Future of Food Lies with Our Youth

“But if we are seeking to better acquaint people with food so the world can meet the challenge of feeding 9 billion by 2050, we must get some of those 9 billion people interested in agriculture now.” 

  -Mary Beth Albright

Everyone says that our future lies with our children and we have to educate our children in order to secure our future. In this article, I found interesting this concept of prepping our future for the challenges to come with feeding 9 billion people. If the idea of farming as an occupation among the youth is in decline, then the main focus of our efforts should be on encouraging and educating the youth about agriculture to increase interest. I find this important because of the fact that having food but no farmers to tend to it and no way to monitor the farmlands will decrease our ability to grow crops and ultimately decrease food security.

This article expands on this concept by sharing a story about when the author cooked a four-course meal with 6 children on a farm for about 13 people. In the article the author gives an explanation of why teaching of children how to harvest and cook was so important. It was said that although the kids did not eat all of the food, the harvesting and cooking was enough to plant the experience in their heads and help it develop. Can we say that we have been actively trying to educate the youth about agriculture? Some may say yes, but the fact is if we do not focus enough attention on the youth now, securing food for the future will be futile. I completely recommend this article for people interested in food security because it represents a way for society to begin working on our future to sustain.  

http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/24/teaching-children-the-joys-of-cooking/ 

Food Security on a Warming Planet

As this century progresses, the issues of climate change and food security intensify and become more intertwined. This was a major talking point at the United Nations Climate Summit 2014: Catalyzing Action. As the effects of climate change become more and more severe, the ability to grow, harvest, and produce sufficient food supplies becomes more unstable. The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported a huge disruption to agriculture directly as a result of climate change. With climate change showing no signs of slowing down, these problems are projected to continue and worsen in the future. The effects of climate change will have huge impacts on food security locally and internationally.

The American Midwest is one of the world's largest growers of food.  Recently, it has been experiencing increasingly severe droughts, which have negative effects on the yields. Because of the global nature of humanity's food system, the poor harvests in areas like the Midwest can directly harm those in less affluent countries who are already unable to meet their domestic nutritional needs. In another part of the world, similar droughts have wreaked havoc. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, food productivity relies heavily on large quantities of rainwater, thus further destabilizing the food situation. Food shortages historically have contributed to civil unrest as well.

Members of the UN have responded by suggesting the implementation of "climate-smart agriculture" to produce more robust yields in the face of a changing climate.  "Sustainability" seems to have been the buzz word for years, and when it comes to food security, it could not be more important.

In addition to the UN's emphasis on improving agricultural techniques, it might also be wise for governments to contribute more to research for stopping, or even better, reversing the effects of climate change. Primarily, this would involve searching for cleaner, sustainable sources of energy for transportation fuel and electricity.  If the world is going to continue to advance technologically and allow individuals around the world to enjoy its benefits, significant scientific effort must be placed in ensuring the sustainability of this progress.

<http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/218562-food-security-is-in-jeopardy>

Ebola and food security

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48975#.VC2QYtXF-So

            In midst of the panic over the Ebola outbreak and the first US Ebola patient, it is important to recognize that the effect of Ebola reaches beyond the terrifying symptoms and speed with which it spreads.  Recently, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization conducted an assessment in northern Liberia that concluded that the Ebola outbreak has had a significant effect on food security in Africa as well.

            Production of food slowed 10-25% in certain areas as people became too afraid to work in the fields.  The majority of Ebola victims are also of working age, which means that households affected by the disease also lost people who could have worked in the fields.  This also means that household income decreased as well.

            This decrease of production and income coupled with panicked purchasing of food resulted in food shortages and price fluctuations.  Any food that was left became harder to trade – in order to prevent the spread of Ebola, local authorities closed down markets where people would normally buy and sell food.  The effect of these high food prices percolated throughout the economy as other commodities like fuel also became more expensive.  As a result, savings that local residents had accrued were drained, and people were no longer able to repay the loans they had taken out to start farming-related businesses.

            In the upcoming months, it is estimated that 1.3 million people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone will need help feeding themselves.  Furthermore, these countries had generally already imported more food than they exported, and border closures and quarantines will prevent open trade of food.

