Home | About | Donate

With Just 1% of Farms Controlling 70% of Global Farmland, Study Reveals 'Shocking' Level of Land Inequality

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/24/just-1-farms-controlling-70-global-farmland-study-reveals-shocking-level-land


And if that 1% which controls 70% of the farmland subscribe to chemical farming and in turn a tainted food supply … it’s no wonder why the world is sick.

Additionally, after what drumpf and the republicans did to big agri via China, tariffs, it seems that big agri still came out and voted for them. Must’ve been those billions in welfare checks that republicans and republican farmers hate except for when they’re on the receiving end that did the trick. Just ask Ernst. Ernst, you know, the one who swore to castrate liberal spending, make them squeal like a pig being castrated which she knows all about as a former pig farmer, and who swore to drain the swamp. Ernst, who seems to have lost her voice and love of castrating in the face of record republican/drumpf spending deficits, and a runaway out of control swamp.


Appreciate the focus on control of land and agricultural land. Not sure the proposed solutions - The report outlines a number of possible steps: democratize land governance; strengthen land-related regulation; invest in well-functioning land registries; strengthen transparency and monitoring of land holdings; legally enforce responsible corporate practice; Protect common and customary rights; recognize and protect women’s land rights; respect and strengthen civil society institutions and capacities; and build more sustainable and equitable production models and food systems. “A transformative agenda of this magnitude is not optional,” the report concludes. “It is urgent and is in the interests of all humanity, for more resilient, sustainable, and equitable societies.” - can realistically be implemented without worldwide mass grassroots organizing and solidarity to build power to confront and dis-empower the owning class, to institute broad wealth reform, land reform, democratization and deep decolonization of the political economy.


Why is this ‘Shocking’?   Big Ag is just one part of the New Age of Techno-Feudalism that’s been building for decades.  It’s like I’ve said a few times now —

1984 . . .    Here At Last!!!


Ahh, THERE is John Galt.

With just a few practical tweaks some referred to in this article, the world food production system could easily satisfy the needs of an extra 12.5 billion people. There is no food problem. There is only a problem of capitalism. We shouldn’t fall for the food shortage myths propagated by the profit-motivated Big Ag corporations, foolishly repeated by a few environmentalists.



This is ridiculous. “A few practical tweaks?” We need to entirely transform the food system, land ownership, wealth distribution, the political economy…

And even granting those deep, wrenching social transformations: No, this Earth will not “easily” feed 20 billion humans.

Your faith-based mythology appears as delusional as any.

I’m left wondering if you even bothered to read the link much less go to the original source of it. But i think you are more offended by my poor choice of words rather than the substance of the claim. Let me clarify. Capitalism cannot solve its problems because profits drive the food industry and their market model depends on maintaining shortages. I’m not minimizing the problem, just placing the situation in perspective. Take away the need for financial return for Big Ag and we have no problem that cannot be simply and easily fixed. It is capitalism that makes it a complex and complicated issue since it is trapped in the cash nexus paradigm.

This is not the only research that says that there is no food problem. We already produce an abundance of food and it is the distribution problem that causes almost a billion people to go without. Can’t Pay. Can’t Have.

I could provide a long list of qualified and informed investigations into food production to show that there is no shortage and if society was run correctly, there would be none either with the expected increase in populations, which itself is an over-exaggeration.

The tweaks i talk about are practical policies that a socialist system would incorporate into its planning. What may in your opinion be delusional is convincing people to jettison the capitalism - but that begins with people like yourself actually rejecting capitalism, no longer trying to futile fix it and helping to do that transformation and that is indeed challenging but not insurmountable

My interest in food and hunger arose many years ago when an Oxfam volunteer explained that he had never been in a famine where he didn’t see food for sale in the market. What he found was no-body but the wealthy had the money to buy it.

Please read the original source material by The Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, NY, at


~https://commons.commondreams.org/t/scientists-say-net-zero-by-2050-is-too-late/84308/25 (see my comment in another thread)

Of course there is “enough food” to feed everyone. That’s far from the only problem with capitalism. The ecology of the Earth is seriously destabilized under relentless industrial assault, and is in the early stages of what is likely an irreversible process of gross simplification, recognized by scientists as the Sixth Mass Extinction event in Earth’s history. No “tweaks” will reverse this assault, or give the ecology of the planet an opportunity to re-stabilize.

We need a complete transformation of agriculture, to end industrial ag, end GMO chemical commodity mono-cropping, end CAFOs and industrial meat and the GMO corn and soy monocrop plantiations that feed them, shrink the total footprint of agriculture on the planet, and allow large areas to re-wild. We need to move, and fast, from the predominant fossil-fuel and chemical intensive industrial ag that depletes soil life, soil carbon, biomass and biodiversity, to a more labor-intensive agroeocolgy that restores living soil and increases soil carbon, biomass and biodiversity. We need people all over the planet to practice ecology and agroecology, to produce food for humans without ecological devastation.

That’s just talking about agriculture.

