Docstoc

Food Matters Feeding 9 Billion Sustainability Affluent Societies

Document Sample
Food Matters Feeding 9 Billion Sustainability Affluent Societies Powered By Docstoc
					 Food Matters: Feeding 9 Billion,
Sustainability & Affluent Societies
What do we need to consider when choosing future
   food systems, for ourselves and the world?




   Sustainability: Educating for ACTion Conference, Wpg.
 Brian Kelly, Kelwin Management Consulting, Nov. 15, 2012 V.15
        204-261-0379 OR 204-981-5855 OR Email: bkelly@kelwin.ca
              Outline of Topics
 My biases-background
I. Agriculture & food supply systems
II. COLLISION–need/environment
III. Factors shaping divergent views
IV. Why business does what it does
V. How can we make sound decisions about our
food supply? Critical thinking needed. Beware of;
           Red herrings
           Red flags
VI. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution
VII. Recent balanced recommendations           2
I. Agriculture & Food Supply – a few basics

• Agriculture has big impact on environment
o Uses 40% of earth’s land surface
o Uses 70% of earth’s water withdrawals 
o Emits 30% of global GHGs
• Climate change threatens more drought, flooding and pests
• Climate change = negative impact on food production i
• Are more hungry than US, Canada & EU combined
• World’s poorest 2 billion spend 50-70% of income on food
                                                          3
        I. Agriculture & Food Supply (2)
• 1 billion are undernourished ii - at the same time as,
• 1 billion suffer chronic disease from excess food 
o1 in 6 worldwide - overweight/obese
oNot just in developed countries
oIncrease by 50% in next 10 years, primarily in poor 
countries
oBiggest global health epidemic ever.
• Global food demand : expected to double by 2050 iii
•Much of increase in poorest countries lacking arable land, 
water and resources for sufficient food. 
                                                           4
5
        I. Agriculture & Food Supply (4)

Life is good for most in developed countries
oFood plentiful, cheap, safe, nutritious and interesting
•Agriculture in Canada – 8% GDP & employs +2 million
•Canada is world’s 4th largest exporter of ag products
•1961 Canadians spent 19.1% income on food
•2011 spent only 10.2%  - only 53% of 50 yrs ago
•US pays even less = 9.7%

                                                           6
I. Agriculture & Food Supply (5)




                                   7
        I. Agriculture & Food Supply (6)

q May NOT be able to feed future populations

q Two Reasons:

 1.0 - Huge increase in demand for food


 2.0 - Environmental limits




                                               8
        I. Agriculture & Food Supply (7)


1.0 - Increase in demand:

    1.1 - 30% increase in earth’s population by 2050
    • 7 billion now
    • 9.1 billion in 2050




                                                       9
I. Agriculture & Food Supply (8)




                                   10
          I. Agriculture & Food Supply (9)
Increase in demand:
1.2 - Rising incomes and more “consumers”
•Bigger factor than population growth!
•325% increase in consumers by 2025
       o 0.8 billion now going to 2.6 billion by 2025
       o China, India & Asian tigers lead this shift
•Creates huge increase in demand for meat
•Requires much more feed grain for livestock
•One kg of meat from the following requires:
oChicken     = 2 kg feed (mostly grain)
oPork = 3-4 kg feed (mostly grain)
oBeef = 7-10 kg feed (partly grass/hay)
                                                        11
     I. Agriculture & Food Supply (10)



2.0 - Environmental limits:

Sets long term sustainable maximum production




                                           12
          II. COLLISION Occurring
         (Feed 9 billion-Sustainability)
q Collision between
• agricultural food production needs
• environmental limits




                                           13
          II. COLLISION Occurring (2)
          (Feed 9 billion-Sustainability)
q Solutions to the impending collision are divergent and 
  highly polarized ranging from;
• “Stay the course”
• Faith in science and technology
• A step back to a nostalgic view of farming
q Divergent views leads to:
• Lots of media coverage
• Lots of reports
• Lots of stories and emotion
• Results in “Common knowledge”


                                                            14
     III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views

Why are we so polarized?

