June 12, 2013 — “We must feed 9 billion people by 2050” is a common refrain among food industry leaders, held up as the ultimate — if elusive — goal of production and sustainability. Unfortunately, current approaches to address this challenge are unsustainable — from economic, ecological and social perspectives.
Today’s investment dollars are going toward business models that are strikingly myopic in their approach, based on the belief that increased consumption is the key to economic growth. As everyone knows, however, our Earth’s natural resources are finite, and they are degrading faster than we are replenishing them. Therefore, we need to shift from a “more consumption” to a “better consumption” model. We need a forward-thinking strategy that will help us build resiliency and regeneration into our ecosystems as we grow food for an increasing population.
By reconsidering our investments and developing new solutions, we will ensure not only enough food for 9 billion, but also a planet that provides clean water, fertile soil and rich biodiversity — as well as healthier consumers and stronger communities — in 2050 and beyond.
Agricultural Evolution
Over the past few decades, farming systems have changed dramatically. Following World War II, the agricultural sector underwent a chemical revolution, with DDT being one of the first broadly used pesticides. Many farmers embraced it as a way to control unwanted pests or weeds, but it came at a cost to humans and wildlife. By the 1960s, it was linked to nervous system and liver damage, breast cancer, miscarriages, developmental delays and male infertility.
Based on performance to date, we need to think outside the singular box of GMOs and instead invest in a broad range of tools to address the challenges at hand.
Although DDT is now banned in the United States, other chemicals are similarly concerning. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is used extensively worldwide but has been linked to birth defects and cancers. In addition, a 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Agronomy finds it compromises plants’ defense mechanisms, making them more susceptible to disease and ultimately leading to reduced yields.
U.S. farm size has also increased, due in no small part to 1970s federal policies that helped drive farmland consolidation and monoculture cropping. According to an Economic Research Service report, as of 2007, farms with more than 1,000 acres now account for more than 60 percent of all U.S. farmland and more than 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural production value. While farm size is not inherently a problem, how the farm is managed can be: toxic, persistent chemical applications come at a cost to human health and the environment, and less diversification creates vulnerabilities in the system.
The most recent agricultural developments center around genetic engineering. In the nearly two decades since genetically engineered crops (commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs) have been farmed commercially, they have focused on adding two primary traits to crops: a herbicide-tolerant trait that allows crops to survive chemical sprays while a weed is destroyed, and an insect-resistant trait that gives crops a built-in toxin so farmers can use fewer pesticides. Although designed to use fewer chemicals on crops such as corn, soy, canola and cotton, these two traits have actually led to an increase of 400 million pounds of agrochemical applications in the United States, according to a study of pesticide use from 1996 to 2011 published in Environmental Sciences Europe in 2012.
To further complicate matters, evidence in recent years demonstrates nature adapting to chemical spray through the evolution of “superweeds.” These weeds are chemical resistant; 24 weed species are now resistant to glyphosate. This results in farmers needing to use more — or more toxic — chemicals to combat them, which pollutes our soils and waters, creates known risks to humans, and ultimately doesn’t help farmers.
Finally, a study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that no genetically engineered corn or soy crops increased intrinsic yields (yields grown under “ideal” conditions) in the U.S. Operational yields — those that occur under field conditions — also didn’t increase for herbicide-tolerant corn and soy crops. Only the built-in toxin trait for corn demonstrated modest increased yields of approximately 0.2–0.3 percent per year from 1996 to 2009. Relative to yield increases from conventional breeding – corn yields have increased an average of 1 percent per year in the past several decades – it appears the impact of GMO crops is modest, at best.
All told, this is not a resounding return on investment. Based on performance to date, we need to think outside the singular box of GMOs and instead invest in a broad range of tools to address the challenges at hand.
Toward a Better Path
To feed our growing population sustainably, the food community must rethink the system and accelerate investment in a more sustainable future. The innovations are already out there. Now we need to refine and replicate them throughout the world. And we need to get to critical mass, because it’s not just one company that needs to invest in these innovations in order to feed 9 billion by 2050. Rather, it’s all of us who must think about where we invest our resources — be it the financial sector, the food sector, the government, nonprofit organizations or simply ourselves, the eaters.
