{"id":9294,"date":"2010-11-09T10:41:39","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T16:41:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.sustainablog.org\/?p=9294"},"modified":"2010-11-09T10:41:39","modified_gmt":"2010-11-09T16:41:39","slug":"global-food-security-grain-demand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sustainablog.org\/articles\/global-food-security-grain-demand\/","title":{"rendered":"Improving Food Security by Strategically Reducing Grain Demand"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>By Lester R. Brown<\/strong><\/p>\n After several decades of rapid rise in world grain yields, it is now becoming more difficult to raise land productivity fast enough to keep up with the demands of a growing, increasingly affluent, population. From 1950 to 1990, world grainland productivity increased by 2.2 percent per year, but from 1990 until 2009 it went up by only 1.3 percent annually. Despite some impressive local advances, the global loss of momentum in expanding food production is forcing us to think more seriously about reducing demand by stabilizing population<\/a>, moving down the food chain, and reducing the use of grain to fuel cars<\/a>.<\/p>\n One of the key components of Plan B<\/a>, the Earth Policy Institute\u2019s<\/a> ambitious strategy to save civilization, is to halt world population growth at no more than 8 billion by 2040. This will require an all-out population education effort to help people everywhere understand how fast the relationship between us and our natural support systems is deteriorating. It also means that we need a crash program to get reproductive health care and birth control services to the more than 200 million women today who want to plan their families but lack access to the means to do so. While the effect of population growth on the demand for grain is rather clear, that of rising affluence is much less so. One of the questions I am often asked is, \u201cHow many people can the earth support?\u201d I answer with another question: \u201cAt what level of food consumption?\u201d Using round numbers, at the U.S. level of 800 kilograms of grain per person annually for food and feed, the 2-billion-ton annual world harvest of grain would support 2.5 billion people. At the Italian level of consumption of close to 400 kilograms, the current harvest would support 5 billion people. At the 200 kilograms of grain consumed by the average Indian, it would support 10 billion.<\/p>\n Of the roughly 800 kilograms of grain consumed per person each year in the United States, about 100 kilograms is eaten directly as bread, pasta, and breakfast cereals, while the bulk of the grain is consumed indirectly in the form of livestock and poultry products. By contrast, in India, where people consume just under 200 kilograms of grain per year, or roughly a pound per day, nearly all grain is eaten directly to satisfy basic food energy needs. Little is available for conversion into livestock products.<\/p>\n Among the United States, Italy, and India, life expectancy is highest in Italy even though U.S. medical expenditures per person are much higher. People who live very low or very high on the food chain do not live as long as those at an intermediate level. People consuming a Mediterranean-type diet that includes meat, cheese, and seafood, but all in moderation, are healthier and live longer. People living high on the food chain can improve their health by moving down the food chain. For those who live in low-income countries like India, where a starchy staple such as rice can supply 60 percent or more of total caloric intake, eating more protein-rich foods can improve health and raise life expectancy.<\/p>\n Although we seldom consider the climate effect of various dietary options, they are substantial, to say the least. Gidon Eshel and Pamela A. Martin of the University of Chicago have studied this issue.<\/a> They begin by noting that for Americans the energy used to provide the typical diet and that used for personal transportation are roughly the same. They calculate that the range between the more and less carbon-intensive transportation options and dietary options is each about four to one. The Toyota Prius, for instance, uses roughly one fourth as much fuel as a Chevrolet Suburban SUV. Similarly with diets, a plant-based diet requires roughly one fourth as much energy as a diet rich in red meat. Shifting from the latter to a plant-based diet cuts greenhouse gas emissions almost as much as shifting from a Suburban to a Prius would.<\/p>\n Shifting from the more grain-intensive to the less grain-intensive forms of animal protein can also reduce pressure on the earth\u2019s land and water resources. For example, shifting from grain-fed beef that requires roughly 7 pounds of grain concentrate for each additional pound of live weight to poultry or catfish, which require roughly 2 pounds of grain per pound of live weight, substantially reduces grain use.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\nAffluence: a Threat to Global Food Security?<\/h2>\n
Environmental Impacts of Our Food Choices<\/h2>\n