Is It Hot Enough for You Now?

Another story on the effects global warming will be having on the food industry.  And, while oysters may not seem like an important thing to worry about, keep in mind they play an important part in the ecology as well as the food chain.

The Future of Food - The Case for Organic

Very shortly, Markham will join the ranks of the privileged few communities to welcome into theirs a Whole Foods Market.  The emblem of all things organic, sustainable and politically correct will be offering their brand of organic produce within a bicycle ride of my home.  It doesn't seem all that long ago that I recall Loblaws setting aside a small space in their produce section for organic items; they now have sections throughout the store.  And the movement is only just getting started, with just an estimated 2% of the share of the food market.  What is this new organic movement all about?

Hey, that trip we took into the future was fun, wasn't it?  How about another trip?  Into the past...say 150 or so years.  What did the world look like then and how was food prepared?  In the Victorian era there was simply food.  Farmers struggled to eek out a living on leased land hoping only to keep mother nature happy enough to let them bring their crops in without too much loss.  New technologies and some new fertilizers were available, but for most farmers around the world these were simply too costly for them to utilize.  Virtually all produce (vegetable and animal) was grown in a manner that most today would consider organic.  The need for a distinction between organic and conventional produce was non-existent, and the first supermarket was still about 50 years away.

With little in the way of synthetic chemicals available to farmers, finding the acceptable level of pests and invasive weeds meant constant monitoring and back-breaking manual labour.  The keys to success then are the same used in organic farming today: soil health and water preservation.  Organic farming attempts to identify the beneficial plants, insects and animals and use them to regulate the unwanted pests without the use of modern pesticides, seen as harmful.  Compost, crop rotation and manure are the chief forms of fertilizer used to eliminate synthetic forms also thought to be harmful.  And ground cover crops are the preferred manner of preserving moisture in the soil.  The ideal of a living garden is the driving philosophy and, when accomplished, the pride of every organic farmer.

And this form of farming has many beneficial properties depending on the level to which one is prepared to dedicate their farm.  One of the most serious problems that synthetic fertilizers have caused is the proliferation of invasive weeds and algae in our rivers, streams, lakes and oceans due to nitrogen run off.  This is causing many of our fresh water species to be choked out as they struggle to deal with these invasive species.  Organic farming looks to limit this run off by using natural sources of nitrogen that, in theory, should remain in the soil longer.

Another serious problem with a modern farm is the constant tilling and turning of large swaths of land causing serious soil erosion.  In the early part of the 20th century the US government commissioned a continuing study of soil erosion only to see erosion increase in the nearly 100 years since the office was formed.  Many organic methods help solve this issue, again in theory, by top dressing with compost and using a no-till method of farming in some areas.

The modern farm is one of speciality.  Growing large amounts of one or two crops allows the farmer to realize the greatest return on investment.  But, this use of land is inherently risky as all crops are susceptible to variations in weather and other environmental risks, i.e. insects and disease.  As we saw in Irish history, this kind of specialization can have deadly consequences.  The organic model, with its requirement of symbiosis, encourages a greater level of biodiversity which is not only a benefit to the environment and the farmer, but contributes to a greater variety in our diets which leads to a healthier lifestyle.

The pre-Victorian and early Victorian era farmer was not concerned with global warming and greenhouse gases.  The industrial revolution was in its infancy and green house gases were, while existent, not at the levels we have today.  Farming at this time was contributing little to the accumulation of these gases with most of it from clearing forests to make room for more farm land.  Motorized farm equipment had yet to be invented and the horse was still the main source of power on farms of the day.  Petroleum use was almost non-existent and the use of those products in production of fertilizers and pesticides had yet to be developed.  Organic farming, today, tries to replicate that environment and seeks to reduce the use of petroleum products in all aspects of production.  Many proponents advocate the scaling down of the typical farm.  And, on the small scale, the organic farm could accomplish some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

For a Victorian farmer, watering their crops meant waiting for rain or using the horse and their backs to haul large amounts of water to the fields.  The lack of motorized water pumps meant that water needed to be managed.  Part of that management included diverting rivers and streams into irrigation channels in the fields and the use of cover crops to ensure the moisture stayed in the ground.  Farmers at this time had as little concern about water shortages as they did about greenhouse gases, but the cost in manual labour to bring water to the fields was high enough to use water wisely.  Today's organic farmer is faced with more drought, less ground water, desertification and higher costs for water in some areas.  The motivation to preserve water is just as high and use of those traditional methods has helped to keep crops well irrigated.  As we inch toward 10 billion human population the preservation of water will become ever more critical to our survival.

Today's hipster foodies gorge themselves at the trendiest snout-to-hoof restaurants on everything from sweetbreads to liver to pig's foot.  In the Victorian era, the use of every scrap of an animal, and all everyday items for that matter, was a matter of survival.  The tastier, more tender parts of an animal were as preferred then as they are now, but staving off starvation meant brains, hearts, eyeballs, tongues and ears were as common as rib eyes and loins.  Bones were used for stocks and soups and then sold for turning into meal.  Fabric was re-used, recycled and the tiniest scraps were sent out for shod; the spinning of scraps into yarn (it's this practice that we get the word shoddy as a synonym for lesser quality items).  This "waste not want not" attitude is being resurrected by the organic movement as waste reduction becomes more critical and once again a matter of our survival.  Discouraging the use of plastics and disposables helps divert tons of waste that would otherwise end up in land fills where it would remain for eternity.

