{"id":780,"date":"2019-03-05T15:06:12","date_gmt":"2019-03-05T15:06:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=780"},"modified":"2019-10-20T12:48:25","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T11:48:25","slug":"how-we-could-feed-the-world","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/how-we-could-feed-the-world\/","title":{"rendered":"How we could feed the world"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Last updated: December 2001, U.K.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
The extent to which malnourishment and death from starvation still pervades human\nsociety is made clear by statistics, such as the following: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 1994, the United Nations estimated that one eighth of people were actually starving.(1)\n“Millions are constantly hungry; while others suffer from deficiency diseases and from infections\n  they would be able to resist on a better diet.”(2) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the year 200, the World Bank estimated that 840 million people do not have\nenough food to eat. An estimated 2 billion people lack sufficient iron in their\ndiets, with 1.2 billion suffering from iron-deficiency anemia.(22) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 2001 Human Development Report includes figures from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (F.A.O.) showing that, in the world’s least developed countries, 38% of the population were undernourished in the 1996-8 period. (See www.undp.org<\/a> and www.fao.org<\/a>.)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In terms of sheer numbers, there are more chronically hungry\n people in Asia and the Pacific, but the depth of hunger is clearly the \ngreatest in sub-Saharan Africa. There, in 46 percent of the countries, \nthe undernourished have an average deficit of more than 300 kilocalories\n per person per day.(3)  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
As has been written in The Observer<\/em>  newspaper in London, if 100 jumbo jets crashed tomorrow, killing all on board, the world would be\n  united in mourning, but every day, a similar number of people die of hunger-related\n  diseases, almost without mention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such statistics are widely available. Many see them as evidence that the planet is\noverpopulated. The sheer, undiminishing size of these statistics leaves them as something\nthat is ‘accepted’ as part of life in the modern world. The problem is simply too huge for\nus to do anything about, it seems, and reflection on the subject often ends here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet there are other, undeniably significant statistics to suggest that malnutrition and\nstarvation are far from inevitable, given the resources and productive capacity we have\navailable. These are the statistics which are slightly less widely disseminated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is a fact that enough food to feed the world is currently produced. 300 kg of grain\nper head is currently produced worldwide each year. 200 kg of grain contains the calories\nneeded by an adult per year. (Grain is widely used as a measure of food production as it\nsupplies more than half humanity`s calories.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 5.8 billion people in the world today have, on average, 15 percent more food per\n  person than the global population, of 4 billion people, had 20 years ago.(4) <\/p>
The world today produces enough grain to provide 3500 calories per person (this\n  estimate does not include vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meets, fish.)(23) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
It is the poverty of millions of people who cannot afford to buy food that causes\nstarvation. This conclusion has been reached by Vaclav Smil in a recent study\nentitled Feeding the World<\/em>(29). An F.A.O. study by Nikos Alexandratos confirms this\npoint. He writes<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Food availabilities for the world as a whole are today equivalent to some 2700 kilocalories per person\nper day \u2026., up from 2300 calories 30 years ago.(28)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
It has been recognised by a wide range of\nother commentators: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
food is not fairly shared; it goes to those who can afford it or have the means to grow\n  it.(5) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Famine exists largely because the hungry cannot afford to buy food, not because there\n  is insufficient food produced.(6) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
In none of the twentieth century famines has there been an absolute shortage of food;\n  the problem has been unequal access due to poverty, a problem that resort to food aid has\n  not solved. In Bengal in 1943-1944 about three million people died after rice prices\n  quadrupled in two years. Worst affected were the rural areas, where wages had not kept\n  pace with wartime inflation, and some towns where workers were unemployed because of the\n  dislocation caused by the war. People without money were unable to buy food and the\n  British imperial authorities took little action (apart from moving food to Calcutta\n  because they feared mass civil unrest). One of the worst famines of modern times therefore\n  took place when the amount of food per head in Bengal was actually 7% higher than in 1941\n  and food stocks were at record levels. In Ethiopia, in 1972-1974, about 200,000 people\n  died in the provinces of Wollo and Tigre even though the country’s food production only\n  fell by just over 5% – during this period food was still being exported from the affected\n  provinces and from the country as a whole. In Bangladesh in 1974 when rice prices doubled\n  in three months after severe flooding, those who were out of work because of the\n  disruption caused by the floods could not afford to buy food. As a result one and a half\n  million people died of starvation. But there was no absolute shortage of food – production\n  of rice in Bangladesh, both in total and per head terms, was the highest ever in 1974 –\n  once again it was a problem of who had the resources to buy food at higher prices.(7) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
