Feeding the 9 Billion: Changing the Narrative

At the Oxford Real Farming Conference in January this year I attended a lecture titled Changing the Narrative. One of the buzz phrases throughout the conference, along with 'Brexit', was '9 billion'. By 2050 our planet is looking at hosting 9 billion humans. I wondered where they got their maths from though as at current population growth rates (1.1% globally), its actually going to be in just 17 years. We have 17 years to figure out how we're going to feed 2 billion more people, when just over 100 million people are already facing starvation worldwide, an increase of 30% from the 80 million of just 2 years ago. A further 805 million are facing malnutrition. Apparently we can't feed 7 billion, let alone 9 billion. So the question being asked was: How will we feed the 9 billion?

When I stood up and asked whether we should be looking at changing the narrative around this subject, to whether we should be trying to feed 9 billion, I was shot down. By raising the discussion of population as the issue rather than food security I had apparently broken a taboo not to be discussed. My question was rapidly shelved and the conversation moved on to safer topics. In my naivity I had not realised how maligned the topic of the quantity of humans on this planet was.

When starvation and malnutrition are discussed the main causes are outlined as war, poverty, corruption, inaccess to land. These are ALL cases of social injustice rather than food scarcity. We waste almost a third of all food produced globally. In fact, if the amount of food wasted around the world was reduced by 25% there would be enough food to feed all the people who are malnourished.

So when it is suggested that we need to produce more food, I can't help question who it is making those suggestions. Especially when it is suggested that we need to produce 75% more food on what is already being produced today. When in order to do that we will need to intensify production still further, with more chemicals, more GM and more money being made by big pharma. Their question is 'how will we make money out of pretending there is a shortage of food?'

When we already produce enough food, why do we need to produce more? When will enough be enough?

When growth is suggested as the only solution what will we sacrifice to feed a burgeoning population? When agriculture is one of the primary drivers of climate change, what will more agriculture do to our climate? How will more help, when the impacts of climate change will dramatically reduce the amount of land available? Will more even be possible? How will more people make it possible to achieve a sustainable future?

What would need to happen for us to change the narrative of continual expansion to something that is more sustainable? What can we do to address food poverty as a way of feeding the billions? When will we address the issue of wastefulness? Redress the balance so that people respect their lot and feel the repercussions of their wanton consumerism. What can we do to address poverty as a way of reducing the billions? We cannot keep growing. Exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet.

These are the questions we need to answer. These are the questions we need to talk about without the stigma attatched to population matters. You’ve got to be able to look your children in the eye and think: “What kind of world am I providing for you?” A common response to population concerns is that it’s ‘anti-human’. That’s grotesque; it’s pro-human, how else are we to ensure that our children can grow up in a world that has choice and opportunities?

Its a tough subject. One that is perhaps taboo because the people with the power to change and influence the issue are guilty of making it worse.