1.0 Increasing Affluence and Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs iv
•Humans motivated by unsatisfied needs
•Lower needs must be satisfied before higher needs become 
the major motivation


                                                        15
fo




     16
   III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (3) 
                  Affluence - Maslow

Some in affluent countries seeking food they see as more:
•Environmentally friendly
•Healthy
•Less intensively grown
•Ethical
•Reflective of personal values
•Socially responsible, and
•Community centered
Examples include:
•Local and/or animal welfare friendly

                                                       17
18
III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (5)
                  Science is Complex

2.0 Science is a complex process
Can lead to distrust
•New fields/topics complex & uncertain
•Politicians and others forced to use mass media
•Mass media provide what people want:
•Simple
•Quick
•Certain
•‘Sound Bites’                                     19
   III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (6) 
                   Science is Complex

Distrust of science (continued)

qDilemma:
•Climate change is a good (unfortunate) example
•Confusion
•Little action




                                                  20
    III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (7) 
                    Science is Complex

Others embrace science and technology
•Must use all sustainable technology available to feed people
•“Crime against humanity” to not use scientifically safe, 
scientifically sustainable technologies
•G8 countries, G20, Bill & Belinda Gates Foundation and 
others of this view
•Chart shows what technology has achieved



                                                             21
22
Global Area of Biotech (GE) Crops
 Source: Clive James, 2010 & Milling Baking News, Mar. 8, 2011, p. 29




                                                                        23
    III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (10) 
                    Science is Complex

q   Biotech (GE) Crops 2010:
•   10% of total crops
•   Developing countries = 48% of area
•   29 countries
•   15.4 million farmers
•   14.4 million these: small scale, resource poor, in 
    developing countries
•   China = 6.5 million       India = 6.3 million
•   EU - now 8 countries 
•   French growing Bt corn
•   Drought tolerant corn for African conditions in 2017
                                                           24
  III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (11) 
               Science is Complex

q Example: Irradiation of food:
• 27,000 tonnes in Canada and USA annually
• 38 countries
• 40 food product types
• Belgium (since 1981)    10,000 t./yr
• France (since 1986)       10,000 t./yr
• Netherlands (since 1978)  20,000 t./yr
• Worldwide   500,000 t./yr


                                             25
  III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (12)

3.0 Business – societal views shifting
Modern food system seen by some as:
•controlled by industrialized, corporate, big, 
food giants; 
•duping consumers into making poor & 
unhealthy food choices leading to obesity, etc.


                                                  26
  III. Factors Shaping Divergent Views (13) 
           Business - shifting views
q Example:

Monsanto’s Roundup:

• ‘Common knowledge’ – Monsanto is bad




                                          27
Old tillage 
  based 
  summer- 
  fallow




               28
Chem-fallow
-Less erosion
-More organic 
matter
-Reduced 
fallow
-Standard 
practice in   W. 
Canada now

                    29
     IV. Why business does what it does

qBusiness Forces
1.0 Tremendous price competition
    Must innovate, have quality, safety, 
    convenience and all else, but price is
    dominant pressure from consumers, thus
    business has to keep costs low



                                             30
     IV. Why business does what it does (2)
              Business Forces
2.0 Economies of scale - Example 1:
•If larger machine makes 10x volume of small 
•If costs 4.0x as much 
•Result = 60% less depreciation & interest /unit made
•If same staff of smaller = 90% less labour cost/unit 
Result – huge pressure to go to big volume:
•Farm equipment and acres of crop or animal #
•Food processing plants

                                                         31
    IV. Why business does what it does (3)
              Business Forces
2.0 Economies of scale - Example 2:
•Logistics cost reductions from IT  (info. tech.)
•One time capital cost for IT, then save other costs
•Just-in-time delivery = eliminates unloading into 
warehouses, storage, re-loading out of warehouses, excess 
inventory write-offs, shortages on shelves, cost of 
warehouses, etc. Big Savings
•Leader was Wal-Mart. Direct shipping manufacturer to 
stores. Others then followed
•Dramatic economies of scale on IT costs
Result – huge pressure to go to big volume               32
     IV. Why business does what it does (4)
              Business Forces
2.0 Economies of scale - Example 3:
•Ocean, rail & truck cost reduction - containerization
•Infrastructure at every port (Big $)
•Dropped ship loading/unloading from  $5.83/t. to $0.16/t v. 
Reduced costs by 97%!
•With lower costs, trade volume grew fast and 
“globalization” occurred
•Bigger impact than trade agreements
•Dramatic economies of scale on infrastructure costs
Result – huge pressure to go to big volume
                                                         33
V. How can we make sound decisions about
            our food supply?

