How to feed a hungry world (original) (raw)

Producing enough food for the world's population in 2050 will be easy. But doing it at an acceptable cost to the planet will depend on research into everything from high-tech seeds to low-tech farming practices.

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

With the world's population expected to grow from 6.8 billion today to 9.1 billion by 2050, a certain Malthusian alarmism has set in: how will all these extra mouths be fed? The world's population more than doubled from 3 billion between 1961 and 2007, yet agricultural output kept pace — and current projections (see page 546) suggest it will continue to do so. Admittedly, climate change adds a large degree of uncertainty to projections of agricultural output, but that just underlines the importance of monitoring and research to refine those predictions. That aside, in the words of one official at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the task of feeding the world's population in 2050 in itself seems “easily possible”.

Easy, that is, if the world brings into play swathes of extra land, spreads still more fertilizers and pesticides, and further depletes already scarce groundwater supplies. But clearing hundreds of millions of hectares of wildlands — most of the land that would be brought into use is in Latin America and Africa — while increasing today's brand of resource-intensive, environmentally destructive agriculture is a poor option. Therein lies the real challenge in the coming decades: how to expand agricultural output massively without increasing by much the amount of land used.

What is needed is a second green revolution — an approach that Britain's Royal Society aptly describes as the “sustainable intensification of global agriculture”. Such a revolution will require a wholesale realignment of priorities in agricultural research. There is an urgent need for new crop varieties that offer higher yields but use less water, fertilizers or other inputs — created, for example, through long-neglected research on modifying roots (see page 552) — and for crops that are more resistant to drought, heat, submersion and pests. Equally crucial is lower-tech research into basics such as crop rotation, mixed farming of animals and plants on smallholder farms, soil management and curbing waste. (Between one-quarter and one-third of the food produced worldwide is lost or spoiled.)

Developing nations could score substantial gains in productivity by making better use of modern technologies and practices. But that requires money: the FAO estimates that to meet the 2050 challenge, investment throughout the agricultural chain in the developing world must double to US$83 billion a year. Most of that money needs to go towards improving agricultural infrastructure, from production to storage and processing. In Africa, the lack of roads also hampers agricultural productivity, making it expensive and difficult for farmers to get synthetic fertilizers. And research agendas need to be focused on the needs of the poorest and most resource-limited countries, where the majority of the world's population lives and where population growth over the next decades will be greatest. Above all, reinventing farming requires a multidisciplinary approach that involves not just biologists, agronomists and farmers, but also ecologists, policy-makers and social scientists.

To their credit, the world's agricultural scientists are embracing such a broad view. In March, for example, they came together at the first Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development in Montpellier, France, to begin working out how to realign research agendas to help meet the needs of farmers in poorer nations. But these plans will not bear fruit unless they get considerably more support from policy-makers and funders.

The growth in public agricultural-research spending peaked in the 1970s and has been withering ever since. Today it is largely flat in rich nations and is actually decreasing in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa, where food needs are among the greatest. The big exceptions are China, where spending has been exponential over the past decade, and, to a lesser extent, India and Brazil. These three countries seem set to become the key suppliers of relevant science and technology to poorer countries. But rich countries have a responsibility too, and calls by scientists for large increases in public spending on agricultural research that is more directly relevant to the developing world are more than justified.

The private sector also has an important part to play. In the past, agribiotechnology companies have focused mostly on the lucrative agriculture markets in rich countries, where private-sector research accounts for more than half of all agricultural research. Recently, however, they have begun to engage in public–private partnerships to generate crops that meet the needs of poorer countries. This move mirrors the emergence more than a decade ago of public partnerships with drug companies to tackle a similar market failure: the development of drugs and vaccines for neglected diseases. As such, it is welcome, and should be greatly expanded (see page 548).

