Confusing messages from the government shouldn't surprise anyone, but Gordon delivered quite a coup over the weekend by offering up two completely conflicting solutions to the growing food crisis in the same breath.
On the one hand, widely reported in yesterday's papers, was his pledge to cut down on food waste in Britain. The Prime Minister promised to make tackling soaring food costs a priority at the G8 summit in Japan. British consumers throw away 4.1m tonnes of food every year, often because their eyes are considerably bigger than their bellies, and they buy far more than they can eat during a supermarket shop.
Meanwhile, reports suggest a dramatic rethink on the EU's stance on GM "Frankenstein" foods in another, wholly contrary, approach to food insecurity. The influential scientist and government adviser Sir David King informed the Financial Times: "There is only one technology likely to deliver (the yield increases needed) and that is GM." Nestle has called for the EU to reconsider its oppsition to GM foods and environment minister Phil Woolas has hinted a review is on the cards.
So which route should we take? First of all, various experts and organisations, including the Soil Association, claim that GM crops do not actually yield more than non-GM varieties, and sometimes less. Whether this is the case or not, clearly if Britain's bins are stuffed full of unwanted food, the reported food shortages aren't quite what they seem.
In fact, the problems revolve around trade, food distribution and unequal access to food around the world. The fact the world is approaching startling levels of obesity and starvation at the same time just doesn't add up. The EU has recently reversed its rule on "set-aside" or fallow land on farms (explained well here in The Ecologist) which means that in addition to these mountains of extra food already in the UK, we could soon be growing more food without reverting to GM techniques.
It would seem sensible to take stock of the food we already have, and share it around a little. Then - and only then - if we're still hungry, it might be time to readdress the GM foods issue.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the furore over biofuels as the cause for food scarcity when 7 times more food is being grown to feed livestock. Never before in the history of the world have we consumed so much in the way of animal products per capita as we in the global north now do. If we cut back substantially on animal products, we'd all be rather healthier, and so would our food stocks (let's not even go near the fact that farming animals is now responsible for a bigger chunk of climate change than aviation, or that it's the biggest cause of desertification).
Posted by: Ka | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 09:07 AM
There are a ferw books by esteemed authors now out on this subject
Michael Pollan - The Omnivores Dilemma but particularly 'In Defense of Food'. Basic argument is to eat less, eat the right foods (whole foods, not processed) and to eat mostly plants. Also as a reason for obseity, the food we eat is so industriallised and processed for high yeilds and profits that it lacks the raneg of nutrients our bodies want from it therefore we have to eat more of it!! Very interesting and thought provoking.
Also - The End of Food by Paul Roberts.
Posted by: Ally | Saturday, 23 August 2008 at 03:30 PM