Where livestock is concerned, the organic movement demands a reduction in the use of antibiotics and growth hormone as well as a greater emphasis on more humane forms of farming.  Every attempt is made to provide livestock with a free ranging lifestyle that is thought to be less stressful.  Livestock are seen as part of the living farm, and their presence a vital cog in the farm machine, therefor, animals are to be treated with all due respect from the moment they are brought into the world until their inevitable departure.

In short, the organic farmer's goal is to build a living farm with a harmonic balance of respect for the land and animals, care for the soil and produce, preservation of the natural world and conservation of water and natural resources.  This is not a new philosophy, this is farming through most of human history.  Is it a form of food production that is sustainable and can it feed the 10 billion people that will be alive on the planet in 50 years?  While it was the method that fed the majority of the human family in  the past, will it be the answer to feeding the majority of them in the future?  Can it do the job without stripping even more natural habitat from other species already on the brink of extinction?  Will it help cool a planet whose warming is already out of control?

The answer to all those questions is yes and no.

The Future of Food - Pt 1 The Challenge

Let's take a trip into the future.  You can stay right there on your couch or chair.  We aren't going far, only a scant 50 years or so.  In fact, we can start just 3 years from now and see what food challenges we might expect to face.  How about, greater economic pressure on poor regions to meet the rising cost of staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn.  As early as this time, experts expect a doubling in the food demand due to increased populations.  It was not so long ago that the population estimate was at 6 billion, it is now over 7 billion; 77,000 net population growth per day!  This will see a 40% increase in food costs for the wealthiest countries and will see 40 million more humans thrown into starvation in just 3 years, according to The Future of Food documentary.

Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant.  The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble).  With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.

Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth.  Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population.  As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration.  Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.

But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000).  Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history.  According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years.  Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season.  We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia.  Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels.  All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.

Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources.  Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants.  Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways.  As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation.  Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.

One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events.  Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year.  Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions.  Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations.  Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found.  Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people.  This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle.  Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.

In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers.  Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers:  more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system.  In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.

Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program.  The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels.  Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people.  As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west.  With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.

Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole.  With this wealth has come a growing middle class  and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins.  The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year.  India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising.  In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago.  The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport.  The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases.  With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.

So, seafood seems to be the answer, right?  Why not?  Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land.  Great.  Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed.  For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians.  Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums.  In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished.  The same can be said for European waters.  But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken.  The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights.  Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.

The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model.  China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land.  Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements.  New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.

The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store.  Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home.  The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise.  The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand.  Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.

But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem.  Take the case of the Cavendish Banana.  This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world.  In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana.   Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality.  But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana.  This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year.   It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor.  In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity.  It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today.  I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.

Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future.  We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions.  Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day.  With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them.  Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise?  If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years?  If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture?  How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?

That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources.  I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead.  But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do.  Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy.  With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise.  But what road should we take?

The Future of Food - Introduction

What seems like a long time ago, I accepted the challenge of writing about organic versus modern farmed foods and whether, or not, organic was "better".  I had no idea what I was getting myself into.  I started by reading a book on the subject (Tomorrow's Table by Pamela C. Ronald and R.W. Adamchak).  The Authors are a married couple, Ronald is a Professor of Plant Biology at UC Davis and Adamchak manages the campus' organic farm.  This book led me to source after source on the subject, some very good sources and some very bad.  After picking my way through the maze of often times conflicting information, I settled on a few sources that seemed to offer balanced and rational views on the subject.

So, for the purposes of this blog, which is not a scholarly paper nor a claimed authority of any kind, I will list here my sources for the information that will appear in future posts in this series.  By doing so, I hope you will all track down these sources and read, listen and watch them yourself so that you can hold me accountable for my opinions and decide for yourself what methods seem to offer the best solutions for the problems facing humanity in the future.

This series of posts will be broken into 4 sections: Part 1 The Challenge; Part 2 The Organic Response; Part 3 The Case For Science; and Part 4 Protecting the Future.  If I feel any particular section is getting too long I will break it into sub-sections.  I sincerely thought that this issue would simply be a matter of finding out which foods were the most nutritious, finding some taste test results to determine what people preferred and moving on; boy was I wrong.  I think as you read you will come to realize, as I did, there are no easy answers when it comes to food, and it is especially hard to know who to trust when it comes to information about what we eat.  Hopefully, we will all find the questions we need to ask suppliers in order to provide the best nutrition for our families while maintaining the environment for future generations.

Sources for future posts:

Tomorrow's Table P.C. Ronald and R.W. Adamchak, Oxford University Press March 2008

The Open University- Genetic Modified Foods, The Issues (Multi-Media Podcast available free iTunes)

Yale School of Forestry- Food and Sustainable Agriculture (Lecture Series available free iTunes)

Oregon State University- Food for Thought (Lecture Series available free iTunes)

The Future of Food (Two part documentary available here)

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic reviewAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269

Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic FarmingScience, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148

http://www.foodwithlegs.com/organic-food-taste-test/

http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/101/6/290.full

http://www.pewenvironment.org/