Genetically modified (GM) crops are an important part of the sustainable agriculture toolkit, alongside traditional breeding techniques. But they are not a panacea for world hunger, despite many assertions to the contrary by their proponents. In practice, the first generation of GM crops has been largely irrelevant to poor countries. Overstating these benefits can only increase public distrust of GM organisms, as it plays to concerns about the perceived privatization and monopolization of agriculture, and a focus on profits.

Nor are science and technology by themselves a panacea for world hunger. Poverty, not lack of food production, is the root cause. The world currently has more than enough food, but some 1 billion people still go hungry because they cannot afford to pay for it. The 2008 food crisis, which pushed around 100 million people into hunger, was not so much a result of a food shortage as of a market volatility — with causes going far beyond supply and demand — that sent prices through the roof and sparked riots in several countries. Economics can hit food supply in other ways. The countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pay subsidies to their farmers that total some US$1 billion a day. This makes it very difficult for farmers in developing nations to gain a foothold in world markets.

Nonetheless, research can have a decisive impact by enabling sustainable and productive agriculture — a proven recipe (as is treating neglected diseases) for creating a virtuous circle that lifts communities out of poverty.

Podcast: Future food

What might tomorrow's crops need to look like in order to feed the world?

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

How to feed a hungry world.Nature 466, 531–532 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/466531a

Download citation

• Published: 28 July 2010
• Issue date: 29 July 2010
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/466531a

