Are Sustainable Diets & Biotechnology essential for Food Security?

Introduction

According to WHO (2020), the world population will exceed 9.7 billion people in 2050. This increase in global population will become a major threat to food security (Estrada et al., 2017). Current estimates are that 690 million people are hungry which accounts for 8.9% of our population as it stands (FAO, 2020). This has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic as confirmed recently by CGIAR and the updated 2020 FAO document on ‘THE STATE OF FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE WORLD’. Small scale food-producers are hit hardest by the crisis and this comprises 40-85% of all food producers in the “developing world” (SDG website). There are a number of ways this issue needs to be tackled, none of which will work alone. In this piece I will discuss what food and nutrition security means (with a focus on food security), current trends, what needs to be done in relation to food production and how we might do this if we are to achieve zero hunger by 2030.

In 2015 the sustainable development goals (SDGs) were formulated outlining 17 SDGs to be achieved by 2030. SDG 2 is the ‘Zero Hunger’ goal and there are 8 targets within this goal which include ending hunger (2.1), ending all forms of malnutrition (2.2), increasing the productivity of agriculture (2.3) and to ensure sustainable food production systems (2.4). Zero Hunger means Food Security, and Food Security is known as reliable access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food all year round. Individuals who suffer from malnutrition and/or micronutrient deficiencies are not food secure. It is important to understand that food production and availability are necessary but not sufficient for food security, and that similarly, food security is necessary but not sufficient for nutrition security (IFPRI website). Food and Nutrition Insecurity positively correlates to an increased rate in stunting, wasting, obesity, and overall poor health (WHO, 2020). From this it is clear that if food security is not achieved then this directly affects SDG 2 and the global nutrition targets.

Trends

In 2019, 29.8% of people in Middle Africa were undernourished (indicated by the prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) indicator), this is up from 29% in 2018 and is expected to rise to 38% by 2030. Similar trends exist in other parts of the world such as in Western Asia with an expected increase in PoU by 1.9% in the next 9 years. Accumulatively, 820 million people globally are undernourished, and this will only increase according to current trends (WHO,2020). More alarming than this alone is that if we continue to use food resources at the rate that we are currently doing, we will require a 70% increase in food production by 2050. However, global food yield increases need to be obtained from the exact same area of land that is currently under cultivation, yes that means we have to somehow make 70% more food than we do now without using any more land (Oliver et al., 2014). If that didn’t seem a difficult enough task as it is, climate change places increasing pressures on our ability to feed our rapidly increasing population. Thus, understanding the effects and extent climate change will have on agricultural productivity will be really important going forward (Kim and Kwak, 2020). The world is not on track for achieving the Zero Hunger by 2030 and it’s extremely important that we act now to steer the worsening trends in the right direction.

Sustainable Diets

There are many ways this issue can be tackled. The first thing I will discuss is sustainable diets, a promising solution to increase food security. Firstly, more sustainable diets will positively affect climate change which in turn will positively affect food security. It is known that animals raised as livestock are the leading cause for land deforestation, degradation and desertification (UN website) and they are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (WHO, 2020). Not only this but over one third of the cereals that are produced globally are used to feed these animals (UN website) and 70% of the land used for food production is used for raising and feeding animals for consumption, yet animal products only contribute 17% of calories to our diets, globally (National Geographic, 2011). Therefore a shift towards more plant-based diets will decrease the amount of land required per person and so will allow us to feed more people. One paper which addressed the relationship between diet and climate change was the EAT–Lancet Commission report on food in the Anthropocene by Walter Willett and colleagues. Their analysis found that in order to feed the growing population without further damaging the planet we will require a shift towards more plant-based dietary patterns, reductions in food waste, and improvements in food production practices. An important point brought up by this report was that no single intervention was enough, but together they could result in a significant change away from our current deleterious ways of producing food.

Hirvonen et al., 2019 made the argument that EAT-Lancet was not affordable as the most affordable EAT–Lancet diets exceeded the household per capita income for at least 1·58 billion people. However, the authors failed to acknowledge that 3 billion people globally cannot afford the least-cost form of any healthy diet, with most countries in the global south being unable to afford a healthy diet (FAO, 2020). To put this into perspective, a recent document on affordable healthy diets by FAO (2020) stated that on the continent of Africa 80% of people cannot afford a healthy diet and 56.4% can’t even afford a nutrient adequate diet. This shows how food production and availability do not equate to food security. The FAO document directly addressed the flawed critique by saying “The estimate of USD 2.84 per day for the overall EAT-Lancet reference diet found in Hirvonen et al., 2019 used a different dataset and some different assumptions, and is not directly comparable.” When the FAO conducted an analysis of the cost of ten different definitions of a healthy diet, four of which were variations of the EAT-Lancet diet (vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, and flexitarian), they found that the least-cost healthy diet was actually the EAT-Lancet vegan diet, with the Indian healthy eating guidelines coming in second. This reinforces the need to shift towards more plant-based dietary patterns. However, regardless of this, the fact that 3 billion people cannot even afford the least-cost healthy diet needs to be addressed. And if a change in food consumption patterns isn’t enough to solve the growing rate of food insecurity then we must address other areas that can help. And this is where biotechnology demonstrates how crucial its role is in being part of a more sustainable and food secure future.