And if we manage to do all that, which would require ending the rule of capital and redistributing the concentrated wealth and property of the preposterously greedy looting class, then feeding 20 billion of us would be a stupid goal and a stupid projection.

And that’s not to mention other potentially irreversible processes underway, including carbon-release feedback loops that very well may have us on a fast road to catastrophic climate disaster no matter what steps we take now.


We are really on the same page and my attempt to emphasize that the solutions are not rocket-science but relative simple ones (i said tweaks because they are mostly technical adjustments) if the will was present to change the economic structure of our society. And it is the latter that is the biggest problem facing humanity, not the actual reforms required.

As for feeding 20 billion, i don’t think i proposed it. I was merely stating we have the potential of feeding 12.5 billion more people I also said that the the population rise is now seen as an overestimate. The demographics suggest far less with de-population being the new problem for capitalism (albeit Africa will be an exception but it has the potential of the undeveloped Ghana Savannah lands)

There is no point having the recipes for a better world if we retain the political and economic structure that prevent their implementation. Firstly, though it is to challenge the myth that our planet has a fixed carrying capacity or that food shortages are a result of too many people.


OK thanks, i’m working hard to focus my reactions and not attack persons, still a work in progress.

1 Like

A few IMpractical tweaks, you mean — like #1 getting those who are current moderately well off to give up about 75% of what they now have — or #2 mining enough ore and producing enough oil (and energy) to produce all the steel and plastic that would be needed to build & power all the trucks and trains and ships and dog-carts that would be needed
to distribute all that “extra” food evenly around the world.

GROSS OVER-POPULATION is the ROOT cause of OVER-exploitation of the worlds limited resources and the resultant OVER-production of pulluting by-products.   If we do not humanely reduce the human population by significantly DEcreasing our birth rate then Mother Nature will inhumanely reduce the human population
by drastically INcreasing our death rate.
  Think Covid-19 is disrupting our lives?  You ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet!!

1 Like

As stated in my other reply, the real problem for capitalism is de-population. The fertility rate is going down globally. We may have an over-crowding urbanization situation, with capitalism driving people away from the rural areas to the mega-cities for work and improved infrastructure but we do not have too many people, per se.

But tell me if you seek de-population, what policy will you enact? China has ended its one-child family planning in failure…it is called the 1-2-4 problem, one active worker supporting parents and grand parents. What practical measures do you envisage that are not already being carried out.

Birth rates are falling but death rates are falling even faster. We have greater number of babies surviving and elderly people are living longer. What is the eugenic solution? …infanticide and euthanasia?

The best contraceptive in the world is raising living standards and women’s empowerment. Even in Muslim patriarchal countries, there is a decline projected in populations.

Yes we still have a rise in population… It is called demographic momentum (look it up)…but it will end and the population, if current trends persist, will begin to decline.

On thing capitalism has created is a very efficient global logistic supply line…from field to fork…I have travelled extensively, frequently off the tourist beaten track and i don’t think i ever been to a place that Coca Cola hadn’t been there before me.

As i already said, even now we provide a surplus of food but the distribution problem is not one of transportation (although that can be a major contribution to food going to waste) but distribution in the sense that capitalism is only interested in what is called effective demand - the ability to buy and so the market excludes the poor.

Cut flowers in Kenya for the Amsterdam garden centers rather than growing food, cash crops such as soya and palm not for human consumption but for livestock or fuel because they earn better returns than meeting people’s food needs.

And for your ores, the most vital for industry are provided by the most impoverished countries such as the Congo, looted and pillaged by multinationals, so that you and i can sit at home with our lap-tops and exchange comments.

Yes, some things will need to change, such as the privileged luxury of the consumerist developed nations.

The economics of capitalism is the problem, not people. That is the ROOT cause. If you don’t understand that, you are part of the problem.


The ROOT cause is that the medical advances circa 1700 and after which lowered the death rates were not accomp­anied by – as you say, education and empowerment of women and an equivalent lowering of the birth rate – hence we have GROSS Over-Population.  The resultant over-consumption of resources and the over-production of polluting by-products is greatly EXACERBATED by Capitalism and Over-POPE-ulation.

Who denies that medical advances contributed to the lowering of baby deaths and older people living longer.

We can argue about the date that the benefits of better medicine and treatment began to accrue benefits. I suggest a much later date. Mass vaccinations were the turn of the 19/20th C. I also suggest perhaps more when free or cheap health-care began to be implemented…at least in all the civilized countries which may exclude the USA.

But it is pointless to deny that women across the world have achieved increased reproductive rights over their bodies and with access to education and employment
and with female aspirations growing, family sizes have dropped as a consequence.

As for your inference that somehow the Catholic Church has had much of an influence on population rise - look at the stats for Italy and many other predominantly Catholic countries. Whatever the Pope and the priests are saying, the women aren’t listening. Similarly, the futility of the Imams.

Actually, if one religion that is having the most impact, it is American evangelicals forcing American foreign aid and charities to curtail family planning, due to their anti-abortion stance.

1 Like