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

1. Douglas Borsom 28 July 2010, 15:23
   While it's good to invest in efforts to increase agricultural productivity while minimizing the environmental damage that will inevitably result, maybe it's time to start a serious discussion about global population control. Every year we continue to use approaches like those proposed here is another year when the environment is a little more irreparably damaged. The one inconvenient truth common to most major problems facing humanity is population growth. We can face the issue now, or we can pretend that our future selves will have somehow magically become wiser and more altruistic than we, and despite having fewer natural resources and a more degraded environment than we have today, they will be in a better position to address the problem. This is selfish, wishful thinking.
2. David Henry 28 July 2010, 15:43
   A thoughtful, informative and cogent summary of a fundamental problem of modern civilization. Technically speaking, we can "easily" feed the additional 3.3 billion people expected on Earth in 2050, as well as those currently in poverty, but will we? We have the scientific tools to make it happen, but it appears we lack the global economic model to apply the tools successfully. Until the alleviation of human suffering, and the related care of the Earth as a whole, are somehow made part of the profitability equation of international business practices, then poverty and hunger are likely to remain. It could be done within our social/economic system but, so far, only woefully inadequate government and/or corporate attention has been paid. We may hope that more of the many ultrawealthy private world citizens, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, will see fit to devote their fortunes to such crucial world problems.
3. Nick Harris 28 July 2010, 20:01
   It will be easy to feed everyone in 2050?...We're not quite doing that in 2010. The assumption that things will work themselves out seems faintly ridiculous (A bit like those 'looking into the future' predictions of the 60's, which foretold of snazzy spacesuits and flying cars in the year 2000).
   Unexpected weather events and climatic shifts could lead to widespread crop failures in the countries that are currently the major producers &#8211 then everyone's in trouble. It makes sense to invest in long term infrastructure in those countries that would be then able to further develop healthy and sustainable agricultural industries. A truly global initiative is possible; but there's no real money in it for the people who are capable of making such things happen...yet. It takes a combination of faith (in the end result), vision, and power to really get what needs doing done; and that's not really happening right now. Plenty of showcase summits and global conversations, but I don't really see anything past the well marketed eco-spin.
   As populations continue to surge, the amount of available water will head in the opposite direction. There will be a point along the curve when those that can will have to &#8211 So why not do it now?
4. Oliver Dowding 29 July 2010, 07:27
   1bn to 2bn to 4bn to 7bn now and rising to 9bn?.dare we raise the issue of controlling numbers to be fed, one way or the other?
   IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development) stated in their ground breaking 2008 report that ?Business as usual is not an option?. In a world that is short of resources needed to feed future generations, such as land, water and biodiversity, they found that ?agriculture has contributed to land degradation in all regions [of the world]? On average 35% of the 1.9 billion hectares of severely degraded land worldwide is due to agricultural activities? that the world also has to cope with ?declining water availability and quality, the loss of biodiversity, farmer access to seeds and local plant and animal genetic resources, and local capacities to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
   We are not making any more soil anywhere. The tonnage lost to the sea is immeasurable and the consequences immense. So, we know that soils sustain humans, but do humans sustain soils?
   Which humans should be doing this? The farmers alone? Or aided by the many consumers who dictate agricultural demand by purchasing decisions or maybe by abdicating responsibility by just purchasing without thought for consequences.
   Water ? fresh water, 4 days abstinence and the body is dead. Who cares what state the water sources are in? Do we think about what we chuck into the water? Or that fresh water availability is declining? One out of the world's 10 largest rivers no longer reaches the sea!
   Minerals ? what are they? Where do they come from? Surely NPK is all we need to grow good food?
   Surely we get all we need from the food we eat? Not any more we don't &#8211 that land is degraded!
   Then there are c. 3bn overweight, creating its own problems such as a NHS that is creaking. This is mostly from diseases of over-indulgence and ignorance. Are we to expect Government or someone else to sort this out for us? Are we to wait until told ?no more!?? Are we to go to the edge of the cliff to see how steep and deep the drop is?
   Grain fed livestock ? a non-natural indulgence of catastrophic proportions. IAASTD found that ?global cereal demand is projected to increase by 75% between 2000 and 2050 and global meat demand is expected to double. More than 75% of that increased demand in both cereals and meat is projected to be in developing countries?.
   Can we achieve that? Do we even want to try and achieve this ? surely its just overindulgence in a busted regime? Where is it to be produced? What will that production displace or prevent from happening?
   GM to the rescue? Bill Gates et al may think so, but it?s not the solution and not necessary if we don?t use grain to feed livestock. When we have the developers of the technology selectively assessing and regulating their own ?science? and products of it, are we happy?
