Posted by: nativeiowan | December 8, 2013

Factual Reporting… I love it!!!!

I must comment… The following report appears to disregard the facts:

food stats copy

Quick calcs give us that there is a 90% discrepancy/ excess in consumption by the overweight, thus, a 70% short fall is easy to cover, “if we tighten our belts”.

UN report: World must produce more food

THURSDAY, 05 DECEMBER 2013 12:09
The world will need 70 per cent more food, as measured by calories, to feed a global population of 9.6 billion in 2050, and must achieve this through improvements in the way people produce and consume, according to a report released today by the United Nations and its partners.

“Over the next several decades, the world faces a grand challenge – and opportunity – at the intersection of food security, development and the environment,” said Andrew Steer, President of the World Resources Institute (WRI), which produced the report along with UN agencies and the World Bank.

“To meet human needs, we must close the 70 per cent gap between the food we will need and the food available today. But, we must do so in a way that creates opportunities for the rural poor, limits clearing of forests, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture,” Dr. Steer said.

The report, entitled “World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future,” finds that boosting crop and livestock productivity on existing agricultural land is critical to saving forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It cautions, however, that the world is unlikely to close the food gap through yield increases alone, which would have to greatly outpace previous advances to keep up. For that reason, it recommends reducing food loss and waste, reducing excessive demand for animal products and following other “climate-smart” guidelines.

“From reducing food waste to improving agricultural practices, feeding a growing population requires working on several fronts at the same time,” said Juergen Voegele, World Bank Director for Agriculture and Environmental Services.

“Applying the principles of climate smart agriculture across landscapes – that means crops, livestock, forests and fisheries – has the potential to sustainably increase food security, enhance resilience and reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint. Pursuing this approach is not a luxury, it’s an imperative.”

The report also recommends achieving replacement-level fertility, a rate it says most of the world is nearing by educating girls, reducing child mortality and providing access to reproductive health services.

Given currently-projected growth, however, sub-Saharan Africa will need to more than triple its crop production by 2050 to provide adequate food per capita.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) also contributed to the report, the final version of which will be released in mid-2014.










  1. As my countryman (i.e., fellow Missourian) Mark Twain once lamented, there are three kinds of liars. Liars. Damned Liars. And statistics.
    The latter lies two ways. It is rarely complete (a statistic is after all only a measure of something that we are using as an indicator). It is vague, thus leaving room for too many, and contradictory, interpretations.
    That said, yes, given current climates, world food production might become sufficient for a 70% increase in ‘demand’ without too much upheaval. But our climates are changing (USDA has been moving recommended crop zones northwards for some time).
    My critique of the article regards the paragraph starting “Applying … climate smart …”. The list ignores technology. Food growing technologies are another way that food yields (not necessarily per hectare, but per person) can increase.

  2. I don’t understand the math. We have about 7 billion folks on the planet. Why will it take 70% more food to feed an additional 37% more people? That doesn’t add up.


  3. W.E. Of course they don’t, as Mike noted. But the article was assuming rising incomes and then calculating rising food consumption based on that (as well as a what, 16% increase in population?).

    Some would say that statistics do not lie, that it is the statisticians and politicians (and biased scientists) who make the lie of them? But I think Sam Clemens was more accurate because he made fewer assumptions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: