Also of interest:
Even if organic or more sustainable farming would make sense (in my non expert / neophyte point of view) in relation to biodiversity, carbon intake, use of more resistant food species from a wider basket of varieties than high yield / green revolution/ soil destructive farming and less nutritious, some choice are not always obvious. Organic farming, growing producing and consuming local is good for carbon footprint, although in a world with higher frequency of extreme event food buffer could come from other food producing areas. Also the following papers point to extreme difficulties to get a world consensus in this matter due to some vesting interest (and they don't really stress the vesting interest)
so the following debate is still interesting :
"Biotechnology or organic? Extensive or intensive? Global or local? A critical
review of potential pathways to resolve the global food crisis" Fraser et al. 2015
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hannah_Wittman/publication/284798656_Biotechnology_or_organic_Extensive_or_intensive_Global_or_local_A_critical_review_of_potential_pathways_to_resolve_the_global_food_crisis/links/59f76be40f7e9b553ebee2ff/Biotechnology-or-organic-Extensive-or-intensive-Global-or-local-A-critical-review-of-potential-pathways-to-resolve-the-global-food-crisis.pdf"While experts agree that poverty, population, energy prices, climate change, and socio-political dynamics undermine global food security, there is no agreement on effective strategies to meet this challenge. For example, some promote “high tech” solutions (e.g. biotechnology) designed to boost yield while others prefer local food systems. To better understand these debates, this article explores four perspectives from the literature: (1) technology to increase food production; (2) equitable food distribution; (3) policies to reduce pollution and waste; and (4) community action to promote sovereign food systems. The paper concludes with recommendations on how food scientists can navigate these controversies to help research and policy making."
"Our reading of the literature suggests that there are at least four
key pathways presented by scholars to solve “the global food crisis”.
These are:
1. Technology for Production. Arguments made under this theme
stress the role of technological innovation to increase total
production. Strategies proposed include using plant breeding
and GM techniques to create disease or drought resistant varieties
of plants, and bio-fortifying food crops.
2. Equity and Distribution. Arguments made in this theme stress
the need for more equitable food distribution. Proposed strategies
include poverty reduction, reducing global meat consumption,
reducing the amount of grain used for bio-energy
production, as well as changes to social welfare and trade
regimes.
3. Local Food Sovereignty. Arguments made in this theme stress
the need for communities to come together and promote more
local and sovereign food systems. In wealthier countries these
ideas are normally associated with “local food movements”
while in the Global South e but increasingly in North America
and Europe as well e these ideas are clustered around the
notion of “food sovereignty”.
4. Market Failures, Policy and Regulation. This theme stresses the
need for policies and regulations to correct for perverse incentives
that undermine the sustainability and security of our
food systems. In particular, market failures and inappropriate
subsidies result in pollution, waste, and excessive input, as well
as leading to a proliferation of foods with large amounts of highfructose
corn syrup. Strategies proposed to correct market failures
include incentives to reduce food waste, reducing distorting
subsidies, and paying farmers for providing environmental
benefits like carbon sequestration."
"We would like to conclude this viewpoint article by picking up
on three key points.
First, in our observation, each of the four pathways described
above has a particular set of stakeholders behind it that represent
different constituents, each of which has different expectations
and demands. In the past, because proponents of each
paradigm came from different positions, debates about the most
appropriate solutions to food security have resulted in acrimony
and, in many cases, a policy stalemate (see below).
Second, it is our view that no single solution will work in every
instance and so food security experts need to be looking to
develop a “blended portfolio” of strategies rather than maintaining
their allegiance to only one type of strategy.
Finally, developing inclusive and participatory decision making
processes to decide on specific policies, technologies or management
practices may be more important than focussing
narrowly on any specific tool (such as biotechnology or local
food systems).
With regard to the first of these three points, it is clear from the
literature that debates between proponents of the four pathways
identified above have, in the past, resulted in what can only be
described as a “policy stalemate”. For instance, the introduction of
this paper alluded to acrimonious debates between environmental
activists and food scientists working onGMcrops. Perhaps the most
extreme example of how arguments over food security can derail
policy-making occurred during the writing of the global report for
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD). IAASTD was convened by the
United Nations following the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable
Development in 2002. It was designed to act in a similar capacity as
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in that it
was to establish a multi-stakeholder group of experts who would
assess and review the state of scientific knowledge pertaining to
agriculture and food security. According to Edwards (2012) despite
the fact that IAASTD was launched with high-level political support
and an impressive array of scientific contributors, “almost everything
that could go wrong did” (p. 70). Edwards describes the
situation:
Civil society representatives clashed with agronomists over the
value of physical science vs. traditional knowledge. Business
delegates clashed with civil society representatives over the
merits of large-scale agribusiness vs. small-scale village farming
systems. State delegates and civil society representatives
clashed over who could legitimately speak for peasant farmers:
their governments or international NGOs working directly with
farmers. (p. 75)
In the end, the only real point of agreement was to terminate
IAASTD after the first synthesis report was published. But even this
report was rejected by the governments of Canada, the US, and Australia."