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/

Eternal Life

There is an interesting post about the effects of a molecule found in red wine that might someday provide a way to prolong life.  Of course, this kind of news will inevitably be used by some to justify over consumption and others will develop useless pills purported to have all the same elements of the molecule being discussed but which will do nothing, conveniently ignoring the challenges the article mentions. When it comes to scientific discoveries about prolonging life I always wonder at the lengths we go to, all of us, to find ways to live forever.  Many skeptics, myself included, mockingly point to the futility of the religious in a quest for eternal life through faith.  Yet many of those same skeptics will also trumpet any scientific discovery that promises some hope of living a longer life.  This quest for eternal life seems to be a strong common human trait.

But, I have had the opportunity to see life from a different point of view.  Being the type of person who never needs much motivation to engage in conversation, my job as a lettercarrier has given me the opportunity to meet fascinating people.  Two that come to mind whenever I read about longevity of life, were an 87 year old female and a 92 year old female.  Both lived alone in houses that they had owned with their spouses.  Both are remarkably active and in good health physically and mentally.  And both, I am willing to bet from conversations with them, would not be willing to take a pill that would extend their life.  In fact, both have stated to me in conversation that they hoped not to live much more than a few more years.  Their reasons were similar: loss of friends, boredom, a feeling of living in a world no longer theirs and just a general feeling of a life accomplished and a need for an ending.  The older of the two is an active member of her church, I suspect more for social reasons than belief, and the younger was once religious but has told me she is "pretty certain now that what is here in this life is pretty much it".

At first I was a little shocked at their casual acceptance of the inevitable but as I have thought about it I realized that I, also, would not want to take that pill.  I would definitely take a pill that would assure the time allotted to me was spent as healthily as possible - the one thing that scares me most in life is aging - but to prolong an existence that is driven toward working towards an end (i.e. end of a book or movie, end of school, end of the work day, end of the work week, end of a working life etc.) seems out of step with a natural order.  A look around nature shows us that death is inevitable and as much a part of the continuity of existence as birth and life and sex and all that living entails.  That is not to say the women or myself are actively seeking death, but accepting mortality does seem to bring a kind of peace of mind.  The best one can really hope for is a life well lived and a quick and easy death.

There are, of course, those elderly who would take the pill to live longer, especially if it included better overall health, and for many I suspect this comes from a feeling of lack of accomplishment or the fear of eternal punishment for a perceived transgression of youth.  But, I think even those people will tire eventually of "the daily grind" of life. Many come to grips with this sooner than others.  I think the idea of eternal life is really a quest for the young who believe that life moves slowly and there is still so much to learn and experience.  People who are just approaching middle age and have not yet had to come to terms with their own mortality and who are satisfied in their occupations or vocations.  To them the idea of eternal life must be a no brainer.

But, if one contemplates the issues of living maybe 150+ years and considers the reproductive rates of humans, the lack of natural predators, the scarcity of land, the diminishing supply of food and fresh drinking water, might one not pause to wonder if prolonged life isn't more about selfishness?  Would it not be society's duty to try to enforce a population control like is the norm in China?  Ask yourself: if you are willing to spend that much time on this planet, would you want to spend that time with everyone already here? And how would you deal with the declining health of the planet without a natural population cull? And who makes the decision on who lives longer and who doesn't?

As the article points out, science has many ways to help us stay healthier longer.  Much of them I snub my nose at and here is my reasoning: life is fleeting.  We have all won a lottery - as Warren Buffet called it, the lottery of the womb - in which, from millions of chances we have arrived. But as events 10 years ago have taught us, it can all be taken away so easily, despite our health.  For those of us living in Canada, I believe we have won the jackpot.  Life here is full of opportunities to experience pleasure, emotion, thrills, nature, tastes and culture.  To deny one's self these opportunities might, in fact, lead to a longer and healthier life, but would it be a happier one?  I don't think so.  I think partaking of life's pleasures requires the same decision making as the taking of various medications, there has to be a balance of the quality of life obtained against the potential side effects. Also, just because one has the ability to live longer through sacrificing does not guarantee against a tragic ending and the denial of those small pleasures left unexperienced till a later date. And, just as with medicine, each individual has to make that decision in terms of what is the best balance for them.  I believe the fullness of a life should be measured in the quality of years rather than the quantity.  I don't think my years have been filled with the quality I might have liked, but I feel at ease with the idea of an end, later rather than sooner at this point in my life.

