Food for All in the 21st Century by Gordon Conway Essay Example

17 million deaths are attributed to these nutritionally deficient children, with malnutrition playing a crucial role in about a third of these cases. These children often do not consume enough protein, vitamins, minerals and other vital micronutrients. It is estimated that vitamin A deficiency affects 100 million children worldwide and it's widely recognized for its potential to cause visual impairments. Annually, due to this deficiency half a million youngsters partially or completely lose their vision which unfortunately leads to numerous subsequent deaths. Recent research indicates that the impacts of Vitamin A deficiency might be even more harmful and widespread than earlier thought as it seems to weaken the child's immune system's ability to combat infections.

Iron deficiency, a common health issue, affects one billion people in developing nations. Over 400 million women of childbearing age (15-49 years) suffer from anemia due to this iron insufficiency. This condition can lead to the birth of undernourished or stillborn babies and increases their mortality risk during childbirth. Anemia is linked with over 20 percent of all maternal deaths after delivery in Asia and Africa. Intriguingly, despite a significant drop in worldwide food prices in the past two decades, hunger remains widespread. It's important to highlight that even though many developing countries have sufficient food supply to meet demand, hunger continues to be a major problem.

Despite potential reductions in the cost of food, prices still remain disproportionately high for those living in poverty to afford. The market may be fulfilling its demand, but many people are unable to purchase basic food necessities, rendering the market irrelevant to them. It's not unexpected that hunger and poverty are intimately connected. Initially, it

appears as if urban areas suffer from intense levels of poverty; however, comparatively speaking, inhabitants of urban slums are somewhat better off. Consider for instance that malnutrition rates in Peru's highlands exceed those in its capital city Lima by five times. A significant number of the poorest 20 percent individuals in developing nations - about 130 million - primarily inhabit illegal settlements and slums within cities. Nevertheless, an even larger fraction of this poor population - approximately 650 million - live mostly within rural regions.

The majority of impoverished individuals in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia reside in rural areas.4 A few of these are situated in regions that have high agricultural possibilities and populated areas such as India's Gangetic plain and the island of Java. However, approximately 370 million of these rural poor reside in zones where agricultural potential is low and the natural resources are wanting, like in the Andean mountains and the Sahel. The priority is to understand why it's vital to be concerned about this situation. It can be assumed that regular Environment readers are not facing food insufficiency. Yet, does the deprivation faced by others bear any relevance? Should industrialized nations be bothered about malnutrition in developing countries? Politics forms part of the answer to these inquiries.

Global stability hasn't seen a marked improvement despite the end of the Cold War. The easing tension between East and West has not diminished the fast-growing disparity among individuals, countries, and regions exerting global influence versus those that are sidelined. Yet, this growing inequality capable of sparking potential unrest is often neglected in developed economies. A stagnation can be observed in terms of real agricultural aid

being channelled to developing nations. It's essential to recognize that unless we either help these emerging countries achieve self-reliance in food production, job creation, housing or support them in securing means to buy food globally for their growing populations, problems could escalate further. At the same time, the rising interconnectedness of our world - widely known as globalization - may serve an important role in alleviating or even eliminating poverty and hunger. Despite its tendency to concentrate power and deepen inequalities, globalization also holds financial and technological potentials that can significantly enhance lives for both affluent and impoverished people.

A lot is contingent on the prioritization and especially, on whether the impoverished have ample access to the economic potentialities brought forth by new technologies. Forecasts for 2020 reveal that if there are no novel interventions, poverty and hunger will rise due to the increasing populations of developing countries. Approximately an additional 1.5 billion people will require nutrition by 2020. If the rate of malnutrition in these nations stays constant, those not receiving adequate food could exceed one billion in about two decades.

Predicting the future of global food provision in this century is complex. Estimating worldwide food output is challenging. However, economic models offer some encouraging indicators.5 These suggest that as the global population expands in the upcoming two decades, there will be a proportional increase in food production, leading to a continued decrease in food costs. Nevertheless, it's anticipated that developing nations collectively may struggle to fulfill their market demands.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) forecasts a food shortage of approximately 190 million tons by 2020, necessitating imports from developed countries. However, these predictive models

often create more issues than they resolve. They notably overlook the nutritional needs of the impoverished and starving. Similar to real-life scenarios, these individuals are priced out of the market leading to their needs being ignored. Despite projections indicating a small decrease in worldwide child malnutrition with numbers declining to roughly 155 million by 2020; this figure is estimated to rise nearly fifty percent in sub-Saharan Africa.

