The global issue of food availability can be solved in numerous ways, the problem is how does one even begin? Well, one solution that would chip away at this ongoing dilemma is by using a process called sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture is the cultivation of crops and food in such a way that it does not harm the environment, and benefits the animal and human population at the same time. This type of agriculture is a great alternative for industrial agriculture which is being utilized today. Industrial agriculture yields large amounts of food at low costs for the producers, but harms the environment in the process. In fact, 11% of the land on Earth today is used for agriculture. You may be wondering the same thing I am: If we are going to use 1.5 billion hectares of land on this Earth to sustain ourselves, then why wouldn't we do it as respectfully as possible? Since sustainable agriculture would omit the use of pesticides, harmful ingredients, and pollutants, this would allow for a lessened risk of harm to communities. If people were to realize that their food was cleaner and more "natural" they could perhaps invest in sustainable agriculture more and turn away from industrial agriculture. According to sustainabletable.org, studies from researchers show that sustainable agriculture can increase crop output. These researchers have also found that industrial agriculture will increase food insecurity in the long run. So, why should we still use a method that is only doing more harm than good? My only stab at it is greed and need for a profit by producers. Also, sustainable agriculture produces far less waste than industrial agriculture by only using the land needed for growing crops. If you remember from one of the previous blog posts explaining the reasons causing a lack of food availability, a big contributor was waste. Imagine the recovery that could be made considering using sustainable agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture would prove to be an even more effective method if agriculture crops were varied. More often than not farmers suffer from one strain of a crop being attacked by pests, disease, or another threat. To combat this threat to farmers yields, one could vary the crops produced. A reason why this is essential (and perhaps even inevitable), is because the world is only getting warmer due to climate change. The crops that are "holding out" and surviving now, will more than likely struggle in the future. A perfect example is corn grown in the U.S. According to ers.usda.gov, "corn accounts for about 95% of grain production and use". If we as a country weren't so dependent on corn for everything (40% of corn is used for ethanol gas), then perhaps we could distribute more food for the poor elsewhere. Granted, 10-20% of corn is exported to other countries, but imagine if we were to export all of the crops that were to be varied! After all, the biggest issue in solving food availability is distribution. Speaking of mono-culture (the growing of one crop in an area), this was a primary reason for the Irish Potato Famine. Since only one type of potato was planted in Ireland, it eventually led to 1 in 8 people dying for the three years the famine lasted. What does this have to do with crop variety and food availability you might ask? Well, it is often said "those who don't know history are bound to repeat it". If corn were to somehow be affected by disease (or whatever the case may be), then this could worsen food availability. If the United States were to switch to crop variation then this could spur other countries to adopt our methods as well. If they were to do this, then food availability would surely rise over the years.
Another possible solution for hindering the issue of food availability is decreasing obesity. Surprisingly, 30% of the population is obese or overweight (according to healthdata.org). Tackling obesity would be another benefit to ending food availability across the globe. One of the most efficient and probable ways to end obesity is by providing the poor with nutritious food. In one of the previous blogs, fast food and it's effect on obesity was discussed, and if even this were fixed, it would be one step closer to ending food availability. The amount of money Americans spend on fast food each year is astounding. It is estimated that they spend 110 billion dollars on fast food every year. If this money were saved, imagine how much of it could be donated to countries who desperately need it to provide food to their people. So, the issue really starts with fixing food availability in the United States first. Given that we are the largest exporter of food, other countries are really depending on food coming from us. I know, I'm sounding like a broken record but what goes along with more consumption of food is inevitably, more waste. So, the opposite effect would take place even if a small percentage of people were to have a change in diet. Lowering the consumption of animal products-things like milk, cheese, and eggs- would immensely help poor countries as well. This in a way may also force the U.S population to be more efficient in land use. Therefore, lowering obesity rates would help solve food insecurity.
Africa was mentioned earlier as being one of the regions most affected by food availability. If this one region (the other being Southeast Asia) were given aid, food availability would diminish significantly. The continent has the highest hunger rate in the world according to wri.org, and also has the lowest crop yields. Through introducing methods such as sustainable agriculture, which was already mentioned beforehand, this could allow people in Africa to provide for themselves. If all were to go as planned, this would save the United States millions, if not billions of dollars. The issues Africa is facing are serious. As many as 285 million people are living in areas where the soil is degraded in Africa. This simply wouldn't be an issue of solving food availability in Africa, but rather an effort to alleviate the people to better lives. Increasing the productivity of the diminished land could also be a solution as well. By introducing new farming methods and educating the population on how to be self-sufficient, this would help. For example, in Africa there are believed to be 300 million hectares of land that could be used for farming, but it is just far too degraded. If these tactics were to be introduced in the 2nd most food insecure region, Southeast Asia, then progress toward ending food availability would skyrocket (hopefully).
Educating farmers about reducing waste and following strict regulations is also a possible solution for ending food insecurity. This solution is very similar to the one above discussing sustainable agriculture, in that it would allow for reducing waste as much as possible. For example, if farmers were forced to abide by laws that stated they could only produce "x" amount of waste, then they would be forced to change their methods. Of course, there is the issue that waste is inevitable in some cases and farmer's may "bend" the law a bit. However, there should be some range such as from 20-30% waste (just an example) that farmers should follow. Furthermore, there should also be policies stating that only a certain amount of pesticides, herbicides etc. should be used. Granted, there would certainly be protest by farmers as some of these things help to preserve the fruit or crop, but the use should be within reason. In other words, the farmers should not use the additives in excess. This would help produce fresher food in the long run and also reduce soil depletion as well. Another possible part of these "regulations" is allotting each farmer a piece of land to farm on. Each farmer would get an equal share (in order to prevent protest), and also they would be able to buy more. Again though, this has to be within reason. Through this method, only so much waste could be produced. In this same way, average citizens should be encouraged to start their own gardens (if possible). This would help by allowing for little to no waste, fresh and healthy food, and a reliable source of food. This wouldn't cost much, besides purchasing the seeds and soil of course. If it were somehow possible to encourage a significant amount of people to start their own gardens in their backyard (or wherever else possible), this may very well work to end food insecurity.