            I think this case illustrates several things.  First, it shows how intimately food security is tied to so many different facets of society due to its nature as one of the basic human necessities.  Second, it shows how important building resilience is for food security in case of unpredictable shocks such as the Ebola outbreak.  Third, it shows that preserving stability is necessary from the very start of a crisis before other issues emerge as a result.

Food and Fukushima: Radiation Levels and Their Effect.

A recent study published in  BMC Evolutionary Biology by researchers Chiyo Nohara, Wataru Taira, Atsuki Hiyama, Akira Tanahara, Toshihiro Takatsuji, and Joji M Otaki has some serious implications on food security.

While the study looked specifically at one species of butterfly, Zizeeria maha, and the radiation levels within their body, it was the reason why these butterflies were so affected that is the cause of concern. These butterflies eat large amounts of leaves from the surrounding area around the Fukushima Power Plant location.

The high spikes in radiation ingested by these butterflies suggests that wildlife in the area has been seriously affected by radiation, and it permeates all levels of the food chain.

While their study shows that these changes drop immediately next generation if they are fed normal non-radiated food, the ability for the radiation to disappear like that in a natural setting in unlikely.

The FDA in March released a statement saying that US food safety has been unaffected by these radiation levels, but what about in other countries closer to the disaster?

From http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/193/figure/F5
Shows abnormalities in butterflies in the study

In Japan, a study was performed on the people who lived near Fukushima, and found that people who ingested "homegrown produce without radiation inspection, and often collected mushrooms in the wild or cultivated them on bed-logs in their homes.” were more likely to have high levels of radioactive cesium levels within them. People who regularly ate wild boar meat and river fish also had the high levels of cesium in them.

Many studies have been performed on the food safety in regards to radiation poisoning, and none so far have found any harmful levels of cesium. However, this study shows that it exists and is something that needs to be address in the near future.The researchers point out these needs, and hope that this will push for further testing of food grown locally in the area.


Cited:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/193
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140923090244.htm
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/06/17/national/food-checked-radiation-poses-risk-fukushima-study/
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm

The Biodiversity Risks of GMOs

Ecuador, surrounded by larger countries, has very few things that the world requires as exports, but the banana industry supports an incredible amount of the population directly and indirectly. Ecuador is the largest exporter of bananas in the world, coming before the Philippines, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Colombia, and most of the produce goes straight to the U.S. The increase in banana exports has been a great aid to the Ecuadorian economy after the problems caused by the recession and dollarization in the 1990s and 2000s.

Unfortunately, this booming industry is now facing a fungus that could destroy the livelihoods of many small Ecuadorian farmers. The serious disease, named TR4, risks a variety of banana that account for "95% of global export market for the fruit" (livetradingnews.com). This specific variety was chosen as most popular because of its resistance to the Panama Disease. The new disease is quickly spreading through all banana farms throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Africa and has yet to reach Central or South America. Ecuador has yet to declare what preventative measures they are taking, which poses the question of what will the government and farmers do if or when the disease reaches the country?Although the banana industry has faced disease emergency's in the past, none have had as great of consequences as this one might.

Currently, there is no known cure or treatment for the fungus once it has infected a field. The only option is to isolate the infected trees. The fungus remains in and on the soil for over 10 years, meaning that the area would be unusable for banana production. The specific variety of banana, called Cavendish bananas, was originally genetically modified to prevent the Panama Disease (Fusarium) already mentioned. Now, a majority of the bananas produced are Cavendish bananas that also happen to be the most affected by TR4. GMOs can be used to improve food safety and security all over the world, but they also limit the ecological biodiversity within the crop varieties, leading to the current banana crisis.

How can we prevent such catastrophes with genetically modified crops from happening in the future while still finding solutions to food security?


http://www.fao.org/economic/worldbananaforum/fusarium-tr4/en/#.VCyMrCldXPY

http://www.livetradingnews.com/fungus-threatens-banana-supply-2-73872.htm#.VCyHpyldXPY

Rooftop Gardening

When one imagines solutions to our food crisis, the idea of rooftop farming often comes to the conversation. Initially, this appears to be a seamless solution to many of the problems we face, including food deserts and lack of space in urban areas. However, although there are various rooftop gardens in place in many cities around the world already, little actual scientific research and data has been performed and collected on the feasibility of this idea. This lack of data has in turn potentially been delaying the further implementation of more roof gardens.