We can do this by moving toward broader, big-picture systems thinking, which tells us that we can’t understand a problem by looking only at individual parts. Instead, we must understand how the parts interact with and influence each other. As naturalist John Muir famously said, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”
What follows is a series of ideas exploring how to start thinking differently about our food system, taking into account all aspects of this complex network.
Rethink: How We Farm
Farming is the foundation of our food system, so it’s critical we start here. We need innovations that will not only increase food production, but also create vibrant rural communities and protect healthy ecosystems.
Invest in agroecological farming — While many farmers rely heavily on chemical inputs to grow their crops, some farmers are finding ways to balance productivity and ecosystem health through agroecological practices. Agroecology is a scientific approach to managing agricultural land by understanding the structure and function of the natural ecosystems on which it is built.
Kenneth Miller is a farmer in North Dakota who practices agroecology using cover crops and livestock to build soil health. Unlike many of his neighbors, Miller divides his fields into manageable sections, reincorporating livestock and devising what he calls a “cover crop cocktail.” Cover crop cocktails vary, but the purpose is to include a blend of different species and plant types, each with its own rooting patterns that help contribute to diversity and restoration of microbial and physical soil function after producing a single grain crop. Miller is building soil organic matter, the critical component for sustainable land stewardship. He also is seeing increased crop yields while reducing costs, resulting in net profitability.
To move away from pollutants and to better support farmers, agrochemical companies should shift their investments in product innovation to ones that are nontoxic and nonpersistent.
Likewise, the Marsden Farm study out of Iowa State University, highlighted in a 2012 article by Mark Bittman of the New York Times, describes a four-year rotation that included corn, soy, oats and alfalfa, along with integrated livestock management, to produce higher yields of corn and soy than strictly corn and soy rotations or corn, soy and oat rotations. In the study, nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides decreased by up to 88 percent and toxins in the ground decreased 200-fold, all while profits remained the same. Again, another example of agroecology principles in action.
Apply agrochemicals judiciously — An agroecological farmer may still want to use agrochemicals, but they should be applied as a last resort, not a first line of defense. I know farmers who have battled a vicious weed, bindweed, that can live for up to 30 years and wreaks havoc on farmland, with roots that travel up to 30 feet deep into the soil. Some of these farmers used herbicides, but only after years of trying to combat bindweed through nonchemical methods.
To move away from pollutants and to better support farmers, agrochemical companies should shift their investments in product innovation to ones that are nontoxic and nonpersistent, and turn more attention to bio-based solutions that eliminate excess waste and pollution.
Furthermore, we need to measure precisely what we’re putting onto the soil and at what rates. At present, we don’t have a comprehensive, publicly available database that tracks pesticides (active and “inert” ingredients) and how long they persist in the soil. This must be created. More importantly, we need to conduct more independent research on how these chemicals affect the environment, humans and animals over the long term.
Develop farmer knowledge networks — When it comes to innovation, shared information — both from farmers and from publicly available research — is critical. This farming shift must be supported by a knowledge network. Just as software engineers have innovated in leaps and bounds using “open source” shared code, farmers will innovate at a much faster rate if they can access information on what practices work for which crops, under what conditions and in which geographies.
Some forward-thinking farmers are already moving down this path. In 1999, a group of farmers affiliated with the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society formed the Farm Breeding Club. Their goal was to share knowledge and seed stock for seed saving and crop breeding. The FBC provides information to farmers so they can directly participate in public plant breeding efforts. Today they have 13 different crops being researched by farmers, including potatoes, oats and sweet corn.
Rethink: How We Move Food
Beyond farming, we need to rethink how our food travels from farm to plate. Along each step, there are ample opportunities to improve this journey.
Transition to a more regionalized system — Experts have long argued that feeding hungry people is not a problem of production, it’s a problem of distribution. In a May 2012 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization found that even if we increased agricultural productivity by 60 percent by 2050, we’d still have 300 million hungry people because they lack access to food.
About one-third of the food produced globally each year is wasted somewhere between farm and plate. This translates to 1.3 billion metric tons of food.
