I read a really interesting article in Newsweek at the end of October which tackled the question of how we are going to feed more than 9 billion people in the future. The population is predicted to rise to 9.6 billion people by 2050, and this makes the problem even more time-sensitive. The article explored a few different ways which we might be able to increase crop yield to feed our expanding population, such as greenhouses, reducing excessive edible food wastage and improving the efficiency of agricultural technology (Isaccson, 2015).
 |
| Source |
The bit which jumped out at me was the section on GM organisms, and whether they could help fill this production gap. I found it interesting how much produce is dictated by consumer demand, and how this has fluctuated between a demand for and against GMO products.
Bourne, an agronomist and journalist who is interviewed in the article, doesn't feel that GMOs will help feed 9.6 billion people as the increased yields using GMOs such as insect and herbicide resistant crops since 2000 have not been substantial enough.
He points out that there is an exception, C4 rice, a strain of rice which is engineered to have a 50% greater yield than normal, C3, rice. However, it is not widely used, and experts think that it may actually take 20-25 years to come into practice. The question is whether we have that long to develop solutions, or whether we must start now.
Bourne highlights an interesting alternative solution to the impending food crisis: vegetarianism. Statistics used in the article from the FAO show how we are actually using 1/3 of the available cropland to make food available for animals, and then another 26% of ice-free land mass to raise those animals. I wonder how much more food we could grow if we reduced our meat consumption and made this space available for crops, not to mention the benefits it would have in terms of reducing methane emissions?
Vegetarianism is a great environmentally-kinder alternative, and as a vegetarian I enjoy knowing that I am, at least in a tiny part, helping to reduce the amount of rainforest that gets trashed by overgrazing cattle. However, I don't think it would ever be a universal or even popular solution :(
ReplyDeleteSame here, I think a lot of work would need to go into educating everyone so that they had enough accurate information both for and against eating meat to make a decision, and even then people would still choose to eat meat. I don't think that global vegetarianism is possible!
DeleteMaybe one day, if Quorn products get really, really good :P
DeleteHi Holly, another vegetarian here. Going vegetarian is a great environmentally-friendly decision. Not only does raising livestock take up a lot of land which could be used for growing crops, it is actually a more inefficient system of energy transfer. I can't remember the exact figures, but meat production uses far more energy and water per calorie produced than crop production does. So for the same input of land, energy and water more calories can be gained from crop production than meat production (have a look at this article if you're interested: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html). If that doesn't seem like a solution to feeding a growing population, I don't know what is. But, yes, I still can't see a global conversion to vegetarianism, as nice as that would be.
ReplyDeleteHi Lucy, thanks for your comment! I think the chances of converting the world to vegetarianism are next to nothing! I think meat-free Mondays etc could be a good way of encouraging people to try to reduce their meat consumption though? Like you say, meat production is inefficient and I think doing what we can to encourage people to find alternatives is really worth it, for GHG emissions and health.
DeleteYes, there is very little hope for global vegetarianism, but even a reduction in meat consumption would make a massive difference. Now to encourage everyone to do meat-free Mondays....
Delete