   Fertilisers: 25% of fossil fuels used to make nitrogenous fertiliser!! Stop now! Phosphates: about 80 years to exhaustion, then what? 4 counties, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and China, control almost all mined phosphate!
   Commercial twisters ? e.g. £200m for a Government healthy eating initiative sponsored by retailers, but whose promotions for cheap and fatty foods have escalated as they try to keep consumers fatty, lethargic and onside. Official health advice suggests these foods should be less than 7% of our diet, but they comprise a belt-busting 54% of in-store supermarket promotions, which has doubled in 2 years. NHS beware.
   Food wastage ? currently we waste 20%+ of edible food! Look at your plates! Look also at your waistline!
   But?????who is going to do it?
5. Ja Jo 29 July 2010, 08:39
   It has been shown, through research, that when nutrition and health-care is improved, and sickness among children is reduced, then ....... family size and birth rates are reduced considerably as well.
   So, to control the population curve, we actually need to improve nutrition, improve health-care, and reduce sickness among children and elderly.
   In relation to increasing food production without losing valuable forest or pasture land, this can be done for both vegetables and fruits, which will also serve the above mentioned goals.
6. Wyss Yim 30 July 2010, 04:00
   The irony is through the irrigation of marginal land for agriculture i.e. semi-deserts and desert regions of the world, humans are changing the natural hydrological cycle further. This is a much underestimated cause of climate change overlooked by many including the IPCC. A point will be reached (if not already) when population control to reduce consumption is the only sustainable way forward but how can our political leaders agree to this?
7. Wesley Button 2 August 2010, 20:24
   We need to develop more tools to feed the hungry? How precious. We could feed the hungry now but don't in order to keep prices up. Nobody that matters actually cares about feeding the hungry, mostly because they are monsters.
   Welcome to reality, where the only reason to do anything is profit.
8. Jafet Andersson 5 August 2010, 12:16
   Poverty is always relative. Hence, the gist of the issue lies in inequality. We can feed the world today, and yet we don't because of unequal distribution. Unless inequality is addressed hunger will persist.
9. Bogey Holloway 7 August 2010, 11:26
   I have been waiting for a suitable time to share a recent discovery of mine, and this story would seem to be perfect. The whole situation is dependent on better use of existing resorces. While I live in a first world rich country, I am by those standards extremely poor, which quite often forces me to improvise, simply to get by.
   I am on benefit, and when my gas credit expired recently, I experimented with a different way to cook rice.
   I discovered by trial and error, that if you put a measured ammount of rice into an ordinary thermos flask, and
   the correct amount of boiling water from a kettle, after an hour and fifteen miniuts, the rice is cooked to perfection.
   This has several advantages.
   Less energy is used.
   Less water is used.
   Less agitation during the cooking seems to retain more of the nutrition/starch in the rice. The grains dont stick together.
   Now I havent done the maths, or the scientific calorific experiments, but given that rice is the staple diet of, I think, half the worlds population the savings in resorces could be tremendus.
   I have studied product design, and realise that a differently shaped flask could be specialy developed for this purpose, but for those that allready posses one, any old flask will do.
   I do hope that someone with sense reads and understands this. I have been ridiculed before, only to have my Ideas vindicated.
10. marek krzeminski 12 August 2010, 04:57
    Ok. But what in 2100?? What in 2150??
    World's population will still rise!
11. Ranjeet Singh Mahla 27 August 2010, 06:24
    Control human population by enforcing one child per married couple.
    Growing GMO crops in large land scape.
    Removing reservation based on caste and territory in scientific jobs to increase brain power in research.
    Growing faster growing food stuffs like sea foods, mushrooms.
    Shifting the cultivation to bare land for those vagitation which can withstand all environmental conditions.
    Strong political will which can support the science.
    Ranjeet Singh CCMB India
12. Terence Hale 14 September 2010, 11:58
    Hi,
    How to feed a hungry world. Genetically changed food production is
    an answer proposed for logistical and commercial reasons. However care
    must be taken as little is known of the effects of genetically modified
    food. The long term health effects of consuming such food and the
    evolutionary behavior of the genetically modified plants are ill
    defined. Effects on Leptin in humans are not well studied. The ecosystem
    may also be effected, "taking the breakfast away" from pests may have a
    rebound effect.
    Regards Dr. Terence Hale
13. Clyde Fitzgerald Lancaster 20 September 2010, 23:05
    I agree that the issue is obviously not with the amount of food being produced. The problem is not completely an agricultural one either, it is mostly political. Developing regions of the world are where food is needed the most and are also the fastest growing. These developing regions also suffer from some of the worst political strife and mismanagement on earth. This deadly combination causes the food that is desperately needed by most of the population to end up in the hands of a few powerful people. For example, international aid provided to relieve populations in war torn areas is sometimes commandeered by dictators and further used to oppress the people. If the developed world could unite, organize and finance efforts to stabilize these conflict areas it would provide food to millions of people that had no previous access to it. This is not say we should continue to waste food or not to fund improved agricultural developments, but even if we double food production it is useless if we cannot distribute it.