By regionalizing global farming, communities can feed themselves and rely less on imports. A region should be defined based on its ecological dimensions — the geographical area that accounts for ecological parameters, such as water and land resources, and the conditions necessary to feed nearby populations.
Regionalization does not necessitate eliminating exports. After all, much of farming is about responding to nature — droughts, hailstorms, monsoons, etc. — and production yields vary by the season. But in transitioning to a more regionalized system, farmers would be required to rely on their local markets, too.
Reduce waste — According to the FAO, about one-third of the food produced globally each year is wasted somewhere between farm and plate. This translates to 1.3 billion metric tons of food. In the U.S., the waste percentage is 40 percent. If total U.S. food losses were reduced by just 15 percent, says an August 2012 report by the National Resources Defense Council, more than 25 million Americans could be fed every year.
With a keener eye to where losses are taking place, we can begin to address the problem. In wealthier countries, we can raise consumer awareness about reducing food waste at home, create incentives for municipal composting systems, improve post-harvest handling and storage, and find ways to market products that aren’t “perfect,” such as fruits and vegetables with cosmetic blemishes. In lower income countries, improvements in harvesting techniques and low-cost storage and cooling facilities can make a significant difference between spoiled and edible foods. Regardless of where the losses occur, businesses should work to address the challenges. Losses like these are equivalent to throwing money away, and no one can afford to do that.
Empower employees — Rethinking how food moves from farm to consumer requires a new level of engagement with employees. In his book Drive, Daniel Pink draws on four decades of scientific research about what motivates people, highlighting three elements: mastery, autonomy and purpose. While traditional rewards and compensation still have a role, these more intangible elements are key to unlocking high performance and innovation. And innovation comes from people who know their jobs best — employees on the ground and on the shop floor.
Morning Star Company, based in Woodland, Calif., is the world’s largest tomato processor, managing 25 to 30 percent of the tomatoes processed each year in the U.S. It created a business model where employees are empowered to achieve goals through collaboration, and no one holds titles or hierarchy. As one person at the company said, “nobody’s your boss and everybody’s your boss.” This model has resulted in many benefits, including increased initiative, expertise, flexibility and loyalty.
Rethink: How We Eat
No conversation about changing the food system is complete unless it includes the consumer’s role. Although altering our eating habits isn’t easy, we must grow more aware of the link between what we eat and the land. To quote writer Wendell Berry: “Eating is an agricultural act.”
Eat less, but better, meat — Americans account for just 4.5 percent of the world’s population, but we eat approximately 15 percent of the meat produced globally. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, this amounts to 170 pounds of meat per person each year. Many of these animals consume grains, resulting in a lot of land devoted to growing feed — in fact, one-third of global cereal crop production is fed to animals.
We could expect a multitude of benefits by making the simple choice to eat less meat.
While meat can be part of a healthy diet, too much leads to health problems, such as high cholesterol and heart disease. And when animals are raised in ways that pollute our environment, this only exacerbates the problem. Excrement and urine from confined animals, for example, can leach into water and soil and emit dangerous concentrations of greenhouse gasses.
Animals can, instead, be raised to benefit our production systems. They are efficient grazers and can be an integral part of crop rotation. Returning animals to pasture instead of confined housing would reduce their numbers, but they would be raised with more space to roam and no routine antibiotics, and more land would be available to directly feed people. Thus, we could expect a multitude of benefits by making the simple choice to eat less meat.
Provide food education — Access to good food is only one part of developing new eating habits; we also need to know what to do with it. By teaching people how to grow foods, read recipes, train a palate and develop cooking skills, we can dramatically change the food system. Food Corps — a national organization that places leaders for a year of public service in communities with limited resources — introduces kids to food education and connects them to where their food comes from. In just a few years’ time, this group is driving change, reaching more than 29,000 children.
Food companies can actively engage as well, whether it’s by providing examples of how a whole food like steamed broccoli pairs with a processed food product like macaroni and cheese, or supporting food education in our schools and communities. After all, what will have a more profound impact on the health of members of our next generation than teaching them about how to eat?