This is a problem Whittinghill et al set out to fix when they performed a study from 2009 to 2011 on the evaluation of vegetable production on extensive green roofs. This study was performed on the roof of the Michigan State University Plant and Soil Sciences Building over the course of three growing seasons. The researchers chose a variety of herbs and vegetables that are typically suited to the standards and restrictions of rooftop growing, and planted these in roof beds, elevated roof beds, and in a location on the ground. The results of the study indicated that the growing system had little to no effect on the total yield, although the grade and marketability of the produce suffered greater on the roof than in the ground.

Throughout the study, it was apparent to the researchers that weather played the largest role as to whether or not the plants would produce, not the medium or location in which the growing occurred. These were very hopeful signs that indicate rooftop growing as a potential supplement to ground agriculture. However, this type of growing does not come without its fair share of headaches, and its issues of feasibility may discourage some from attempting this potentially revolutionary technique. Rooftop gardens have a different array of pest problems as opposed to the ones we are acquainted with on the ground. Likewise, there is also a lack of pollinators at the heights of certain buildings. Plants on roofs are also exposed to more heat, which could be greatly beneficial in areas like Michigan, but detrimental in the south. The initial costs, along with the structural integrity of the roofs, are the main issues one faces when installing a rooftop garden. In order to have reliable proof that this type of food production is useful, there is a great need for additional scientific studies to be performed in order to assure growers and lay citizens that this technique is worth the cost and time.

file:///Users/dowens/Downloads/rooftopgardens%20(1).pdf

Climate Adaptation in Colombia

Colombia, a country in Central America, has recently come to the forefront of making advances in the ability to adapt to climate change issues, especially as they relate to agriculture.  Climate change has caused problems mainly in the variability of weather and new extremes such as years of intense rain and flooding followed by years of drought.  Colombia has had a lot of recent experience with these issues and has begun to rise to the challenge.  From these problematic climate events, many countries, including Colombia have been pushed to make changes in their responses.

The catalytic event for Colombia was the La Nina in 2010-2011 which caused severe flooding.  Since then, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) has invested in holistic, multi-crop, and regionally focused efforts for adaptation to climate.  They have also partnered with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

These changes have allowed approaches to problems to be fine-tuned for different areas depending on varying risks.  Additionally, farmers have been included in the process which makes solutions better suited to the needs of farmers and what conditions are actually like for them.  Farmer involvement also leads to an increase in awareness of climate change which will be necessary to begin to make changes to combat climate issues.

Technological advances are also being used to make great strides in adaption to climate change.  A recent technological development, a decision making tool that takes climate, annual rice surveys, experiments on rice planting dates, and specific location into account, saved rice farmers in Colombia great economic losses.  The climate modeling used by CIAT showed that there would be a drought during the first growing season of the year and urged farmers not to plant their crops.  Farmers who listened were saved from large economic loss and will still be able to grow their crops later this year.  Advances like this are obviously not a panacea to climate change, but can certainly be helpful in the meantime, reducing losses due to variability in climate.

Sources: Short articles that are interesting to read if you have time :)
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/sep/30/colombia-rice-growers-climate-change
http://www.ciatnews.cgiar.org/2014/02/28/can-colombia-lead-the-way-to-the-agriculture-of-the-future/

Subsidies to Improve India's Food Security

       With the ever-growing population in India, providing food for the incredible numbers of people has become an even greater problem. Approximately one year ago, India's government passed legislation that would provide grain to 67% of the population at a significantly lower price. By subsidizing wheat and rice, the government would be able to feed the thousands of hungry people. However, the real problem comes from the fact that the cheaper food does not always reach those that actually need it. The Forbes article by Megha Bahree states the in 2012, about 35% of the wheat and rice were "leaked in the system." This is down from the 55% that was leaked in 2005, but it still shows that a significant amount of usable food did not reach its destination. Technology that tracks food grain delivery has been one of the greatest causes for improvements in leakages in many states, but in others, corruption still remains. While the legislation had overall positive reactions, many people critisized how not everyone was included in the group that receives lower priced grain, including Koraput. In this state, 39% are excluded from receiving food even though 88% are considered "multi-dimensionally poor" (Aljazeera).

