We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.Food security claims are a lie, says new report
CLAIMS that the UK needs to double food production by 2050 are a lie, claims a new report from the Soil Association published today (Tuesday, April 20).
In a stinging attack on the Government, the Conservative Party, the NFU and biotech firm Monsanto, the Soil Association said organisations using these figures were misleading the public in the argument over food security.
The report, ‘Telling porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production’, claims those groups are wrong about the figures, and wrong to claim that doubling food production would feed the hungry and end starvation.
It claims the figures are based on a report which says production would need to increase by 70 per cent, not 100 per cent.
Meanwhile it claims another paper which calls for a 50 per cent increase has since been withdraw by the authors and Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said the ‘dodgy figures’ were causing more harm than good.
He said: “Many of those misusing the statistics in the FAO paper to argue for massive increases in food production in both UK and globally, appear to be unaware that they are in effect condemning many in developing countries to ill-health and early deaths, because they assume the spread of our unhealthy, Western diet to developing countries.
“In addition, these projections assume an increase of over a billion cattle, which would lead to massive increases in emissions of global warming gases.”
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
John | 20 April 2010 10:37 am
Is there nothing they won't say to push the 'organic can feed the world' line?
The Government's chief scientific advisor backs the figures (or at least he quotes them often enough) - surely he is well enough informed to make an unbiased judgement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 20 April 2010 11:24 am
Reading the report it is clear there is an overstatement of the need for increased food production by those that want to see it. That is to be expected in all honesty. I would like to see more honest discussion about the role agriculture could (and should) play in producing things like biofuel. The industry can produce that which consumers want (even organics if the price is right). Livestock production will also be impacted by the continued collapse of the marine ecosystem and the resultant shortage of fish proteins.
It would be helpful to all of us with a commercial interest in the agricultural industry to have some real facts not claim and counter claim against made up statistics passed on third hand by politicians.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 April 2010 2:47 pm
Hear hear Chris. Punch & Judy politics are wearing enough, without the different aspects of the agricultural industry bashing away with a "you're wrong,I'm right" attitude. We need an objective assessment of what is likely to be needed and what is likely to be able to be done. The different parts of the industry can respond more effectively with the facts at hand. One point that always amazes me is that no-one will ever address the issue of aspects of food production that don't provide useful calories - non-nutritional calories, such as high fructose corn syrup (to give one), that are massively used in processed foods and use crop products without providing tangible nutritional benefits. It's unlikely that this use of food crops can be continued or sustained on a truly global scale. Has anybody ever assessed how much food would truly be needed if we returned to buying ingredients and cooking them, as many people do worldwide. Or would the food industry pull rank and halt that like the petrochemical one did over alternative fuels for cars years ago? I've heard plenty (in a Punch & Judsy manner) about the impacts of livestock farming, but not a great deal about processed food. Strange that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tim | 20 April 2010 3:02 pm
the soil association banging its own drum again dispite its obvious distress on the organics front whitch in my opinion doesnt care if the rest of the world starves to please their own inflated egos
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard | 20 April 2010 5:08 pm
Who in their right mind's would believe a word that the soil association says !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 April 2010 10:37 pm
at the moment amoniam nitrate fert is made using vast quantities of nateral gas as i see it there wont be much of it left by 2050, take away relitive cheap energy source to produce it the levels of production we see today will not be sustainable. Something must be wrong using a fossel fuel to feed people today without a care for tomorrow.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
K | 21 April 2010 11:01 am
Not sure about how much food production needs to increase by but if people stopped wasting one third of the food that they buy then that would make a sizeable difference, don't you think? And good point about crops grown with no real nutritional value. I also believe that organic is better, we need to scale production to a local level. Look at what's just happened to many tonnes of fresh food exports due to lack of flights - rotted at airports, rather than being eaten in the country of production. How can the NFU say we need to double production when there are mountains of mouldering produce? Change the growth and distribution patterns first, THEN see how much more we need.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lisa Bee | 21 April 2010 4:42 pm
The big push for GMO foods to be grown in other countries is going to get worse as more americans and others fight the toxic waste companies like Monsanto or Bayer. People are tired of being poisoned. The real issue isn't fat, it isn't the sun causing skin cancer or any other cancer it is the corporate aholes that make ALL of these disgusting gmo foods with roundup bug spray in them and roundup weed killer on them. By the way it has been proven that toxic waste Roundup causes skin cancer whether you go in the sun or not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce Scholten | 21 April 2010 7:44 pm
The Soil Association report is balanced - unlike the armageddon style claims advanced by fans of genetic modification. GMO forces promised to liberate Argentina from toxic atrazine, but studies show that ,15 years later, atrazine use remained 3 million tonnes per year, while Monsanto Roundup Ready use skyrocketed to 180 million tonnes per year, as Johnsongrass evolves out of its grasp.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Reilly | 26 April 2010 8:42 pm
How do we know if GM food is SAFE? We are troubled by the increase in AUTISM, could GM foods be the cause?
We must proceed slowly & carefully.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment