself.  If it is to persued as a way out of poverty attention must be paid to improvements in overall health, nutrition and well being of cash-cropping communities.

But Raj has high hopes. He told us that his vision for the future is to expand his production. The project has opened his eyes to the potential of horticultural production to transform their community. I hope he is right.

The alternative is that small scale producers continue to produce at a subsistence level. This will ensure local food security, but will not necessarily attract young people to stay or return to their communities, and also means that the cities will become increasingly dependent on food imports. 

In summary, the  contribution of small-scale producers to local and even global food security is often over looked. Locally appropriate efforts to sustainably enhance production and improve market access could have the dual impact of improving rural livelihoods and food security. 

Can small-scale agriculture contribute to feeding 9 billion?

It is enlightening to learn that an estimated 70% of the worlds population is fed by local, small-scale agriculture, fishing and hunting.

In this case, can increasing wheat production in the west really improve food security in the south? Admittedly, there is evidence to suggest that increase in cereal yields (mainly in the west) over the last 20 years has reduced household % spends on food dramatically in the developing south. This has to be a good thing. The question is at what real cost? Our focus on exports (of subsidised production dare I say) has increased our reliance on imports, much of which is produced in the developing south and thus undermining the ability of other peoples to produce their own food, or their 'food sovereignity'.

It is also worth considering that many, if not most, of these farmers are unlikely to be able to access the 'tools' of modern agriculture - formal agricultural science and technology (although nitrogen, pesticides and GM are certainly getting out there), access to credit and favourable trade conditions to name but a few.  And yet they are able to feed quite a lot of people! It seems to me that their knowledge, skills and genetic resources are well worth protecting if we want to feed everybody, well, forever!

It also suggests that despite global food speculation, climate change and energy price rises, these food systems are fairly reliable and resilient. Very important in changing times. A bit of anecdote comes from a trip to Malawi in 2010. A huge Forex crisis had resulted in problems importing fuel to the country. Fuel was in extremely short supply and pretty much only available on the black market. Transport was very limited, people were rioting, the few supermarkets were struggling to get any stock on the shelves. This lasted for the best part of 2 years. Yet people were still able to buy locally produced food in their local markets
(although in some cases at inflated prices). Although it suffered a shock, entire food production and supply system was able to cope despite a sudden and complete cut off of fuel supply. In contrast, when fuel supply was cut off from the UK in 2000, meetings in Whitehall revealed that we only had 3 days of food due to 'just in time' import and distribution of food. That is, '9 meals from anarchy' according to the NEF report at the time.



However, I am not advocating that we hold agriculture in some kind of stasis! As Practical Action set's out in the article below, everyone should have a right to access technology, both to improve their own livelihoods and wellbeing (which seems to get missed out when we are focusing solely on a rather productivist goal to feed 9 billion..) and to improve local access to healthy food both now and into the future.  This example just shows that existing food and agriculture systems in the south have something that needs to be maintained if food security really is the aim.

Moreover, we don't simply need to feed people. We need to feed them healthy food, we need to protect resources for future generations (including protecting ecosystems and agricultural biodiversity) and we need to ensure they can make a living that lifts small-scale farmers and their communities out of poverty. As stated in the IAASTD report, agriculture is multifunctional - it provides livelihoods, eco-system services, biodiversity benefits to name but a few. But focusing soley on production, and feeding 9 billion, ignores these elements.

In summary. Rather than dismissing the food systems and skills of farmers in the South and seeking to replace local knowledge with formal science and technology, we should be seeking to protect and learn from these systems, creating a dialogue between research, and farmers in north and south.

Feeding 9 billion: A question of Technology Justice? View from Practical Action

A food crisis in the making
Despite one of the wettest years on record in the UK, droughts rather than floods were the prevalent feature of 2012 for some of the world’s major grain producing nations such as Russia and America, raising fears that there may be another global food crisis in 2013. The Telegraph reports that wheat and maize prices are close to or above the peaks of 2011, while corn and soya bean prices have recently hit new record highs#. In response the UK government's Chief Scientist Sir John Beddington has warned us once more that we face a long term global threat of food insecurity with 9 billion people to feed by 2050 and climate change likely to put a severe strain on food production systems#.