       After the subsidies were implemented several months ago, India now faces challenges with the World Trade Organization about producing grain at such a low price. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad "highlighted India's food security concerns which must not be construed by the developed world as a stumbling block" (Business Standard). India's food security is steadily improving despite the growing population, but they still have many steps before they are able to eliminate undernourishment in the country.

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/tag/food-security-bill/ 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghabahree/2013/09/02/how-bad-really-is-indias-new-food-security-bill/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/food-security-india-not-doomed-after-all-20131110572633972.html

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/germany-respects-india-s-concern-on-food-security-114091800655_1.html

Microbes and Our Food

There is much debate over the use of pesticides and herbicides and other chemicals used on different crops. While I think it is important to entertain these discussions, I also believe that people fail to realize that maybe the solution lies with another alternative. This idea is where research and government support comes in. Without the support of the government any research is nearly impossible, but there has to be a way to attract the appropriate attention from them first. I found an article that I though hit close to home, literally. The article is about a microbiologist who discovered a microbe in Centralia PA. Sometimes we don’t take notice of the problems effecting our environment until it hits closer to home. This new information that this article tells us about stems from a discovery in Pennsylvania, which is where I am from. In the article there is talk about soil microbes and their ability to possibly grow stronger and more resilient crops. I found this to be great news especially because of the fact that it is a different idea that has not been fully explored yet. Of course it is also important to take into consideration that these soil microbes may not do that job as effectively compared to the widely used chemicals today. I think that despite this, we should look more diligently into this possible solution because we need to start securing our food now for our future. In order to really start supporting the use of these microbes we need more research. I think discussion about this at the FSSD ISGP Conference at Cornell will help get the attention needed to start researching and hopefully get us closer to a solution about how to protect our food. I really encourage you all to check this article out if you are at all interested!   

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-soil-bacteria-microbe-farming-technology- ngfood/

The Great, Fat War

It's an age old question that has recently been revisited in the media. Which diet is better for losing weight, or maintaining a healthy lifestyle? For decades, many major health organizations promoted the a low-fat diet. However, in recent years, a number of rigorous scientific studies have shown that actually low-fat diets are largely ineffective in helping individuals lose weight when compared to a diet low in carbohydrates.

In one particular study, two groups were put on different diets, one low-carb and the other low-fat. Those in the low-carb group were told to only consume about 30 percent of their daily calories from carbohydrates. In the low-fat group, 30 percent of their daily calories could come from fats. Over the course of a year, those in the low-carb group lost about 7.7 lbs per year more than those in the low-fat group, on average. In addition, most of weight lost by participants in the low-fat group was lean muscle, not fat.

Aside from weight loss, those in the low-carb group saw significant improvement in their total-HDL cholesterol ratio, meaning that their "good cholesterol" levels increased with respect to their "bad cholesterol." The same cannot be said for those in the low-fat group. Not to mention, the triglyceride levels of participants in the low-carb group fell more than those in the other group. Yes, by most measurements, it seems that the results of this study indicate superior health benefits for those eating a low-carb diet versus a low-fat one.

While this is only one study, there have been a number of others over the past decade that verify these findings. Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and it is difficult to expect the governmental guidelines for the optimal diet will change anytime soon. However, if Americans were to substantially alter their diets to favor one richer in fats and proteins with fewer carbohydrates, how would it impact our current food system? Would subsidies necessarily be provided to those growing different crops? What would the economic and social impacts be of such a dramatic shift in what people eat? It is hard to know for sure, but it is something to consider.

Below is a link to 23 studies showing the benefits of a low-carb diet:

<http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/>

A New Agriculture

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000195 EndHTML:0000008685 StartFragment:0000002407 EndFragment:0000008649 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/jimspeth/Desktop/Internship/ISGP%20Blog%202%20-%20Speth

About 6 times a year for the past three years I have made the trek from my school in southeastern Pennsylvania to my home in Chicago, Illinois. While every 12-hour drive offers a new set of adventures, my favorite by far is the first one of the year in late August. The never-ending farms that stretch from Illinois to central Pennsylvania are just reaching harvest. I love looking at the swaying golden wheat, the infinite fields of rich-green soybeans, and the cornfields that even the most directionally competent person would get lost in. While I do adore the view, I also have to acknowledge that looks can be deceiving. This form of intense annual agriculture, which may be visual pleasing, actually causes several significant issues, such as increased greenhouse gases; increase pesticide use, and decreased food security due to vulnerable crops. These environmental and food-related issues are exacerbated even more since the global demand for grain is currently dramatically increasing. Our world simply cannot economically or socially afford for much longer these issues in intense annual agriculture. Thus, in order to combat these issues, we must reevaluate the agricultural system and begin to shift toward a more sustainable, secure system of perennial agriculture.

