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.

Food (Price of, That Is) Is On The Table Again

Food prices spiked again this year, as they did in 2008, and that has a lot of people worried again about how we are to feed a growing population. That is, indeed, the theme of a special report in this week's Economist.

An era of cheap food has come to an end. A combination of factors—rising demand in India and China, a dietary shift away from cereals towards meat and vegetables, the increasing use of maize as a fuel, and developments outside agriculture, such as the fall in the dollar—have brought to a close a period starting in the early 1970s in which the real price of staple crops (rice, wheat and maize) fell year after year.

The end of the era of cheap food has coincided with growing concern about the prospects of feeding the world. Around the turn of 2011-12 the global population is forecast to rise to 7 billion, stirring Malthusian fears. The price rises have once again plunged into poverty millions of people who spend more than half their income on food. The numbers of those below the poverty level of $1.25 a day, which had been falling consistently in the 1990s, rose sharply in 2007-08. That seems to suggest that the world cannot even feed its current population, let alone the 9 billion expected by 2050. Adding further to the concerns is climate change, of which agriculture is both cause and victim. So how will the world cope in the next four decades?

The answer to that question is obviously complex, and the Economist delves into it in some depth, emerging with what might be called a cautiously optimistic view that we could be OK, partly because we have to make the changes that are necessary. Food insecurity too easily leads to political insecurity, and that has to be a motivation to change the way we're doing things. One of the elements highlighted in the story is the absurdity of trying to substitute biofuel for oil in a world where we are, at the moment, unable to adequately feed the current 7 billion people. 

"THIS is the craziest thing we’re doing," says Peter Brabeck, the chairman of Nestlé. He is talking about government biofuels targets which require a certain proportion of national energy needs to be met from renewable fuels, most of them biofuels (ie, ethyl alcohol made from crops, usually maize or sugar).

That sentiment was echoed this week by former President Bill Cinton:

Specifically, Clinton told those at USDA's Annual Outlook Forum that producing more biofuels could bring food riots around the globe.

"If we produce more biofuels, that means less food and that will bring food riots," Clinton said, even while stressing that the U.S. needs to become more energy independent.

Libyan Violence Produces a Mass Exodus

Predictably, the mass violence in Libya has produced a mass exodus. Tunisia, which shares a border with Libya, was the first country affected, has helped to set up Libyan refugee camps, even while many of its own citizens have fled to Italy and elsewhere. It appears that many of those fleeing Libya for Tunisia are Egyptians who has been working in Libya.
In the meantime, the Italian foreign minister has expressed deep concern about the possibility of large numbers of people fleeing Libya and turning up in Italy:

Franco Frattini, the foreign minister, said Italy was bracing for an exodus 10 times bigger than the number of Albanians who fled to Italy in the 1990s when the Balkan nation descended into anarchy.

"We know what to expect when the Libyan national system falls – a wave of 200,000 to 300,000 immigrants," Mr Frattini said.

"These are estimates, and on the low side ... It is a Biblical exodus. It's a problem that no Italian should underestimate."

He said about a third of Libya's population, or 2.5 million people, are immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa who could flee if the popular revolt topples the government of Muammar Gaddafi.

Those living in the eastern part of Libya might try to reach Greece, rather than Italy, because it is closer, he said.

House Votes to Cut Funding to Planned Parenthood--Will the Senate Agree?

A major news item surrounding the US House of Representatives debates on amendments to HR1--the government funding bill passed last week--was the vote to prevent any Title X funding from being received by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 

The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.

Although any organization receiving Title X funding is forbidden by law from using any of that money for abortion services, and Planned Parenthood has repeatedly said that no Title X money is used for that purpose, that was still the reason given by Rep. Mike Pence (R. Indiana) for introducing what has been called a vindictive measure against Planned Parenthood. As the Huffington Post noted:

The vote, which passed, 240 to 185, came after an emotional, late-night speech by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who revealed on the House floor that she had had an abortion. Speier criticized Republicans for vilifying Planned Parenthood and abortion-rights supporters.

"There is a vendetta against Planned Parenthood, and it was played out in this room tonight," she said on the House floor. "Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. Planned Parenthood has a right to provide family planning services. Planned parenthood has a right to perform abortions. Last time you checked, abortions were legal in this country."

Democrats, particularly female members of Congress, came out hard against the Pence amendment, calling it an attack based on politics. It is not the first by the House GOP this year: Republicans have also proposed bills that would allow hospitals to turn away women in need of emergency abortions or would limit funding for abortions to rape victims who can prove their rape is "forcible." (The latter language was dropped amid outrage from women's rights advocates).

All of the available evidence suggests that the best way to reduce the demand for abortion in any country is to increase the availability of contraceptives to sexually active people. Withdrawing federal support from Planned Parenthood will only undermine that goal, and is likely to lead to an increase in abortions, rather than a decline. We will have to see if the US Senate sees the world from this perspective and votes to restore funding for Planned Parenthood in its version of the federal funding legislation.

Will Demography Slow Down Economic Growth in the US?

As the world climbs out of a deep recession, people are naturally trying to figure out what lies down the road. The McKinsey Global Institute, the research arm of the large McKinsey & Company consulting firm, has just issued a report titled "Growth and Renewal in the United States: Retooling America's Economic Engine." A major takeaway from this report is that America's demographics will likely be a drag on the economy. Ben White of Politico summarized the report this way:

Should the nation be bracing for a new economic reality of slow growth, high unemployment and a declining middle-class standard of living? That’s what a provocative McKinsey Global Institute study suggests, arguing that without significant productivity gains, the United States faces decades of slow growth with possibly devastating implications.

The driving force behind the possible GDP decline, McKinsey said, is demographics. With the massive baby-boom generation retiring, the size of the labor force will not grow fast enough to drive significant economic expansion. In short, the U.S. will have to find ways to get more from a labor force that is growing more slowly.

“If, over the next 10 years, the labor force were to grow as currently projected and productivity increases at the average 1.7 percent annual rate that the United States has posted both over the long term (1960 to 2008) and more recently (1990 to 2008), U.S. GDP growth would decline to 2.2 percent per year,” McKinsey said. “With the working-age population declining from 67 percent to 64 percent, Americans, on average, would experience slower gains in living standards than did their parents and grandparents.”

The report then lays out a variety of specific ways to increase productivity. They note, for example, that only 40 percent of a typical nurse's time is spent caring for patients, with the being spent on paperwork. Reversing that ratio would certainly increase productivity in the health sector.

An important consideration for the global future is this: If the age structure of the US is calculated to be a drag on the economy, what about the situation in more rapidly aging societies such as most of Europe and much of East Asia?