Critical Thinking needed. Experience says beware of:
•Red Herrings
•Red Flags




                                                       34
         V. Critical Thinking – Tips (2)


1.0 - Red Herrings:
E.g. Misdiagnosing Cause vs Effect
•Wastes time and resources
•Not effective
•Results in unintended consequences


                                           35
         V. Critical Thinking – Tips (3)
                 Red Herrings
Example 1:
•Often see blaming businesses for “leading consumers 
astray” 
•Generally businesses sell what people want, not the 
other way around
•If business stopped, another will take its place to 
serve those customers
•Better to educate consumer or regulate (e.g. smoking 
ban)                                              36
         V. Critical Thinking – Tips (4)
                 Red Herrings
Example 2:
•Do consumers regularly read the Nutrition Facts 
Label on the products they buy? 
•Study at U of MN (2011) found 33% of those 
interviewed said they almost always looked at a 
product’s calorie content on the label, but when 
monitored only 9% actually did


                                                    37
38
         V. Critical Thinking – Tips (6)
                 Red Herrings
Example 3:
•Proposition 37, The California Right to Know 
Genetically Engineered Food Act
•Fines for retail stores not complying
•Leg. Analyst’s Office – 40% to 70% of food 
products in CA now contain bio-engineered (GE) 
ingredients
•Would its objective have been achieved?
•(Was not passed)                                 39
          V. Critical Thinking – Tips (7)

2.0 - Red Flag Warnings: Three Types
•Emotional arguments
•Shoot the messenger – ‘character assassination’
•Simple solutions
If you hear any of the above:
Critical Thinking skills need to kick into high gear
à Seek alternate views
à Check facts 
à Seek references
                                                 40
 VI. The Future: One Size Does Not Fit All
q Sustainable, feeding of future population:
• No one answer
• Not an “either or” solution
• Mix of:
    • Conventional high tech intensive large scale
    • Smaller scale
    • Organic, local, etc.


                                                41
VI. The Future: One Size Does Not Fit All (2)

q Requires Holistic Objectives:
• Health
• Nutrition
• Affordability
• Availability
• Environmental sustainability



                                          42
               VI. The Future:
      Recent Balanced Recommendations
q Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment,
  Global Landscapes Initiative vi  - a smarter food 
  system includes:
• Stop conversion of grass & forest lands
• Intensify production to increase yields on existing 
  low yield lands (e.g. E. Europe, N.E. India, large 
  parts of Africa)
• Cut food waste (at all levels)
• Shift diets to reduce meat and dairy
                                                   43
              VI. The Future:
    Recent Balanced Recommendations (2)
               vii
q Draw ideas         from all systems that meet the
  goals:
• Increase food supply
• Reduce environmental damage
• Improve food security
Also, recommend - global certification system to 
  increase food supply and health of the planet – 
  apply stringent performance criteria to farming 
  systems meeting the above goals
                                                      44
                       VI. The Future:
             Recent Balanced Recommendations (3)
q Other balanced report recommendations are
  shown in Endnotes
        ii
       Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate 
    Change, March 28, 2012 released report, titled ‘World 
    Scientists Urge Key Actions for Achieving Food Security 
    in a Changing Climate’ 
And
iii  
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nov. 
    21, 2011, David Tilman, Regents Professor of Ecology in 
    the University of Minnesota's College of Biological 
    Sciences
                                                         45
    Food Matters: Feeding 9 Billion,
   Sustainability & Affluent Societies
What do we need to consider when choosing future
   food systems, for ourselves and the world?

        Questions – please
      Answers – if available J
         Also, see Appendices and End Notes

   Sustainability: Educating for ACTion Conference, Wpg.
 Brian Kelly, Kelwin Management Consulting, Nov. 15, 2012
 204-261-0379 OR 204-981-5855 OR Email: bkelly@kelwin V.16
APPENDIX 1
 
Irradiated Foods - Quick Facts
•Irradiation safely reduces existing bacteria & moulds in  many 
foods
•Irradiation is used to sterilize majority of medical disposable 
devices
•No chemical used - no chemical residue
•Irradiated food is eaten by astronauts
•Irradiated food is eaten in hospitals
•38 countries around the world currently use food irradiation
•500,000 tons of food was irradiated last year worldwide
•Has been the subject of intense research for more than 40 years
•For more information see:
http://www.ift.org/knowledge-center/learn-about-food-science/food-facts/why-are-foods-irradiated.aspx
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm261680.htm
http://lifesmarts.org/index.php?page=irradiation
                                                                                                        47
APPENDIX 2 
 