14. ash m 20 October 2010, 02:12
    Speaking in October, the World Food Day, former U.S. president Bill Clinton said the current global food crisis shows "we all blew, including me when I was president," by treating food crops as commodities and not as a vital right of the world's poor. He said that in the long term, only agricultural self-sufficiency can take a bite of reducing hunger in the world and avoid future financial problems.i also saw a dummy of president in <a href="http://cravinganime.com/">anime in which they also suggest this way to solve the problems of hungry people.
15. Kitemoko - Mambwene Roger 19 November 2010, 12:12
    How to feed a hungry world;this issue is demands to the current governments of all the countries to be the good governors and to thinking about their population ,to make jobs for youths and adults.Again all of human beings we have to respect the biodiversity when we are making the development of science in this earth ,we have to avoid to waste many live inside the nature.everything have a life such human being,tree,animal,sea,bird,air,and i can say sometimes the science development is destroying food inside the world.even the war,the climate change system.we have to take care of all those issues.
    Roger kitemoko.
16. Ken N 27 November 2010, 08:29
    It is much much better to try to prevent additional poverty population.
    So most important things are education, birth control, and incentive for poor and people with bad genetics to not reproduce.
    Other than that, we can probably farm plants on open ocean.
17. damien land 9 April 2011, 10:14
    I think one thing to remember in all this is the simple ecconomic rule of supply and demand. why would large corporations and goverments/leaders of countries which GDP's are greatly contributed to by agriculture going to want to decrease or level population. the more demand and the less supply the greater the cost and profit. so i fear that mankinds natural gravitation towards wealth and greed will only stop once it is too late! And to all those that think i am being a little too harsh or that society as a whole will not stand for it may i draw your attention to petrol. Petrol is a perfect example of my above point as the whole world needs it and is simply not in a position to say no thus in england the price has increased from 45p per litre to nearly 145p in less than 20 years over 300% increase in which time basic wages have only increased marginally if at all against inflation.
18. Rachel Fleming 2 June 2011, 22:03
    Birth. Control.
19. sergio pisa 7 June 2011, 06:38
    the only reason to do businesses in capitalism is to obtained profits and this is irreconcilable with the needs of humanity and the biosphere. Through the development of science and technology, we have the knowledge and resources to face the global challenges. But to do so, we need to finish with the power of the rich, the only people that benefits from capitalism. this can only be done through revolution. After succesful revolution, we will need to build a very strong internacional organization that cares and represents the global population (the germ of this organization could be UN). This futuristic UN should organize and plan the global economy thinking world wide
20. A. Christy Bryant 18 August 2011, 08:18
    While it is lovely to think altruistically, the sad and overlooked fact is that population increases in countries and regions where the land is unsuitable for sustaining those numbers is not a problem we can solve by throwing money at the problem.
    No successful country or large population entity has ever been successful in the long term unless they have a way to sustain their caloric needs. The only exceptions are those that have the entire structure built on taking it from others who do have it and as such, always eventually run out of things to take and people to enslave.
    This entire article is based on the faulty premise that it is the responsibility of one group to redirect their own limited resources in order to provide more resources....with a hint that it will be a gratis endeavor...to others who will not protect their own resources.
    @Jacob E John &#8211 Your statement misses several important factors. Are those improvements caused by it or does another entirely separate change in situation bring about both effects? If you parse the research carefully, you'll find that giving yet more freebies to improve the lives of the unlimited children now isn't the root cause of lowering family sizes since that hasn't worked in most cultures. Instead, it is a change in the culture that allows women to control their own inputs to reproduction. In many of these heart-wrenching ads showing hungry children, you're looking at cultures in which a woman has 0 right to say no, at any time and no control over when or how or how many times she gets pregnant. When women have greater control over reproduction, then family sizes decrease and the prospects of existing children improve.
    We aren't going to solve this by figuring out how to create yet another franken-tomato. We're going to have to finally step away and allow them to solve their basic cultural problem and then help those that remain to build up a solid foundation.
21. A J 21 August 2011, 00:05
    Excellent Editorial on rising population and food production. Your plea for "high-tech seeds to low-tech farming practices.? is indeed very much needed. Of course many Nations have adopted population control measures. In India there is a slogan, DELAY THE FIRST, SPACE THE SECOND AND STOP THE THIRD.With advanced research on high yielding varieties, and agricultural tools increasing agricultural production has become easy. But heavy usage of chemicals like Fertilisers and pesticides have to be supplemented with traditional methods of preserving the natural fertility of the soil. Our Approach should be MODERNISE THE TRADITIONAL AND TRADITIONALISE THE MODERN.
22. Thu Nhàn 6 September 2012, 23:52
    Welcom the website E-commerce http://123.vn/ .You can find everything