It's probable that chronic malnutrition may afflict about three-quarters of a billion people. Simultaneously, these models forecast promising increases in agricultural yields and production. However, there are inklings, largely anecdotal, of escalating problems in agricultural production in areas where substantial growth in yield is observed. Consider Punjab as an instance; despite the ongoing rise in wheat yields, this achievement now faces grave risks.⁶ The intensifying water scarcity is a prime worry. In some heavily cultivated regions, the groundwater level has fallen to somewhere between 9-15 meters and persists to decline at roughly half a meter per year.

Based on anecdotal evidence and other data from regions like Luzon, Java, and Sonora, there's a growing concern about the sustainability of crop yields in areas impacted by the Green Revolution.7 Observations show that these yield growth rates are on the decline.8 There are various factors contributing to this scenario.9 In particular regions of Asia, dropping cereal prices have led farmers to invest more resources into high value cash crops. The primary issue remains the stagnation or non-improvement of maximum rice and maize yields in recent periods.

The accumulative impact of environmental degradation, which is partially due to agriculture, is a third aspect to consider. There is a noticeable decline in harvest yields in

nearly all long-term experiments with cereal crops in less developed nations. This environmental damage linked to Agriculture is well known.10 We're seeing soil erosion and fertility loss, the waste of vital water resources, overgrazing of rangelands, deforestation, and overfishing. Additionally, the extensive use of pesticides has led to serious issues.

Human illnesses and death rates are on the rise as pests are becoming more resistant and evading natural regulation. In the heavily cultivated regions across both developed and under-developed countries, considerable fertilizer usage is resulting in nitrate reserves in potable water, nearing or surpassing the allowed limits. This consequently boosts the chances of governmental limits being implemented on fertilizer applications. Other contaminants originating from agriculture carry the potential for even more extensive destruction.

Although it is often industries that are accused, the contribution of agriculture to pollution is becoming increasingly prominent on both local and global levels. Its primary emissions consist of substantial quantities of methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide.11 While the production of these gases naturally escalates, intensified agricultural practices in both developed and developing nations speed up their emission rates. These gases individually or collectively result in environmental problems such as acid rain, depletion of stratospheric ozone layer, accumulation of tropospheric ozone, and global warming. Their detrimental effects on nature and human health are widely recognized. However, there's a significant irony given that these situations also inflict substantial adverse impacts on agriculture itself - underlining its paradoxical position as both a contributor to and casualty of global pollution.

In principle, industrialized nations have the capacity to provide sustenance for the whole world. Yet, this would necessitate a colossal amount of food aid, significantly surpassing current

contributions. This would impose considerable strain on both the donating and receiving parties. The environmental implications for developed nations would be substantial, while for developing nations, receiving exorbitant amounts of free or cut-rate aid could potentially reduce local prices and undermine local food production.

Crucially, the given situation suggests that a significant segment of the developing nations' population might be unable to partake in worldwide economic expansion. An alternate proposition involves these countries pursuing speedy and extensive growth, encompassing not just food production, but also agriculture and natural resource progress. This should ideally be a component of a comprehensive development strategy, geared towards fulfilling their internal food requirements, notably for the underprivileged. Subtly, this proposition acknowledges that ensuring food security is not only about producing enough food.

In rural regions, the financial and employment stability of the impoverished greatly affects their food security just as much as food production does, with agricultural and natural resource development playing a significant role in both aspects. This level of food security, in addition to a good education standard, also greatly influences family size. Women, when presented with a secure environment and good educational opportunities, are more likely to seize new prospects and plan effectively for themselves and their families. Sensible development in agricultural and natural resources can also significantly aid in improved environmental preservation and conservation. Lastly, strong growth in agricultural and economic sectors can boost global trade and offer substantial advantages to all nations, including both developed and developing economies. Considered together, these factors indicate a need for a new Green Revolution that does not merely repeat the success of the first one. The technologies birthed from the first

Green Revolution came from experiment stations with fertile soils, well-managed water sources, and other high-production conducive conditions. However, there was hardly any understanding or acknowledgement of the various physical environments of farmers or their unique social and economic situations.

The upcoming Green Revolution must not only be tailored for the direct benefit of the less fortunate, but it must also adapt to a wide array of conditions and promote environmental sustainability. Essentially, the requirement is for a Doubly Green Revolution which surpasses the productivity of the initial Green Revolution and advances further in preserving natural resources and the environment.12 Over the subsequent thirty years, the agenda should be to mirror the feat of the Green Revolution on a worldwide level across varying locales, while fostering fairness, sustainability, and environmental protection. Such is the blueprint for a Doubly Green Revolution.

