Problem

Is the problem 'over population' or 'over production'? Many of you will believe that soil deterioration is due ultimately to the drive to feed a larger population. Yet, the problem for those who control world food production, is the opposite - that we often produce too much, leading to reduced profits. The iron law of the market say that more food means less money, and less food drives higher prices.

Population

What impacts do people have? The explanation for this drive to increase fertilisers and pesticides and new crops is predominantly  to ‘feed the world’. You may well hear: ‘There will soon be 9billion people with hungry mouths to feed’. It is what most people believe. They know that millions of people are starving, so the answer must be to produce more food. Typical talk is of a ‘perfect storm’ of food needed to feed the people while trying to mitigate global warming. The UK’s Chief Scientist in 2009 said “growing population and success in alleviating poverty in developing countries will trigger a surge in demand for food, water and energy over the next two decades, at a time when governments must also make major progress in combating climate change”.

Production

I had set myself up when 12-13 yrs old to ‘help feed the world’. I was bought up with ‘eat up, people are starving in Africa’.  I made sure I did the right subjects to study biology and chemistry A levels in order to get me on to a course that helped control pests - thereby helping to feed the world. Throughout I thought that is all we had to do! Following a first degree in what we would now call Integrated Pest Management (then Agric Zoology), I did a Masters in Applied Plant science to put the zoology with botany to help even more. I learned all about growing crops round the world. Ifonly we could produce more, I kept thinking. On to PhD looking at the effects of herbicides on soil animals, in orer to check we were OK pushing ahead producing more food.

Then I realised it was not that simple. Something triggered a doubt. It was triggered by Prof Spedding, Dep Director of Grassland Institute and Professor of Agricultural Systems at Reading University, somebody I much admired. On the first page of his book ‘The Biology of Agricultural Systems’‘, he says: “To obtain an immediate insight into the problem (of seeing agriculture’s main purpose is to produce food), consider the facts that world agriculture could easily produce vastly more food, that over-production has been a major problem of many regions, that considerable efforts and incentives have been devoted to reducing production in many areas and that a great many people are hungry….agriculture is practised for a variety of reasons, to make money being one of the most common”.

Since then - mid seventies, I have watched this come to light time and time again. Unless we understand this - that over-production is the problem, we cannot understand the world of food and farming. For instance, look at EU food and farm policy After WW2, they did not want a repeat of the  Marshall Plan, so grew as much as possible. But by the late 70s there was too much so Manshalt had a plan - to amalgamate farms. That went down like a ton of bricks. Then in the 80s they thought they could keep prices high by taking food off the market - and store in wine lakes and butter mountains. That proved unpopular, so in the 90s along comes McSharry who started to green the farms, paying not produce any crops.

It is a similar rationale which explains US Food and farm policy. They learned how useful the Marshall Plan was - not only in having some control over Europe but getting rid of thieir over production. Their foreign policy ever since has been modelled on that. How can they both get rid of excess corn and beef but also gain influence over other countries - when they are most vulnerable, ie starving.

Can you imagine the problem this is for major corporations, with billions to invest? They do not want to rely on the vagaries of the market - where a good year for weather means a bad year for profits, but how to make sure they get a return on their investment. This is completely logical.

As over-production is the main issue, and farmers are urged to produce more, it means most years are going to show poor profits with the markets saturated. So how did big corporations guarantee a return on their investment? There are 4 main ways. First they cut costs of production even more than other sectors. In particular - as it is the highest cost, they keep wages low. Both in farm and food sector - which relies on your tips. Then they encourage people to consume too much, which helps explain why a quarter of the population is now overweight. Never before in history have we seen so much obesity. If there is one chemical to blame - and there isn’t’, then it would be High Fructose Corn Syrup, developed by America to deal with its overproduction of maize. Obesity runs along side malnourishment - I ‘ve seen it in the same African families, and the WHO Call in the ‘Double Burden’. Then there is also now most food waste than ever, estimated to be a third of al harvested crops. Finally, the other way to the saturations of human mouths to feed, put into animal, and ‘value-add’ so there is more expensive meat to consume.

Profits

“World grain markets coming under pressure” was headline news in the agricultural press in 2023.. When you first read that you think that there is a shortage of grain. But the opposite is the case: “Factors coming in to play here include favourable weather for US maize-planting and resumed Ukrainian grain exports”

This is another example of how ‘overproduction’ is the continuing problem for the big owners of food & farming. War brings them enhanced profits, but it wouldn’t last forever. High profits the big four grain companies - called ABCD - followed the outbreak of the war on Ukraine. One of these, ADM, was crowing about its increase in profits, partly as a result of the Ukraine war.

Yet despite these clear problems with how profits do not determine the soil health, we have become urged ever more that ‘global markets’ with more trade - especially food, is the way forward.