Elisabeth Petermann, Wednesday, 25-09-13 19:12
Interesting to do the exercise of calculating how many people could be fed, just to disproove the ones that keep saying we are heading for catastrophie. But its not at all new. The oldest reference I know is Francis Moore Lappé who researched the subject already in the early seventies!!!The larger challenge seems to be, how to get the greed/business out of food production in such a way that everybody has adequate access regardless of where they live and what their status is.
So it seems more a policy challenge or even a system fault.
Ayub Chege, Thursday, 19-09-13 13:18
Food security initiatives have the cross the border of GM fears that many people are still hiding. Atomic irradiation is successful in this instance, why not go and try GM engineering? After all, the same tenets are used in manipulating genetic constitution. Only in the developed world are the opponents of GM engineering vocal because they have enough to eat, unlike out there in the SSA where thought for food is a career all by itself. And so much the SSA now shun the attempts by the European opponents of GM to stifle avenues that are the only let for future survival.
david marsh, Tuesday, 02-07-13 14:24
Always supporting all those who expose this massive problem of "Domestic Violence" in all our communities from all your friends at http://www.tomthumb.info/ Thank you.
Ayub Chege, Monday, 17-06-13 16:19
There is enough food produced to meet global human demand, but distribution and waste conspire to leave millions hungry even in the developed world. Africa is a far greater food grower than Europe, but poor management and processing/storage make the inequality. Even the mighty US has witnessed food shortages despite investments towards improved agriculture. Therefore, tackling processing/manufacturing and storage/conservation are the best way forward to defeat global food insecurity.
Aleksandar Baljkovic, Tuesday, 04-06-13 09:51
yes, i agree with this article, basically. but i always keep asking myself (because i would really like to understand the mechanisms of publishing), why old knowledge is regularly underlined with "recent studies" and "sold" as new? this seems to be a phenomenon with most agricultural/environmental related topics.
in this case, the "pollinators"-topic was clear before i started studying in 1991 - at least in organic agriculture. thank you for a hint