Successful agricultural development doesn't have a fixed formula, but there's a general agreement on numerous vital elements. These entail: economic policies that treat agriculture, forestry, and fisheries equally; open markets for agricultural inputs and outputs with significant private sector participation; robust rural financial institutions that provide all sorts of farmers with access to credit, inputs, and marketing services. In certain scenarios, land reforms or redistribution may be necessary: appropriate rural infrastructure such as irrigation, transport, and marketing. Prioritizing rural education, sanitation, health, nutrition initiatives, and family planning; special emphasis on meeting the necessities of women as well as ethnic and other minority groups while guaranteeing their legal rights; and the effective creation and diffusion of suitable agricultural technologies cooperatively with farmers is critical. Although each component has been discussed separately, in reality, they are intricately linked to each

other.

Though essential, the economic liberalization of developing nations and the reformation of global trade policies alone are not enough to stimulate substantial agricultural growth. Sustained expansion of agricultural production can only be achieved with substantial investments in rural infrastructure as well as agricultural research and development. In fact, without this essential investment, the effects of free-market policies may underperform and cause governments to become doubtful of market-centric approaches.

Critical contributions to reducing poverty and decreasing inequality, particularly in the immediate future, won't occur unless specific attention is paid to the underprivileged. Necessary measures encompass creating job opportunities for those who are without land or have limited land, enhancing productivity in small, medium-sized and large farms, ensuring proximity to input and output markets, and focusing on regions with less favorable agroclimatic conditions and resources - not solely the best ones. The inference here is that the task of innovating agriculture, especially within developing countries, cannot be entrusted solely to market dynamics.

As a rule, private research tends to concentrate on significant high-value crops, technologies that save labor, and the requirements of capital-intensive agriculture. Conversely, research dedicated to providing for the impoverished is less appealing. This type of research often takes a considerable amount of time, for instance when creating new types of minor staple plants. It possesses a high level of risk, especially when focused on diverse environments with high climatic or other variations. Additionally, the recipients of the benefits rarely have the financial capability to fund this research. The benefits cannot be limited to only those who can afford it, and it is seldom possible to secure intellectual property rights.

The intricacy of these obstacles is overwhelming,

showcasing a level of sophistication that surpasses previous experiences. Nonetheless, this endeavor seems feasible due to the emergence of two pivotal advancements in modern biological science. The first pertains to the rise of molecular and cellular biology. This field, along with its corresponding technologies, has profound implications on our capacity to comprehend and alter living organisms. (To learn more about this, refer to L. Levidow's write-up titled "Regulating Bt Maize in the United States and Europe: A Scientific-Cultural Comparison," in Environment's December issue, and R. Paarlberg's piece "Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: Promise or Peril?," on page 19 of this release.)

Biotechnology Until now, the success of the Green Revolution has primarily leaned on meticulously conventional plant breeding to produce new beneficial plant and animal varieties. Presently, biotechnology and specifically genetic engineering provide a quicker method to carry out these processes. More importantly, these techniques are crucial in enhancing yield potentialities, minimizing excessive pesticide usage, enhancing the nutrient composition of staple foods and equipping farmers on less preferred lands with strains that can better tolerate drought, salinity, and nutrient-poor soils. The use of biotechnology for improving rice varieties has shown promising initial results.

In the last decade and a half, the Rockefeller Foundation has allocated approximately $100 million towards plant biotechnology research and has educated over 400 scientists from Asia, Africa and Latin America. There are now several areas in Asia where a sizable group of skilled individuals are applying modern biotechnological methods to boost rice production. Up to this point, the majority of new strains have come from tissue culture and marker-aided selection procedures. For instance, the La Fen Rockefeller, a rice strain created through

tissue culture, is facilitating farmers in the Shanghai region with yield gains between 5 and 15 percent. The West Africa Rice Development Association's scientists have similarly utilized tissue culture to combine the high-yield Asian rice strains with the customary African varieties.

The outcome is a novel plant variant that, during its initial phases of growth, resembles African rice (thriving in arid conditions and capable of overshadowing weeds) but evolves into something more akin to Asian rice when it matures, resulting in enhanced yields with reduced input. In order to accumulate two or more genes for resistance to the same disease and consequently enhance resistance to pathogens and make the rice plants more resilient against drought, marker-aided selection is employed in rice cultivation. In the foreseeable future, this will likely represent the utmost effective application of biotechnology in the context of cereal production.