Sustainable agriculture would prove to be an even more effective method if agriculture crops were varied. More often than not farmers suffer from one strain of a crop being attacked by pests, disease, or another threat. To combat this threat to farmers yields, one could vary the crops produced. A reason why this is essential (and perhaps even inevitable), is because the world is only getting warmer due to climate change. The crops that are "holding out" and surviving now, will more than likely struggle in the future. A perfect example is corn grown in the U.S. According to ers.usda.gov, "corn accounts for about 95% of grain production and use". If we as a country weren't so dependent on corn for everything (40% of corn is used for ethanol gas), then perhaps we could distribute more food for the poor elsewhere. Granted, 10-20% of corn is exported to other countries, but imagine if we were to export all of the crops that were to be varied! After all, the biggest issue in solving food availability is distribution. Speaking of mono-culture (the growing of one crop in an area), this was a primary reason for the Irish Potato Famine. Since only one type of potato was planted in Ireland, it eventually led to 1 in 8 people dying for the three years the famine lasted. What does this have to do with crop variety and food availability you might ask? Well, it is often said "those who don't know history are bound to repeat it". If corn were to somehow be affected by disease (or whatever the case may be), then this could worsen food availability. If the United States were to switch to crop variation then this could spur other countries to adopt our methods as well. If they were to do this, then food availability would surely rise over the years.
Another possible solution for hindering the issue of food availability is decreasing obesity. Surprisingly, 30% of the population is obese or overweight (according to healthdata.org). Tackling obesity would be another benefit to ending food availability across the globe. One of the most efficient and probable ways to end obesity is by providing the poor with nutritious food. In one of the previous blogs, fast food and it's effect on obesity was discussed, and if even this were fixed, it would be one step closer to ending food availability. The amount of money Americans spend on fast food each year is astounding. It is estimated that they spend 110 billion dollars on fast food every year. If this money were saved, imagine how much of it could be donated to countries who desperately need it to provide food to their people. So, the issue really starts with fixing food availability in the United States first. Given that we are the largest exporter of food, other countries are really depending on food coming from us. I know, I'm sounding like a broken record but what goes along with more consumption of food is inevitably, more waste. So, the opposite effect would take place even if a small percentage of people were to have a change in diet. Lowering the consumption of animal products-things like milk, cheese, and eggs- would immensely help poor countries as well. This in a way may also force the U.S population to be more efficient in land use. Therefore, lowering obesity rates would help solve food insecurity.
Africa was mentioned earlier as being one of the regions most affected by food availability. If this one region (the other being Southeast Asia) were given aid, food availability would diminish significantly. The continent has the highest hunger rate in the world according to wri.org, and also has the lowest crop yields. Through introducing methods such as sustainable agriculture, which was already mentioned beforehand, this could allow people in Africa to provide for themselves. If all were to go as planned, this would save the United States millions, if not billions of dollars. The issues Africa is facing are serious. As many as 285 million people are living in areas where the soil is degraded in Africa. This simply wouldn't be an issue of solving food availability in Africa, but rather an effort to alleviate the people to better lives. Increasing the productivity of the diminished land could also be a solution as well. By introducing new farming methods and educating the population on how to be self-sufficient, this would help. For example, in Africa there are believed to be 300 million hectares of land that could be used for farming, but it is just far too degraded. If these tactics were to be introduced in the 2nd most food insecure region, Southeast Asia, then progress toward ending food availability would skyrocket (hopefully).
Educating farmers about reducing waste and following strict regulations is also a possible solution for ending food insecurity. This solution is very similar to the one above discussing sustainable agriculture, in that it would allow for reducing waste as much as possible. For example, if farmers were forced to abide by laws that stated they could only produce "x" amount of waste, then they would be forced to change their methods. Of course, there is the issue that waste is inevitable in some cases and farmer's may "bend" the law a bit. However, there should be some range such as from 20-30% waste (just an example) that farmers should follow. Furthermore, there should also be policies stating that only a certain amount of pesticides, herbicides etc. should be used. Granted, there would certainly be protest by farmers as some of these things help to preserve the fruit or crop, but the use should be within reason. In other words, the farmers should not use the additives in excess. This would help produce fresher food in the long run and also reduce soil depletion as well. Another possible part of these "regulations" is allotting each farmer a piece of land to farm on. Each farmer would get an equal share (in order to prevent protest), and also they would be able to buy more. Again though, this has to be within reason. Through this method, only so much waste could be produced. In this same way, average citizens should be encouraged to start their own gardens (if possible). This would help by allowing for little to no waste, fresh and healthy food, and a reliable source of food. This wouldn't cost much, besides purchasing the seeds and soil of course. If it were somehow possible to encourage a significant amount of people to start their own gardens in their backyard (or wherever else possible), this may very well work to end food insecurity.
http://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future-interim-findingshttp://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e06.htm
http://www.sustainabletable.org/246/sustainable-agriculture-the-basics
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/4-ways-to-improve-food-productivity/
http://www.myfit.ca/nutrition/fast_food_statistics.asp