Home | About | Donate

Millions Face Hunger by 2030 Without 'Deep Transformation' of Agriculture: UN


#1

Millions Face Hunger by 2030 Without 'Deep Transformation' of Agriculture: UN

A new report from the United Nations released Monday brought another dire warning of the catastrophic consequences of climate change—that without putting immediate environmental safeguards into place, more than a hundred million more people could be driven into extreme poverty and hunger by 2030.


#2

The oligarchy might just decide on another era of Black Plague to wipe out 33% of the world's population.
Antibiotics no longer work, Ebola, Zika, and so on.
One of these days something is going to escape from some test lab some where and kill millions.
Food problem solved.


#3

At this rate it seems the powers that be are more willing to take a direct route by irradiating the world.


#4

Population control for those involved in creating "the big picture "


#5

That would be too dramatic, drastic and obvious to the few survivors.


#7

Whether it is from a lab, or naturally released (avian or swine flu) you are correct. We're past the point of human intervention.

I pray for a pandemic daily. or what passes for praying from an atheist, anyway. If we don't cut our number back in a drastic fashion, none of us will survive this. And we may NOT, even then.

And I'd go deeper than a third of us. Global carrying capacity for this planet is closer to 2 Billion people.


#8

As we frack and poison our water supply beyond use.


#9

I'm in two minds about it. On one hand yes it would reduce global population which will help with global warming, however if the rich can exempt themselves from such a plague then nothing will change, they will just horde over the wealth of those who died, and even if they won't be exempt, who has the right to decide who lives and who dies. Maybe then it would be best if the plague you hypothesize be completely uncontrollable, so that people don't have to fight over who lives and who dies.


#10

Essentially, we are past the point of no return. It will not be the "Walking Dead" zombies, but it will not be much better.

Fortunately, Mexico and peaceful pills ain't far from me-- insurance for an easy escape when the shit of all human history hits the fan. (That is when it is 'everybody for themselves")
Peace--


#11

Can you explain to me why with food surpluses we still have hunger?

Doesn't this make you wonder that the problem isn't food shortages or population but something deeper?

Could it be that poverty and not being able to afford food is the problem. Could it be capitalism is the big enormous elephant in the room that we don't want to discuss.


#12

For one thing, a massive amount of food is wasted -- about a third of the total produced.
www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts


#13

This carrying capacity of the planet is a false argument. It is determined by the present reality which is one of capitalist over-production and over-consumption.

From Wiki

Several estimates of the carrying capacity have been made with a wide range of population numbers. A 2001 UN report said that two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion with unspecified standard errors, with a median of about 10 billion.[4] More recent estimates are much lower, particularly if non-renewable resource depletion and increased consumption are considered.[5][6]
The application of the concept of carrying capacity for the human population has been criticized for not successfully capturing the multi-layered processes between humans and the environment, which have a nature of fluidity and non-equilibrium, and for sometimes being employed in a blame-the-victim framework.[7]
Supporters of the concept argue that the idea of a limited carrying capacity is just as valid when applied to humans as when applied to any other species. Animal population size, living standards, and resource depletion vary, but the concept of carrying capacity still applies. The carrying capacity of Earth has been studied by computer simulation models like World3.
Numbers of people are not the only factor. Waste and over-consumption, especially by wealthy people and nations, is putting more strain on the environment than overpopulation


#14

120 million people without food means that somewhere heads are going to roll and someone is going to become a "terrorist". Most people don't like starving to death quietly. Poverty and starvation breed anger. France, 1792 among others..


#15

Indeed there is food waste, in the developing world, not so much at the consumer end as in the US but at the producer side. No storage facilities, no electricity, no transport. But farmers are among those who are suffering from malnutrition

But study India...A food exporter yet millions are hungry there.

I could cite Ethiopia during the Horn of Africa famines still sending food overseas.

Why do you think Californians during the recent drought were not starving but in Africa a drought results in tragedy. .... Population numbers had nothing to do with it...wealth did..


#16

Climate change is already impacting agriculture. Here in Alberta, we currently have 6 inches of snow on the ground and the harvest has ground to a halt. A dry spring, followed by the wettest summer on record, and now this snow...it's bad news for farmers. Cattle prices are poor as well.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2993108/bad-harvest-conditions-hurting-western-canadian-farmers/


#17

"Without 'widespread adoption of sustainable land, water, fisheries and forestry practices, global poverty cannot be eradicated,' it states,": And none of this can happen in a capitalist system.


#18

"There are less hungry people today than in the mid-20th century because food supply expansion has continued to outstrip population and food consumption growth in the second half of the 20th century – thus lowering food prices. Why do people go hungry? Mainly because they do not have the means to get enough food, whether by producing it themselves or by purchasing it.

There is more than enough food to feed the world. All those who currently go hungry can be adequately fed with about two percent of current food production, much more of which is wasted or lost. The main problem is one of distribution or access, rather than production or availability.

There are less hungry people today than in the mid-20th century because food supply expansion has continued to outstrip population and food consumption growth in the second half of the 20th century – thus lowering food prices. This may well have been the main reason for the decline of poverty as food costs are the main expense in determining poverty line incomes.

With decelerating population growth and rising life expectancy in many parts of the world, food supply will still need to increase, but less rapidly — by about 60% between now and 2050, much less than the 170% increase between 1961 and 2007. Without massive increases in land productivity, farmland will need to increase by some 70 million hectares globally, mainly in a few countries of Latin America and Africa. Yield improvements are expected to account for about 80% of crop production growth, with productivity improvements more modest than in the past."

http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/10/we-can-eliminate-hunger-and-poverty-quickly-with-greater-commitment/


#19

Why do I get the feeling that the people in the regions of the world with the highest fertility rates aren't going to be reading this UN sponsored report, much less do anything about it? We've known this for at least the last 50 years, but let's just keep breeding like rabbits and hope some agricultural miracle will save us and the planet.