Although it is debatable how much current world prices are influenced by real shortages and how much by commodity speculation, there does seem to be general agreement that our food production system will have to change in the future if it’s to meet the twin challenges of population growth and climate change. Where there is less agreement however is what that change should be with, in broad terms, one camp arguing for a second green revolution based on the latest science can offer, whilst the other argues for a shift to a system of farming that works more with nature rather than trying to fight against it. A lot of this is, in essence, a debate about the efficacy of different production technologies (industrial intensification vs. agro-ecological approaches) as if this was the only variable that mattered. In reality the technological choices we make as a society have fundamental and far-reaching consequences.  As such, the debate needs to be reframed, I believe, in terms of justice, or rather technology justice.  A principle of Technology Justice would assert that:

Everyone should have the right to access the technologies they need to live the lives they value, provided this does not prevent others from doing the same now, or in the future.

Technology Justice and food production
Applying the principle of technology justice to the current debate around technology and food production systems would be a way of better understanding the wider consequences of the choices in front of us. It certainly prompts a different set of questions, one of which being: ‘how universal has the access to the benefits of 'modern' technology in agriculture been in the last 50 years?’ Since 1961, in the time it has taken for the world’s population to double, cereal production volumes have tripled and consumers in the developed world have seen the proportion of their household budget spent on food decline dramatically. Yet the Green Revolution has passed the majority of the world’s farmers by and we now face record numbers of hungry people. It’s no coincidence that three quarters of the one billion malnourished people in the world today live in rural communities# where agriculture provides a livelihood for nearly ninety per cent of the population.#

The mixed impacts of the Green Revolution reflect differing abilities to access and apply its new technologies. Income disparities have grown between those farming the best soils and able to invest in and benefit from the entire package of (often subsidised) irrigation, hybrid seed and agro chemical technologies, and those in rain fed (rather than irrigable) regions, or those working the most marginal soils, or those without access to credit to buy inputs (frequently women).

The number of farmers that fall on the wrong side of this divide is actually is very large. Globally, food provision is dominated by small-scale providers. An estimated seventy per cent of the world’s population, or nearly 4.7 billion people, are fed with food provided locally, mostly by small-scale farming, fishing or herding#. Eighty five per cent of the world’s farms are holdings of less than 2 hectares, worked by families. Frequently quoted figures place the number of small-scale farmers at 1.5 billion people. The importance of small-scale agriculture in securing the world’s food is therefore clear and has been frequently acknowledged. But it is often these small scale farmers who have not been able to invest in the new technologies and who are left attempting to produce enough food for themselves and for local markets in conditions that are harsh, with little or no external support.

Another technology justice inspired question therefore would be: what is research and innovation in agriculture doing today for these farmers, who feed nearly three quarters of the world's population? The answer to that question has to be "not enough". The FAO# reported in 2009 that just five countries (US, Japan, China, India and Brazil) accounted for 48% of $23 billion global annual public investment in agricultural R&D, whilst 80 of the lowest income countries consumed only 6% between them. In the case of the $16 billion global annual private sector investment in agriculture R&D, the FAO reports even less spent on research likely to impact on the poor, with just 2% of spend being in the developing world.
An alternative approach
So what would the application of the principle of Technology Justice to the debate around future technology choice for food production tell us?

Well, the first part of the principle is that ‘everyone should have access to the technologies they need to live the life they value’. By this measure the green revolution and the industrialisation of agriculture have fallen far short of the mark of achieving justice, with the benefits of technological innovation disproportionately accruing to larger scale commercial farming. We need to learn from this. In particular we need to re-examine a system which relies primarily on commercial incentives to drive the innovation and dissemination of technology. For low income marginal farmers many of the potential future improvements to productivity may come from better soil fertility and water management techniques and from the diversification and local production of seed and livestock for example, technical knowledge which may be difficult or undesirable to commodify and which will require different incentives to drive innovation and dissemination in.
The principle of Technology Justice however is not just that everyone should have access to the technologies they need to live the life they value, but that they should have that access in a way that does not prevent others now or in the future from doing the same.  But there are real concerns that current industrial agricultural practices are unsustainable and thus undermine the food security of future generations.  As the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) puts it: with 1.9 billion hectares of land suffering significant degradation, 1.6 billion people living in water scare basins, widespread salinization of soils from poor irrigation practices and with pesticides and fertilisers polluting groundwater and impacting on the biodiversity of rivers and coastal zones, the often unforeseen consequences of an exclusive focus on yields and productivity have undermined the very resources on which food production depends#:
The application of the principle of technology justice reveals a picture is of a global food system is that is not just unequal but also unsustainable, incapable of feeding the world today and undermining our ability to feed 9 billion people in 2050. Any discussion on the relative merits of different technological approaches to agriculture in the future has to address both issues.