Significant strides are being made in the creation of genetically modified cereals for underdeveloped nations, mirroring the efforts seen in advanced nations. The primary focus remains on enhancing the plants' resistance to diseases and pests. However, researchers from Mexico have introduced genes into rice and corn that imbue them with a tolerance for aluminum toxicity. Similarly, scientists from India inserted two genes into rice that seem to fortify the plant against prolonged submersion. The understanding that major cereals' genes are allelic versions evolving from a shared gene pool in a common ancestor suggests a vast scope for exchanging genetic data across cereals, as well as transferring alleles between different cereals to adjust characteristics.

For instance, it has been recently discovered that the genes responsible for dwarfism in wheat, maize, and other crop plants are alleles (different

forms of the same gene found at a certain position on a chromosome).13 There's potential in the future to increase crop yields by enhancing photosynthesis efficiency or improving stomata regulation.14 The most substantial breakthrough to date, has been the incorporation of genes that generate beta-carotene within the rice grain.15 Despite its presence in the leaves of the rice plant, traditional plant breeding techniques failed to transfer it into the grain.

The genetically modified rice has a mild golden-yellow tint and is rich in betacarotene, providing enough vitamin A to fulfill human needs from rice alone. This "golden" rice presents a chance to support vitamin A supplementation efforts, especially in remote rural regions that are challenging to access. The same researchers have similarly introduced genes to rice that enhance its bioavailable iron content by more than three-fold. Over the following decade, significant advancements are expected in the introduction of multiple genes focusing on output traits or hard-to-achieve input characteristics. The possibilities with genetic engineering appear nearly infinite.

However, the advantages come with dangers, some factual, others speculative. A heated discussion in Europe brings up valid issues about morality, environmental impact, and possible effects on human health.17 It's evident that developed nations are better prepared to evaluate these perils. They have access to a variety of expert opinions, and most have now established regulatory authorities and require stringently supervised trials to determine the probable risks before introducing genetically modified crops and livestock into the ecosystem. To date, only a handful of developing nations have such legislation in place.

While the dangers may sometimes be over-exaggerated, realizing the clear advantages for developing countries requires everyone involved to ensure that danger assessments

are as thorough as in The Risks of Biotechnology. It's often challenging to clearly differentiate between traditional plant breeding methods, which have been used to modify nature for thousands of years, and biotechnology. However, the ability of genetic engineering to transfer genes across different genera, families, and even between animals and plants could potentially lead to unforeseen interactions and unknown results. Genetic engineering is a relatively new technology with which we have limited experience, hence, as we continue learning, we need to proceed with caution.

The most significant ecological threat involves the potential for organic strains to leak from cultivated crops into their wild counterparts or contaminate nearby organic farms. This worry is valid since genetic materials from traditional commercial crops can, and indeed do, crossover to organic crops, and vice versa. Such a transfer also happens between these crops and their wild equivalents, including self-fertilized crops like rice, which may interbreed with wild rice varieties. The key issues here revolve around whether such genes stay within their new wild hosts and whether they lead to detrimental eco-effects like the creation of super-weeds. Comprehensively monitored, well-planned field experiments are indispensable to gain insights on this matter. One possible remedy is embedding the related gene within the plastid's genome. It is noteworthy that in most crop types, plastids are inherited through the maternal line only and not via pollen.

One possible danger can come from plants carrying genes from viral pathogens that give them resistance to these very pathogens. Somehow, the manifestation of these viral genes interferes with the viral infection method in plants. However, the swapping of these genes with other viral pathogens could be

conceivable, leading to the formation of entirely new virus strains with unpredictable characteristics. Another significant risk that is widely recognized is the potential for pests to develop resistance to the toxins formed by Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes, along with some known mitigation strategies. One solution is to utilize refuges of crop plants that do not contain Bt.

Utilizing multiple toxin genes, each targeting a different molecular aspect, is another method. Past experiences highlight the crucial need to prepare for any potential failure of control. By introducing Bt into a diverse range of crops, there is a more significant selection pressure compared to merely applying the insecticide on one type of crop. It's essential to keep a close watch on insect populations for any sign of resistance and to consistently develop alternative strategies. There's prominent concern that genetically modified (GM) crops carrying antibiotic genes (which are used as selectable markers) might cause antibiotic resistance in humans or livestock.

Though the chance is relatively slight, current options for alternative selection technologies exist and should be incorporated. Worries also persist that through the introduction of new proteins into food items, transgenes may escalate allergies. Some fears, however, don't have a strong scientific foundation. There isn't any valid assumption to indicate that the gene transfer process itself poses a health threat. Similarly, there is no empirical reason to suggest that consuming fragments of transgenic DNA would probably be dangerous compared to the large amounts of DNA from various sources consumed daily in ordinary meals.