#20

Millions Face Hunger by 2030 Without ‘Deep Transformation’ of Agriculture: UN

First, what is “transformation” and what is “Deep transformation”? How will any of these be practiced, or what will be the method of carrying out transformation or deep transformation? What will any of these achieve concerning foods—safe foods or unsafe (toxic, allergenic, carcinogenic and deadly) foods? These are the vital and absolutely necessary and important issues that should be dealt with (settled) before approval is given to the statement.

Concerning the statement by Ban Ki-moon—"As the global population expands, we will need to satisfy an increasing demand for food"—it would be taken by ignorant and naive people as humanitarian or consciousness of ethical responsibility to the populations and intended to motivate action to "satisfy increasing demand for food".

But every person who is knowledgeable about the demands, interests, activities and intentions of big biotechnology (VIO-technology) companies and genetic engineering (Genetic RE-engineering) companies—namely Monsanto, DuPont, Monsanto/Beyer, etc—concerning who should have rights over the sources of foods and food economics, as well as the demands, interests, activities and intentions of very rich people of the USA and Europe—Bill Gates, etc—concerning GM food and population reduction, knows that it is a statement made to help them achieve their interests and intentions and NOT made out of humanitarian intention or ethical consciousness that the populations of the world lack foods while they should have foods satisfactorily.

Why?

Because there is eternally parallel difference between Food and GM food. The "GM" is the source of the difference. The difference is that the populations of the nations of the world have consumed Foods and lived, mostly to old ages, for centuries since man came into existence in the world, while feeding with GM food, which is not more than thirty years old, has caused increased food toxicity, allergenicity, carcinogenicity and immunogenicity, resultant in increasing deaths due to these.

The source of the difference is: "VIO" in VIO-companies read earlier. it means the violation of the natural laws that dictate the nature of natural organisms, the constitution of their genomes and the order of their DNAs, and the natural laws that regulate the expressions of their genes and both dictate and regulate the functions of the proteins expressed by the genes, all of which are carried our precisely and specifically.

Alternatively: RE-engineering expresses the truth about the method of producing/developing GMOs, because this is, very precisely, the extraction and transfer of DNAs and genes from more than one organism, including the DNA of a bacterium and gene from a targeted organism, and the transfer of these into the genome of one completely different and distinctive organism using bacteria, viruses and gene gun. This causes the toxicity, allergenicity, carcinogenicity, immunogenicity—false-directing of immune system or harm to immune system function—etc.

Because GM foods kill, NOT feed, to give GM foods to any population of a nation is not to feed the people; it is to kill or murder them. Therefore, NO honest food company or farmer should produce GM food and not honest or ethical person who promotes human life or food safety should promote or defend GM food. Moreover, honest world leaders and the nations of the world MUST resist GMOs and GM foods produced and provided or imposed under the pretense of feeding people or satisfying the food need of the increasing population of the world.

Any proof GM foods are not safe or deadly?
Yes, PLENTY but only four are given here, namely:

1). NO safety study of any GM food by any independent and expert researcher or group of independent and expert researchers followed by independent and expert peer review has shown that it is safe anywhere in the world, NOT EVEN ONE!

2). Well-designed, independent, thorough and honest safety studies of ALL GM foods have shown that they are toxic, allergenic or carcinogenic, or expressed more than one of these characteristics.

3a), the first GM food, Calgene's GM tomato, named Flavr Savr, expressed acute toxicity when it was fed rats to investigate its safety before approval for its marketing would be given by the USFDA. It was withdrawn because of the toxicity.
3b). While Dr. Arpad Pusztai strongly desired to prove that GM foods are safe and, therefore, earn world consultancy right for Rowet Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, where he worked, but the GM potato the safety of which he experimented disappointed him by expressing toxicity, causing lesion, and deadly harm to the vital organs of the rats that he experimented with. The experiment was peer-reviewed by Dr. SWA Ewen and by SIX experts for Lancet instead of two. This experiment is the source of the impetus for public and governments’ rejection of GM foods until and except safety is established and shown to have been established.
3c). Gilles-Eric Seralini and others showed that Monsanto's GM corn, NK 603, claimed safe by the company was actually carcinogenic and toxic and, hence, deadly to both female and male rats experimented with. This 2012 experiment is the longest feeding experiment and best proof of the deadliness of GM foods so far. It was repeated in 2014 and STANDS true.
3d). The GM milk produced by Showa Denko KK, caused the death of not less than 21 people, the permanent disability of not less than 1,500 people, and different degrees of allergenic reactions to not less than 2,000 people in 1989 in the USA.

As for population reduction interest and intention, see Bill Gates’ TED Lecture on how to reduce climate change. In the lecture he argued assertively and categorically that the only way to achieve this, learnt from "every expert I consulted", according to him, is to reduce the population of the world by at least ten percent.


#21

The Land Institute is doing interesting research in developing perennial crops. One of particular interest is Kernza, which is basically a perennial grain. Ever notice how bio-agro-tech companies aren't trying to genetically engineer perennial grains or legumes? No, they want to ge annuals; that way they can get yearly sales from return/dependent customers/farmers. So, its up to folks like the Land Institute to do good old fashioned breeding to solve the world's food problem.