Competing Perspectives on Global Food Security

The Economist's special report on the future of food in the world, which I discussed here, is clear about the fact that there are competing perspectives, especially in the rich world, on what should be done.

One group is concerned mainly about feeding the world’s growing population. It argues that high and volatile prices will make the job harder and that more needs to be done to boost supplies through the spread of modern farming, plant research and food processing in poor countries. For those in this group—food companies, plant breeders and international development agencies—the Green Revolution was a stunning success and needs to be followed by a second one now.

That perspective is, as you know if you have read Chapter 11 of my book, the view that flows most naturally from a demographic perspective. However, there is a competing perspective that I often hear from students and others and it is spelled out succinctly by the Economist:

The alternative view is sceptical of, or even downright hostile to, the modern food business. This group, influential among non-governmental organisations and some consumers, concentrates more on the food problems of richer countries, such as concerns about animal welfare and obesity. It argues that modern agriculture produces food that is tasteless, nutritionally inadequate and environmentally disastrous. It thinks the Green Revolution has been a failure, or at least that it has done more environmental damage and brought fewer benefits than anyone expected.

The Economist itself adopts the first approach, noting that:

...although the concerns of the critics of modern agriculture may be understandable, the reaction against intensive farming is a luxury of the rich. Traditional and organic farming could feed Europeans and Americans well. It cannot feed the world.