So, what do you think.  If you read this, do me a favour and post a comment here, not on facebook or other links, and tell me if I am way off or not.  You can post anonymous comments, and simply say if you would want to live forever and why or why not.

Cooking With Fire

Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
- New Testament: James 3:5

We certainly live in amazing times full of technologies that allow us to have anything we want within minutes of desiring.  But, has anyone ever sat around a microwave?  Despite the many diverging paths our cultures have taken over the centuries, we share a common origin: the fire pit.  Sitting around a fire with the day's catch cooking on it, the fire kept us warm and predators at bay allowing us the piece of mind to socialize and share discoveries and new ideas.  It was a place of safety, comfort and nurture - of our bodies and our community.  It was here we developed speech, commerce, art and politics.  The building blocks of today's human societies all developed while huddling around a fire waiting for food to cook.

The primal aspect of cooking over an open fire, the conquering of something dangerous and presenting guests with an edible meal is, I think, the epitome of any cook's talent.  There are no knobs to turn on a bed of coals, if you need more or less heat you have to act quickly and with skill to get just the right heat for the job.  The basics would be boiling water - to make coffee, tea or soup - grilling steaks or small animals and roasting vegetables.  But, when the aim is to provide foods that have been combined with other ingredients to heighten or enhance the main ingredient, that require time to build and layer flavour, then the cooking, sometimes, requires more finesse.  For these jobs it would be best not to re-invent the wheel and instead look to classic dishes that have been cooked over fire for generations.  That is what we did this past Friday.

Our first dish was a chicken tajine with preserved lemons and olives.  There is a magical element to a tajine, as the ingredients are added without liquids to assist in the cooking.  The sauce that develops comes naturally from each ingredient's own liquid content.  The design of the cooking vessel helps ensure the moisture is trapped inside and is recycled back into the dish.  Whenever I use my tajine I wonder if this will be the time the meat comes out burnt as it goes into the cold pot without oil or liquid and remains in contact with the bottom for the duration of the cooking.  But, I am always rewarded with a tender, rich and flavourful meat with plenty of moisture.  I always wonder if there will be enough liquid to cook the carrots and potatoes, but each time they come out perfectly cooked, tender and al dente.  My tajine has become my favourite way to cook and one of my most used kitchen appliances.  This was the first time I experimented with it in the traditional way over an open fire and it performed with the same magic.

Our second dish was a seafood paella.  Like the tajine, I feel there is an element of magic in a traditional paella pan, as all the ingredients seemed to be just thrown into it with hope that it will come out alright.  And each time it does.  This was also my first time using my paella on an actual wood fire, the way it was intended, and this pan, too, worked its traditional magic.  The beauty of paella is that it does not have a strict recipe or style that must be followed; it is very adaptable to a wide variety of ingredients and is meant to be made that way.  One couple brought with them South African boerewors and we used them instead of the traditional meats of rabbit and chirizo.  While we did not have the flavours that come from chirizo, the dish did not suffer and was, in fact, remarkable.  I looked at this as an example of true Canadian cuisine, where two cultures meet to create a dish that neither would have on their own.  Saffron infused rice with meat, spice and seafood, how can you go wrong?

The meal was a success and the food was enjoyed a second evening last night as leftovers.  I can not express the pleasure that comes from watching the reactions of others when they taste the food and realize that it came off the fire they sat around watching.  I, also, cannot describe the enjoyment of having the guests gather around the fire as I am cooking and assist with the meal, this really was a communal effort with some guests prepping ingredients, others helping with the fire and others carrying food back and forth from the house to the fire pit. We also enjoyed homemade roti and frozen yogurt for dessert. To end the evening we all sat around a second fire on a patio enjoying one of those modern conveniences in the form of a hot tub - hey, I wonder if I could accomplish a primal version of that... maybe not.  

How Much is Too Much

I came across this interesting graphic earlier in the summer.  With the news out of Somalia, it seems more relevant now.  what the average family spends on food every week : theCHIVE