            Before we examine the benefits of perennial agriculture though, we must first understand the issues associated with annuals. Annuals, which are defined as a crop that completes its life cycle within one year and then dies, have been popular since the domestication of crops, about 10,000 years ago. Our Neolithic ancestors realized that the annuals, such as wheat, maize/corn, soybeans, etc, adapted better to soil conditions. In addition, annuals seeds were preferred over perennials because annual seeds were bigger and easier to handle. Due to this, the selection pressure was unintentionally applied to the annuals, thus making them even more desirable. As these annuals rose to dominance, their environmental issues became more apparent. These issues stem from the fact that annuals have a shorter growing season and shallower, less dense roots than perennials. This trait limits the nutrients and the water available to them. Thus, annual plants require an excessive amount of fertilizers and pesticides, which are associated with increase greenhouse gases and runoff of dangerous chemicals. In addition to the required inputs, the root structure of the annuals also makes them more susceptible to temperature changes, which, at a time of climate change, is troubling.

            In order to combat the negative impacts of annuals while also ensuring food security in a world of shrinking resources, we must begin to develop perennial crops. Perennials are defined as crops that live longer than two years. So while annuals die after one year, perennials can be harvest multiple times over several years before they die. Even though perennials have been ignored for centuries, they are actually extremely beneficial. Unlike annuals, perennials have long, dense root system and a long growing season. This trait makes them more effective in maintaining topsoil by reducing water and nitrate lost. This also means that the perennials require much less inputs due to increase access to nutrient in the soil, thus decreasing cost and mitigating greenhouse gas emission. In addition, the root structure and resilience of perennials allows them to be planted on more-marginal lands. In other words, perennials can be planted on lands that are less fertile; therefore they can be used to increase the economic and biological diversity of farms. Lastly and most importantly, perennials are more resilient to social, political, health, and environmental disturbances. Since they do not rely on annual seed preparations or constant inputs, a perennial will still be productive even when there is a lack of human interference.

            The question that now faces us is: “is adapting perennials physically and economically feasible?” In short, the answer is yes. Adapting perennials is physically possible both in the sense of domestication/hybridization and crop yield. Domestication/hybridization would consist of breeding wild perennials for desirable traits. One could also crossbreed an annual, such as wheat, with a perennial relative in order to achieve an intermediate. In relation to crop yield, it may seem counterintuitive to have an intense root system AND a high crop yield. This is because carbon is captured and used in photosynthesis to produce energy, which is then allocated to different parts of the plant. Thus, if more is going to the root less would go to producing seeds. Luckily though, plants are flexible organisms that respond to selection pressures. This means that depending on a plants environment, the resources available can expand or shrink. So, by putting a perennial in a fertile environment, there would be an adequate amount of resources for both an intense root system and a high crop yield.

            When it comes to economic feasibility is when the idea of shifting to perennials becomes difficult. Currently, less than $1.5 million dollars directly supports perennial grain projects. In order to achieve an efficient perennial system, much more resources and funding will be necessary. These resources would have to come from both the private and public sector. Even when perennial grains are developed, there will still need to be programs and monetary incentives to persuade farmers to make the shift.  Once the resources of secured though, they will be nothing to stop this necessary shift to a sustainable, perennial agricultural system.

The Middle East and Food Security

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-future-crops-conflict-zones.html

            I will be completely honest and say that I have never been very interested in politics and related world issues.  As a science major and hopeful future medical student, I find it easy to ignore world conflicts and assume that science can be studied on its own.  However, this article points out that this is not possible (and that I should really pay more attention to world news.)