The crucial aspect to consider, beyond potential dangers, is who profits from biotechnology. Until now, biotechnology firms have primarily targeted developed nations due to their large markets, strong

patent protection, and relatively low risk. However, these companies are now shifting their focus towards developing countries, rigorously engaging in the identification and patenting of potentially beneficial genes. A solution to this issue partially lies in forming public-private alliances where genomic information and technology are provided to public plant breeders. Furthermore, such arrangements should guarantee that new crop varieties are accessible without cost to impoverished farmers in developing nations.

The Implementation of Ecology The subsequent progression is the appearance of contemporary ecology, a comparably influential field that swiftly amplifies the comprehension of the configuration and dynamism of both agricultural and organic ecosystems, producing insights for their efficacious and enduring governance. The broad-based fruitful implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) for handling rice pests in Southeast Asia exemplifies its attainable accomplishments. IPM analyzes each plant and pest scenario comprehensively and subsequently constructs a course of action that coalesces different control strategies considering all existing aspects.

In its current implementation, it merges contemporary technology such as the use of discriminative synthetic pesticides and engineered pest resistance, along with ecological control methods such as farming practices and utilization of natural predators and parasites. This results in sustainable and cost-effective pest management that frequently proves more economical than traditional pesticides.

A notable success story in recent times is the education of Indonesian farmers to identify and regularly check for brown planthoppers and other rice pests. This project has equipped farmers with easy, yet efficient methods for determining minimal essential pesticide use. As a result, the average number of pesticide sprays per season has reduced from more than four times to just under once, while there's been an increase in crop production from

6 tons to approximately 7.5 tons per hectare. Since 1986, rice output has grown by 15 percent and pesticide consumption has decreased by 60 percent, resulting in an annual savings on subsidies worth $120 million.

It was projected that the accumulative economic advantage until 1990 exceeded $1 billion.18 The health of the farmers has enhanced, and the reappearance of fish in the rice fields is a significant gain. The subsequent task is to broaden the principles of amalgamation recognized in IPM to other agricultural subsystems, nutrient preservation, and management of soil, water, and additional natural resources like rangeland. The formulation of highly amalgamated crop-livestock systems holds massive potential value where the soil structure and nutrients reap benefits from livestock manure and nitrogen-bearing capacity of forage crops. As demonstrated by African scientists, exclusively using inorganic fertilizers might result in crop yield stagnation. However, when used in conjunction with manure, they have the power to sustain consistent yield growth.

Prudent management of plant-animal ecosystems can form a beneficial cycle: Cowpea not only nourishes people directly and cattle, it also enhances milk and meat production, improves soil conditions by nitrogen fixation, and yields high-quality manure. The latter, serving as a fertilizer, further improves soil fertility, elevating output.19 Certain forage crops pinpointed by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) for mixed cropping have led to wheat yield surges of 30-100 percent and up to a 300 percent rise in fodder protein while locking in 55-155 kg of nitrogen per hectare.20 Farmers' involvement is critical. However, a successful Green Revolution Redux won't be achieved merely through biological techniques. The initial Green Revolution began with tackling the biological challenges in developing new high-yield

food crops, following which focus was shifted on how those benefits could be made accessible to the destitute.

This new shift demands a reworking of conventional reasoning, initiating with addressing the socioeconomic needs of impoverished households, and subsequently determining the relevant research priorities. A significant role for biologists will be to pay heed to these needs as much as providing guidance. The new shift will not be characterized by simplistic solutions or a multitude of miraculous breakthroughs. Highering food production will rely on focusing on local agroecosystems and optimizing the use of native resources, wisdom and analysis. Now more than ever, there is a need to establish authentic collaborations between biologists and farmers. Merely assessing new varieties on farmers' fields at the culmination of the breeding cycle will not suffice. Trials across various regions of the developing world suggest effective methods to involve farmers right from the onset - in developing new variations and the breeding process itself.

A five-year trial in Rwanda saw the early involvement of farmers in the breeding process.21 Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), a vital part of the Rwandan food consumption, exist in an immense variety of local strains- over 550 to be specific. The farmers, primarily women, excel at creating local blends that even breeders find challenging to enhance. During the study, farmers evaluated 80 breeding strains across three years, applying their personal standards to pare down the number of strains. The farmers marked their choice varieties on the station using colored ribbons. Consequently, a group of roughly 20-25 strains progressed to field trials on the farmer's lands.

Farmers previ