In South Africa around 50,000 black children starve to death each year – 136 every day.\n  Yet South Africa is a net exporter of agricultural products.(8) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
There are many more examples. In 1983, the value of food exported by countries in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia,\nKenya, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda) exceeded their imports by $1\nbillion. Yet hunger in these countries increased.(25) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much food is currently stored or destroyed when ‘too much’ food is produced. This means\ntoo much for the market as it is only the demands of those with purchasing power that\ncounts. Restricting the food supply in this way keeps prices high enough for producers to\nmaximise their profits: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
in one season, French peasant co-ops were paid to destroy fruit and vegetables the\n  weight of 17 Arcs de Triomph(9) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Around 240 million tonnes of grain are stored worldwide in order to keep the price\n  high. That would provide every human being with 3600 calories a day(10) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
So what are the prospects for the future? If grain production continues to increase at\nthe current rate of 12 million tonnes per year then by 2020 the world harvest will be 2.1\nbillion tones. Population is expected to be 8.5 billion in 2020. That gives a figure of\n247 kilogrammes per person. In 2050, if production grows at the same rate and population\ngrows to only 10 billion, we will still have 244 kilogrammes per person.(11) However, the\nrate of growth in world food production is starting to fall. Before 1984, total production\nclimbed 3 per cent per year; now this averages 1 per cent per year.(12) This leaves open\nthe question as to whether enough food will always be produced to feed everyone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some commentators have viewed such statistics as pointing to an inevitable world food\nshortage occurring during the next century. They cite examples such as China where it is\nexpected that grain imports will need to rise from the current 12 million tonnes per year\nat present to 100 million tonnes by the year 2000.(13)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has often been suggested that reducing the scale of meat production is one particular measure that will be\nnecessary to provide enough food for the increasing population. It is indeed the case that growing crops for use as\nanimal feed in order to produce meat requires a relatively large area of land for each unit of energy\nin the food produced. It is a well established fact that crops that are grown directly for human\nconsumption yield more energy for a given area of land than meat production. 
\n
\nVaclav Smil at M.I.T. has recently studied the question of how much potential there is to expand global food production.\nAccording to Smil, the best possible estimate of the land area currently in use for food\nproduction is approximately 1.5 Gha (i.e. one thousand thousand hectares \u2013 a hectare is 10,000 square\nmetres.) With a global population of 10 million, this would be 1500 square metres per person. This, he\npoints out is enough for a daily supply of 2500 kilocalories per capita, based upon what he describes\nas \u201cmoderately intensive\u201d single crop farming with products composed largely of dairy products, poultry\nand pork (the more efficient animal products in terms
\nof calories produced per unit of land.) 
\n
\nSmil notes that beef production is particularly  inefficient in these \nterms and so, according to Smil, high shares of beef could double the \nabove\nrequirement to 3000 square metres per capita. The relative inefficiency \nof meat production (and especially the\ninefficient forms such as beef) is therefore a potentially important \nissue for world food production and will become increasingly\nso as the world population increases.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n
While it is important to consider studies such as those of Smil, it should be remembered that such future projections often fail to take account of the potential offered by alternative productive techniques and technologies that could be developed further. As will all other forms of production under capitalism, profit is currently the primary motivation behind food production (Why Profit Gets Priority)<\/a> As a consequence, actual production levels are by no means equivalent to potential production levels. Here are some reasons why: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much land currently under use has poorly maintained irrigation and is\n therefore not\nused to its full potential. Problems such as soil erosion and \ndesertification\nresult from unsustainable agricultural practices. Roughly 70% of the 5.2\n billion hectares of dry lands used for agriculture in world is at risk \nof being\nturned into deserts.(24) These unsustainable practices are, of course, \nsymptoms\nof the inherent short-termism of capitalism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As J.Simon points out in The Ultimate Resource 2<\/em> ,”better storage\nfacilities… would cut the perhaps 15-25 percent loss to pests and rot every year;”\n(14)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is huge potential to expand research into developing more productive,\nenvironmentally sound agriculture. Between 1981-85, developed nations spent less than $5\nbillion on agricultural research.(15) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