To a Better Future
To feed our growing population, we need the food community to accelerate investment in a more sustainable food system. The innovations are already available, and now is the time to invest in and refine them. Systemic change cannot come from one company, government or individual; everyone needs to be involved. Are there other factors that should be considered? Of course. These are complex issues with complex solutions. Are we going to get there within a year? No. But we need to wake up to the need for a paradigm shift in how we do things in order to get us on a sustainable path to feeding 9 billion by 2050. The people on this planet and the natural resources we depend on cannot afford to progress on a linear path. Instead, we need to rethink the system. 
Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
Is there any evidence at all that grass fed meat is "better" (I'm Australian and most of our domestically consumed cattle and sheep meat is grass fed and our rate of bowel cancer is the highest in the world!). By evidence I don't mean claims by Michael Pollen, I mean actual data. I don't know of any.
Is there any evidence that reductions of meat consumption would free up land? Sure ... Jonathan Foley's work is the best I know of. But how much do you need to reduce consumption to free up land?
That depends on how much meat you want to produce. Is it 10 percent of what is eaten now? 50%? 1%? Without putting a number on it, there is no way to calculate the land required. Eating just 1% of meat would certainly free up land ... but 50%? That's far from obvious. And what about climate change? For every ruminant we graze, that's a significant amount of methane that needs to be dealt with. Australia has more cattle than people and the warming they produce exceeds that of all our coal fired power stations ... and grass fed cattle produce far more methane than feedlot cattle.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/11/australias-most-powerful-climate-forcing-agent-its-not-coal/
On the land-related point, given that 1/3 of cereal production is fed to animals, one might posit that we could switch from animal-feed to people-feed crops. Thus it might not ‘free up land’, but you would use land differently so you can feed more people (given feed to animal conversion rates). And to your point, it’s about the quantity of meat we want to produce. I don’t have an exact percentage to give you. My point is around reworking parameters to feed a growing population. In fact, I think that these numbers need to come from a bottoms-up, not a top-down approach so that the regional ecology and population needs are taken into account. There are a lot of variables at stake and we need to consider the needs of the land and people.
As for climate change and animals, this is a really interesting issue. Based on what I have studied, animals can be an integral part of a healthy ecosystem landscape. And while enteric fermentation is problematic from a carbon emissions standpoint, we need to also consider the benefits that animals can bring from an ecosystem-health perspective. Yes, they may contribute methane into the atmosphere, so we need to consider quantity of animals. But they can also regenerate our lands if we practice holistic management techniques. Alan Savory’s team has done extensive work on this and I know several folks who follow his principles. You can find his portfolio of research here: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/2013/03/resources/evidence-supporting-holistic-management/. And you can watch a great TED talk on this topic here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html.
Joel Salatin, Allan Savory, and others have shown that properly managed ruminants on grasslands will actually sequester carbon and build soils. Oh, and increase yields and profit, by the way.
Shauna: Other species of animals on our planet expand or contract their populations based primarily on their food supply. Why should we be different? If we were only able to produce enough food next year for 7.1 billion people, I'd be pretty confident in saying there would be 7.1 billion people. Would people suffer? I don't think people would suffer any more than they already do suffer. I know it's a crazy thought. I just thought I'd put it out there. We are, after all, biologically based creatures that evolved on this planet WITH all the other creatures that are here. Shouldn't the same natural laws that govern their existence also govern ours?
When you eat red meat, any red meat (kangaroo, beef, pork, venison, etc) your body generates endogenous nitrosamines ... the same stuff that causes lung cancer in smokers. This process is entirely natural and has nothing to do with refining or processing. Your claim about bowel cancer being the result of refined and processed food isn't supported by any data at all ... it get echoed around the internet ad nauseum but there's no actual epidemiology to support it. Whereas there is plenty to support the red meat link. The nitrosamine causal chain is one of a few for which there is good evidence.