Added Information sources:
•The God Species – Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans” by Mark 
Lynas
•United Nations: http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-background-
documents/issues-briefs/en/  - it includes Oct. 2009 reports on the 
following:
•How to Feed the World in 2050
•Global agriculture towards 2050 
•The technology challenge 
•The special challenge for sub-Saharan Africa 
•Climate change and bioenergy challenges 
http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-background-documents/hlef-
presentations/en/ 

                                                                48
Endnotes
 
i
     Climate Wars, Gwyne Dyer, Random House Canada, 2008

ii
  . Source: Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change 
- Independent commission of scientific leaders from 13 countries, on 
March 28, 2012 released a detailed set of recommendations to policy 
makers on how to achieve food security in the face of climate change. 
Their report, titled ‘World Scientists Urge Key Actions for Achieving 
Food Security in a Changing Climate’ proposes specific policy 
responses to the global challenge of feeding a world confronted by 
climate change, population growth, poverty, food price spikes and 
degraded ecosystems. The report highlights specific opportunities under 
the mandates of the Rio+20 Earth Summit, the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Group 
                                                                    49
of 20 (G20) nations. 
Endnotes (Continued - 2)
 
ii
  . (Continued) The summary of the report is at  
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/bc-wsd032312.php
The full report is at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/commission/reports/
The Commission has created an animated video to illustrate why and 
how humanity must transform the way food is produced, distributed and 
consumed in response to changes in climate, global population, eating 
patterns and the environment. "To operate within a 'safe space' for 
people and the planet, the global community must operate within three 
limits: 
the quantity of food that can be produced under a given climate
the quantity needed by a growing and changing population, and 
the effect of food production on the climate
At present the planet operates outside that safe space, as witnessed by 
the enormous number of people who are undernourished.                 50
Endnotes (Continued - 3)
 
ii
  . (Continued) If current trends in population growth, diets, crop yields 
and climate change continue, the world will still be outside this 'safe 
operating space' in 2050. Humanity must urgently work to enlarge the 
safe space and also move the planet into the safe space.
See this video at http://bit.ly/SafeSpaceClimateFood  
Also see:
Big Question: Feast or Famine? - How are we going to feed a growing 
world without destroying the planet? See the excellent presentation at 
http://www.youtube.com/UMNIonE?v=F1IWkbU0SG4&lr=1
The Other Inconvenient Truth - Watch the TEDxTC presentation by 
Jon Foley on how agriculture is changing the face of the planet. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhgGbRA6Hk

                                                                     51
Endnotes (Continued - 4)
 
ii
  . (Continued) The Commission's Recommended Action Points are:
1.0 Integrate food security and sustainable agriculture into global and 
national policies
2.0 Significantly raise the level of global investment in sustainable
agriculture and food systems in the next decade 
3.0 Sustainably intensify agricultural production while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental impacts of 
agriculture 
4.0 Target populations and sectors that are most vulnerable to climate 
change and food insecurity 
5.0 Reshape food access and consumption patterns to ensure basic 
nutritional needs are met and to foster healthy and sustainable eating
habits worldwide
                                                                    52
Endnotes (Continued - 5)
 
ii
  . (Continued) 
6.0 Reduce loss and waste in food systems, particularly from 
infrastructure, farming practices, processing, distribution and household 
habits 
7.0 Create comprehensive, shared, integrated information systems that 
encompass human and ecological dimensions
 
iii
   .  New projection published Nov. 21, 2011 online by the Proceedings 
of the National Academy of Sciences, by David Tilman, Regents 
Professor of Ecology in the University of Minnesota's College of 
Biological Sciences, and colleagues, including Jason Hill, assistant 
professor in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource 
Sciences, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111121194043.htm
                                                                     53
Endnotes (Continued - 5)
 
iv
   . Maslow's hierarchy of needs developed by Abraham Maslow in his 
1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation". He described the pattern 
that human motivations generally move through.
v
 . The Price of a Bargain, The Quest for Cheap and the Death of 
Globalization, Gordon Laird, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, p. 142
vi
   . “Solutions for a cultivated Planet”, by a team of researchers from 
the U.S., Canada, Sweden and Germany, lead author Jonathan Foley, 
head of the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, 
Nature, Oct. 12, 2012
vii
    . Lead author Jonathan Foley, head of the Institute on the 
Environment at the University of Minnesota, Scientific American, 2012 
http://gli.environment.umn.edu/ 
                                                                      54

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:3/12/2014
language:Unknown
pages:54