One example of a sector with huge scope for increasing production is the harvesting of\nfood and raw materials from the oceans. As outlined by S.Gulbrandson at the ENS 1995\nconference on sustainable food production: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The oceans cover twice as much of the earth as the terrestrial areas, and receive more\n  than twice as much solar energy.(16) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The ocean contains nutrients like salts and other forms of minerals, and enzymes for\n  catalytic synthesis of biological material. By adding such nutrients in the right\n  proportion and by controlling the ratios, the ocean may be used to produce basic material\n  for food production on a scale that surpasses all hitherto known systems for that\n  purpose.(17) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Another area with huge scope for development is hydroponic farming. This kind\nof farming is described by P. Salsbury in a paper for the Hydroponic Society of\nAmerica: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
hydroponics focuses on growing plants without soil. Plant roots are grown in\na medium such as gravel, sand, or a fibrous material called “rock\nwool” through which nutrient-rich solutions flow, usually at timed\nintervals. The solutions can be customized to deliver specific nutrients for\nspecific crops. This allows the plant to extract exactly what nutrients it\nneeds, allows the roots time to breathe when the solution is drained away\nbetween cycles, and also allows any plant-wastes to be flushed away with the\nsolution, so that there is no toxic buildup around the roots. This combination\nof techniques allows for extraordinary results when compared to traditional\nsoil-based farming(26) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Howard Resh, in an introductory book on the subject has detailed the\npotential productive gains from hydroponics: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Crop \n    <\/th>Soil \n    <\/th>Soilless \n  <\/th><\/tr>
Soya \n    <\/td>600 lb \n    <\/td>1550 lb \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Beans \n    <\/td>5 tons \n    <\/td>21 tons \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Peas \n    <\/td>1 ton \n    <\/td>9 tons \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Wheat \n    <\/td>600 lb \n    <\/td>4100 lb \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Rice \n    <\/td>1000 lb \n    <\/td>5000 lb \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Oats \n    <\/td>1000 lb \n    <\/td>2500 lb \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Beets \n    <\/td>4 tons \n    <\/td>12 tons \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Potatoes \n    <\/td>8 tons \n    <\/td>70 tons \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Cabbage \n    <\/td>13,000 lb \n    <\/td>18,000 lb \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Lettuce \n    <\/td>9000 lb \n    <\/td>21,000 lb \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Tomatoes \n    <\/td>5-10 tons \n    <\/td>60-300 tons \n  <\/td><\/tr>
Cucumbers \n    <\/td>7000 lb \n    <\/td>28,000 lb <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
Simon illustrates\nthe potential of this exciting new technology as follows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“In De Kalb, Illinois, Noel Davis’s PhytoFarm produces food – mainly lettuce and\n  other garden vegetables – in a factory measuring 200 feet by 250 feet – 50,000 square\n  feet, one acre, – at a ton of food per day – enough to completely feed 500 or 1000\n  people.(18)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
“PhytoFarm techniques could feed a hundred times the world’s present population –\n  say 500 billion people – with factory buildings a hundred stories high, on 1 percent of\n  oresent farmland.”(19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The earth could, in theory, feed very many more people than now inhabit the globe.(20) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
This fettering of production – with such disastrous consequences – is another key\n  argument for the abolition of money and the market and the establishment instead of a\n  system based on production solely for use. Socialism would allow us to develop and\n  implement methods of food production with two simple questions in mind: <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Which methods will best meet our needs? The question of ‘how can we maximise profits?’\ncurrently gets priority. Food will only be produced if there is a market for it – i.e.\npeople with the money to buy it. The needs of those without money do not count. The\nassumption that food will only be produced for markets pervades the debate about whether\nthe world can be fed. Of course, given our current profit-orientated social system, there\nare going to be continual problems. But this does not mean that the potential is not there\nfor us to solve them, once production is directly for need. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which methods are sustainable? Environmentalists rightly show how many of our current\nproductive methods are not ‘sustainable’ in that they damage the environment for future\ngenerations. For example, they now advocate a range of farm practices designed to reduce\nthe need for high inputs of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Integrated plant\nnutrition with a combination of organic and mineral sources of soil nutrients with tillage\nand crop rotation can increase crop production; and integrated pest management (IPM)\nreduces the need for chemical pesticides by making use of biological controls to minimise\ndisease and damage by pests.(21) Such methods could only be used to their full when we\nremove the market forces that drive producers to the short-term, cheap methods. This\nshort-termism has prevented progress on a whole range of environmental issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Author: DG \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Please email your comments about this article to feedback@worldsocialism.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n