Biotechnology

There is a need for sustainable intensification in order to close the yield gap in crop production globally. There are many ways that biotechnology is of importance. Firstly, biotechnology can help reduce the need for agrochemicals which will benefit the environment as well as small farmers who cannot afford these. This can be done by engineering more resistant crops making the reliance on herbicides and pesticides much smaller. This also means less residue in the final product and reduced exposure for famers, thus reducing the health impacts that they cause (Junne, G., 1991). Additionally, SDG target 12.3 states that by 2030, we need to reduce food losses along production and supply chains, which includes post-harvest losses. This is extremely important as roughly a third of food globally is wasted every year. Reduction in food waste means higher yields which means food becomes more affordable to those who currently can’t afford it. It also means more food is available and with our population set to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050, we need to reduce this loss as much as possible. When people think of food loss they assume that means food that is bought by consumers but never eaten. While this is part of food losses, insect, pests and disease are all large contributors to food losses also. But, by engineering more resilient crops we can overcome this. An example of this can be seen with the papaya ringspot virus which threatened to destroy the Hawaiian papaya industry and the livelihoods of farmers who depended on them. This was until disease-resistant papayas (Carica papaya) were developed through genetic engineering which saved the papaya industry on the island.

More than 90 percent of the farmers that grow biotech crops are from lower-income countries (USDA), and this highlights the necessity of this technology for resource-poor farmers. Biotechnology can not only reduce food loss but can also enhance the nutrient quality of food thus directly contributing to better health for everyone. An example of this can be seen with “Golden rice”, a rice variety engineered to produce β-carotene in an effort to meet a critical humanitarian need (Paine et al., 2005). β-carotene – a precursor of vitamin A – is an essential component of rhodopsin in the human eye, and this is why vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children. Periodic vitamin A delivery in the community been shown to reduce the risk of mortality (by ~23–30%) in young children (WHO, 2009). This shows the need for this technology in poverty-stricken areas of the world, but anti-GM groups have blocked its entry to many parts of the world for many years, causing unnecessary death and suffering in those less privileged than them. There is hope for working towards more resilient and higher yielding GM crops however, with an ISAAA (2019) report, showing that major biotech crops have reached nearly 100% adoption rates in the five biggest biotech crop-producing countries (USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and India). And Nigeria has commercialised its first GM food crop, the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) while Kenya approved insect resistant cotton (Gossypium spp.) for planting in 2019 (ISAAA, 2019).

Conclusion

After decades of decline, hunger has been increasing slowly since 2014 (FAO 2020). Projections for 2030 based on the current trends serve as a stark reminder that more needs to be done and that the current level of effort is simply not enough to achieve Zero Hunger. Given the current extent of land degradation, land restoration for food security and for mitigating climate change poses enormous potential benefits (UN website), while GM-crops can improve the issues I just spoke about by offering crop-disease management and improved yields. I have hope for progress in the area of SDG2, but ‘zero hunger’ will likely not be achieved by 2030, especially not with current attitudes towards some of the possible solutions such as plant-based diets and genetically modified crops. But the truth is, if we want to achieve a food secure world, we need to make these changes and we need to make them now.

REFERENCES:

1. IFPRI. Africa’s Food and Nutrition security situation. Todd Benson. Accessed 31/03/2021. Website: https://www.ifpri.org/program/2020-vision

2. World Health Organization, 2020. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets (Vol. 2020). Food & Agriculture Org..

3. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en (FAO, 2020b)

4. United Nations, Flexitarianism: flexible or part-time vegetarianism. Website: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=99&nr=308&menu=1449

5. National Geographic. Website: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/ Accessed March 2021. Updated: 2011.

6. Oliver, M.J., 2014. Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. Missouri medicine, 111(6), p.492.

7. Estrada, E.A.C., 2017. The role of biotechnology in agricultural production and food supply. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 44(1), pp.1-11.

8. Kim, H.S. and Kwak, S.S., 2020. Crop biotechnology for sustainable agriculture in the face of climate crisis.

9. Paine, J.A., Shipton, C.A., Chaggar, S., Howells, R.M., Kennedy, M.J., Vernon, G., Wright, S.Y., Hinchliffe, E., Adams, J.L., Silverstone, A.L. and Drake, R., 2005. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature biotechnology, 23(4), pp.482-487.

10. Junne, G., 1991. Biotechnology: the impact on food and nutrition in developing countries. Food, nutrition and agriculture, 1(1), pp.32-36.

11. World Health Organization, 2009. Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995-2005: WHO global database on vitamin A deficiency.

12. Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. and Masters, W.A., 2020. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 8(1), pp.e59-e66.