Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

British Officials Get the Food Crisis Problem But Total Miss the Solution

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 17:09:37 PM PST

The British government understands the food crisis... but then fails to see the solution.

Speaking at the annual Oxford Farming Conference this week, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, Hilary Benn, said: 'Food security is as important to this country's future wellbeing - and the world's - as energy security. We need to produce more food. We need to do it sustainably.'

Um, yeah. So how does your government plan to do that?

His speech was followed by one from the Government's chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, re-iterating his call for the use of genetically modified (GM) crops to increase production.

Bzzz. Wrong answer! Thankfully, the Soil Association speaks the truth:

However, Soil Association director Patrick Holden said neither GM technology, nor increasing food production would provide a long-term solution to tackling the food crisis.
He said the UK needed to phase out nitrogen fertilisers, switch to more rotational farming and reduce meat production - all of which he called 'inconvenient truths to the Government'.

OK - now if only THAT GUY was in charge instead of the people who are actually in the government. The Soil Association also calls for more public understanding of the food crisis and increased per capita spending on food. (While people often get angry when calls are made for more expensive food, please understand that there's a trade-off because spending more on better food and less pollution from food production means less spending on health care. I'd rather spend more money on the front end for great food instead of money on the back end for unpleasant medical procedures and decreased quality of life. What about you?)

Jill Richardson :: British Officials Get the Food Crisis Problem But Total Miss the Solution

Tags: UK, food crisis, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

British Officials Get the Food Crisis Problem But Total Miss the Solution | 3 comments

GRRR! (4.00 / 3)

...& I was just feeling so hopeful about the Brits, with their new food labeling ideas and all... yet another blow to any glimmer of *!%#ing optimism, in my poor brain... sigh!
(see http://www.ecovore.org/blog/?p... for recent UK food labeling info-- may be somewhere on this site also.)

PS- LVL is a great site! like it muchly; will visit often!

by: Evz @ Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 04:53:40 AM UTC

Patrick is learning how to talk to the press (4.00 / 1)

because of some of his now infamous foot-in-mouth episodes.

Soil Association really tries to be the "keeper of the flame" for organics but more often than naught they end up embarrassing themselves.

Last year they made a big deal out of "carbon miles" to advocate for local meat programs. When a New Zealand University produced a scientific study showing that "total" carbon footprint was larger for UK lamb than NZ lamb delivered to the UK, they had to back off their position. Same for not allowing organic food from Africa; Then someone pointed out that there were a lot of poor African farmers who were being supported by organic sales in the UK.

The Soil Association is a wonderful organization but they have to do their homework before they express their opinions.

by: OrganicGeorge @ Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 13:36:13 PM UTC

Can Ending Poverty Feed the World? (0.00 / 0)

I've posted a diary as part of my response to this. I think, "Can x solution feed the world?" is the wrong question, as hunger is caused by poverty, not a lack of food, and it's actually an oversupply of food that creates the poverty long term that causes the hunger, malnutrition and starvation.

That cuts out the feed the world agribusiness solutions, such as GMOs and a return to dumping (exporting at a loss as we did 1980-2006). US policy, remember, is to lose money on exports so we can be ideologically pure (free markets, free trade, "*competitive") or rather so we can subsidize processors with below cost grain and keep up overproduction for Monsanto.

To reduce meat production (or ethanol) is to make oversupply and low prices more likely, thus increasing poverty for farmers.

Switching to more rotational farming is great, but livestock are important in these systems. (What do you do with pastures, hay and straw from small grains if you have more rotations, as in organic farming?)

Without adequate price floors and supply management, corn will remain cheap relative to grass (due to the lack of price responsiveness and lack of these policies).

We need the real antipoverty (and anti price spike policies) of the National Family Farm Coalition: adequate price floors with supply management (and price ceilings with strategic grain reserves). Ending poverty could have fed the world these past decades, as the family farm movement has long advocated. The time has come for all of the larger food, environmental, organic, and hunger organizations to join the movement.

By the way, as oil prices rice, organic will become cheaper than chemical, because it uses less fossil fuel, as in livestock rotational grazing and organic no till.

*competitive: 1. (US definition) to lose money per unit to try to sell more units (each at a loss), showing you can undercut your competitiors; 2. (OPEC definition) let's reduce oversupply so we make a large profit on each barrel, equivalent to 700% of a wheat parity price). A barrel of (US "competitive" wheat) for a barrel of (OPEC "competitive") oil?

"We're trying to warn this nation of a tidal wave ..., and it's coming your way, whether you want to know it or not...!" female family farm activist in Iowa warning against agribusiness, Donahue Show, 1985

by: Brad Wilson @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 15:08:55 PM UTC