            In the Middle East, particularly in areas called part of the Fertile Crescent, grow many crop wild relatives (CRWs).  CRWs are crops that are related to our food crops and are important for food security.  These crops have many traits that are beneficial such as drought or pest resistance, and can be vital for future attempts to breed or genetically modify crops.  For example, a relative of wheat (which was brought to other areas in the world from the Fertile Crescent in the first place) is resistant to the Hessian fly.  This CRW, then, may help people develop wheat that is resistant to such pests as well.  Thus, CRWs are important not only as parts of the ecosystem in the Middle East, but also as a vital resource to conserve as the world population continues to grow.

            However, many CRWs are at risk of going extinct.  Although there have been efforts to take samples for gene banks, conserving the plants in the wild is still important because they can only continue to adapt to changes in the environment, climate, and ecosystems in the wild.  Furthermore, even collections of seeds may be threatened as one of the largest seed collections is in Syria and is believed to be under the control of rebel forces.

           Conservation efforts are also hindered by the conflicts in the Middle East.  These include the Syrian civil war, the Iraq insurgency, conflicts associated with IS, and more.  Unfortunately, the highest concentration of CRWs also happens to fall in the same areas affected by these conflicts, especially in Syria and Lebanon.

            Although I am not sure how such clashes between food security, conservation efforts, politics, and science will ultimately play out, but I think this situation highlights the importance of understanding both politics and war even as scientists.

India and Germany's Talk on Trade: Are We Losing Sight of What's Important?

            In a recent meeting between German Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabrial, and Indian Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, the two discussed German and Indian financial investment relations along with India’s concern over food security within the coming years. Gabrial allegedly brought WTO concerns to the conversation in hopes that solutions could be sought between the countries. Prasad expressed India’s concerns on food security’s impact on WTO negotiations, and fears of how these issues may be construed by the developed world. In short, India decided not to ratify WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement, but instead asked for the organization to amend the norms for calculating agriculture subsidies in order for the country to continue feeding its lower class population on crops from its farmers. Gabrial “respected the concerns of India with respect to food security.” Throughout the meeting, the two continued to discuss trade negotiations and how each country could improve various investments in order to help the other out.

            In ways, developing nations facing a food crisis can be viewed as an immense opportunity for global change. These areas, while having food systems in place, also have the potential to alter these systems before anything becomes too rooted within developed institution. We now have the opportunity to build sustainable food systems from the ground up, as opposed to working within or completely tearing down faulty systems already in place (such as the case in the US). This potential brings with it immense challenges, but also offers a hope that may not yet be entirely explored. The optimism within this article, however, was not necessarily focused on such radical, romantic ideas.

The article at first offers a glimmer of light in a world where it seems as if we are all only attempting to oppose and out-play one another, but it also leaves the reader with a sense of suspicion due to the ambiguity of trade subsidy regulation. Nations reaching out to one another in order to band together and fight the food security crisis is certainly ideal, but when it is done in terms of investments and trade, an amount of idealism feels lost. Upon reading, it is also hard to ignore that key components of India's food security issues, such as corruption and sustainability, were not addressed. India has nearly doubled its food supply in the last two decades, yet 21 percent of the population remains undernourished. Pouring more money into subsidizing the world's second largest grain stockpile (behind China) seems to sidestep the issue of the corrupt government that refuses to find ways to actually get the food to its starving people.  Within this meeting it does not appear as if the men discussed sustainable practices either, so much as ways to continue building business and industry in order to increase funds. At this point in our knowledge on sustainable food systems, it is fairly certain that a more long-lasting prosperity will come from better treatment of soils and diversified crops, rather than continuing to mono-crop wheat and rice. 

At this point, we are left with numerous questions that we must not only ask, but beg answers for as well. Should India have to convince Germany of their imminent economic growth due to industry booms (an inherent institutional opposition to sustainable agricultural practices) in order to receive further investments to continue the mass subsidization of crops to feed starving people? Is it a pro or con that the food crisis has moved beyond a humanitarian issue and onto hard economics? Is this a sign of real, tangible progress, or a step backward in human morals and values? It is clear that sustainable development requires such funds, but how can we determine that incoming money will be allocated in this manner? And upon negotiations such as these, when did the food itself fall into the background?

Sources:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/germany-respects-indias-concern-on-food-security/articleshow/42808111.cms

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/business/global/a-failed-food-system-in-india-prompts-an-intense-review.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0