Also, you recommend `agroecology’- an understanding the structure and function of the natural ecosystems on which agriculture is built. The World Bank IAASTD Report is partly to blame for the confusion over just what agroecology is and its relation to natural ecosystems. The Glossary of the IAASTD Report claims that: “Agroecological functions are generally maximized when there is high species diversity/perennial forest-like habitats.” I think this almost exactly wrong. Most of our food now comes from annual grasses – a plant type that cannot survive in `perennial forest-like habitats’. There is a sound agroecological reasons for the success of cereal monocultures. Firstly: a major ecological principal is the need to escape competition, in particular from the dominance of woody vegetation – grasslands worldwide manage this escape. Secondly, cereal fields are a close mimic of the wild annual grasslands that supported our pre-agricultural ancestors over 10,000 years ago. These natural fields of one species were maintained by natural disturbance – flooding, fire, and grazing. From the dawn of agriculture farmers have mimicked this disturbance by tilling and weeding to reduce competition for the crop.
In addition, we may have a `monoculture of the mind’ for agroecology. Rather than a broad international acceptance of agroecology, it is dominantly promoted from a limited number of scientists in the United States, with the apparent intention of turning the agricultural clock back a hundred years or so.
First, grass fed beef produces more methane than feedlot beef. Why? Because that's what you find when you measure it, here's one such study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375217
Savory? He's fine if you are more interested in a good story than in finding out what actually happens. Here's a little critique: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.html
Now back to grass fed beef. The UCS stuff is about fat profiles. I was talking about bowel cancer which has nothing to do with fat profiles. Red meat causes bowel cancer (see World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 report) and the faty acid profile is irrelevant. It might be relevant to heart disease but to find out you'd at least need to confirm that Australians have less heart disease ... and since we have heaps of it, I doubt you can do that. It doesn't matter how often you say that this or that fat profile is healthy ... you need epidemiological data ... measure of relative death rates of people eating different diets. Our heart disease rates dropped here a couple of decades ago when we started to remove fat from dairy products (remember this is all grass fed fat) and reduced sheep intake (remember all our sheep were grass fed) and replaced it with chicken (grain fed!).
Agroecology is, indeed, not a new concept and it seems - based on the definition you highlight - that there are different interpretations of what it means. I defined agroecology in the article, and it's a bit broader than how you define it (referencing the WB). Species diversity is certainly key. But understanding the geographical complexity is also a part of the analysis. Here is how Stephen Gliessman, a pioneer in studying this work, talks about it: http://www.agroecology.org/Steve.html. I don't agree that those who are working on agroecology are taking us back in time. Quite the opposite, I see some amazing in-depth scientific research that looks at soil structure, water filtration and a host of other ecological components that seek to understand how farming and nature can work together symbiotically. Healthy soil is the foundation for farming and this is what I see progressive agroecological practitioners working on.
I'd love to learn more about your points on policy and subsidies. I realize that these are complex issues and federal policy is more than just direct payment subsidies. But there are plenty of other 'price supports' the the U.S. offers to farmers that ultimately end up acting as a subsidy - i.e. crop insurance.
Regarding methane production of pasture-raised versus grain-fed, this analysis has many variables to consider and it's not a black and white response. The study you referenced uses low-quality feeds for pasture raised animals and feed seems to be a major factor for methane emissions. A report by UCS (yet another one!) highlights several studies that assess this issue. They state: "Perennial pasture species typically sequester more carbon in soil than annual row crops used for feed grain concen- trates. On the other hand, cattle in CAFOs usually gain weight faster than cattle on pasture. The result is that feedlots may produce fewer methane and nitrous oxide emissions per unit of product, but pastures may offset that advantage by sequestering more carbon in the soil. However, best management practices can affect both the rate at which pasture soil sequesters carbon and the rate at which pasture plants grow—and thus the productivity of beef production—as well as other factors that influence methane and nitrous oxide emissions from pasture." http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/global-warming-and-beef-production-report.pdf
If that is the case, then I hypothesis that all the badgering by NGO and Gov will only move the needle a little bit.
The bold step is incorporating an ecological dimension into the existing economy. Okay, I hear you - that is folly, let's continue badgering - that too is folly, but NGO and Gov staff are well-trained in that.
Here is my money to my mouth: https://prezi.com/pvx9r5dykawt/the-role-of-shared-governance/
I have applied this six times and am fairly proficient in it.
Here is a point by point takedown of that Slate article: http://sheldonfrith.com/2015/12/14/why-the-slate-article-about-allan-savory-is-dead-wrong/