Two articles in the May, 2018, issues of the leading national bee journals have a common motif. In an otherwise excellent article on pollination, Rusty Burlew writes in Bee Culture : “Modern farms are the antithesis
of natural environments. But far from being a bad thing, modern farms are necessary to feed burgeoning populations of humans.” And in a surprisingly emotive piece of writing in the American Bee Journal, Jessica Louque defends the
use of neonicotinoids on the grounds of cost effectiveness, suggesting that “If neonics are banned from the US, it’s going to be financially more difficult for everyone but the chemical companies.”
am not convinced that modern farming techniques are the long term answer to population growth, nor do I believe that funding issues should determine environmental health and policy. It seems short-sighted to allow our planet to degrade further on the grounds
that it is too expensive to fix it.
First, In 1985, in the executive summary of it’s Farming Systems Trial, the Rodale Institute asserted that “Organic farming is far superior to conventional
systems when it comes to building, maintaining and replenishing the health of the soil. For soil health alone, organic agriculture is more sustainable than conventional. When one also considers yields, economic viability, energy usage, and human health, it’s
clear that organic farming is sustainable, while current conventional practices are not. As we face uncertain and extreme weather patterns, growing scarcity and expense of oil, lack of water, and a growing population, we will require farming systems
that can adapt, withstand or even mitigate these problems while producing healthy, nourishing food.”
More recently, two of the leaders of the Regenerative Agriculture movement, Gabe Brown and Dr. Jonathan Lundgren,
in North Dakota and Kansas respectively, have shown practically and persuasively that moving beyond sustainable to regenerative agriculture can significantly increase yields without the use of chemicals. Both men are also beekeepers, and the honey
bees are integral parts of their system of rejuvenation which focuses on increased biodiversity, soil enrichment, improvement of watersheds and enhancement of ecosystem services.
Secondly, feeding an increasing
population is much more complex than simply increasing food supplies; indeed the latter may work for 2050 when the world population is estimated to be 9.1 billion people, a 34% increase over the current figure, most of which will occur in less developed
countries. But should we not be thinking further down the road than simply one generation? A long term solution which integrates a healthy planet with a well fed population requires more elaborate solutions.
is an immense amount of material available on possible solutions, stemming from research papers, national conferences and international agencies, and what follows is but the tip of the iceberg, enough hopefully to increase awareness as to what lies below the
surface. The Agricultural Policy Analysis Centre, for example, points out that since 1974, agricultural production has been increasing at a higher rate than population growth. The number of hungry people, however, has not decreased; on the contrary,
that number has increased steadily since 2000.
Such hunger is not due to a shortage of food – the world has enough resources to feed, clothe, house, and employ the entire world. The problem isn’t a lack of
resources so much as social inequality (both within and between countries) and inequitable distribution. By some estimates, stopping the waste of food after harvest due to poor storage or transport infrastructure, as well as in our own kitchens, could free
up half of all food grown. Providing the additional calories needed by the 13% of the world's population facing hunger would require just 1% of the current global food supply. That such redistribution has not already taken place is shameful; there is
no valid excuse for so many people to die daily in avoidable agony.
International aid, important as it is, is no longer the main story. As in the ‘give-a-man-a-fish’ adage, the long term need is to provide
small agricultural producers with the research, extension and credit that will enable them to feed themselves and their families. The governments of Ghana and Brazil have taken the lead in doing jus that, whereas many countries like India,
growing at 8% a year and with a mushrooming middle class, need to take greater responsibility for their hungry masses, both in the short term through effective social services and in the long term via nurturing small scale growers, including urban farming.
Less than 1% of what the world spends every year on weapons is needed to place every child into school. Increased access to education means not only increased opportunities for income and food, but it also allows for
the empowerment of women, including the provision of access to contraceptives that allows for family planning and greater economic choices.
One of the enduring consequences of colonialism is that more people are eating a diet heavy
in meat, dairy and eggs. The issue is that the standard Western diet is extremely resource intensive; we currently produce enough calories to feed 11 billion people worldwide, but the majority of this food goes to feed livestock. One estimate is that
those who eat beef use 160 times more land, water and fuel resources to sustain their diets than their plant-based counterparts. With the provision of fresh water becoming a significant issue, we cannot ignore that 70% of our domestic
freshwater goes directly to animal agriculture and that one acre of land can produce 250 pounds of beef , 50,000 pounds of tomatoes or 53,000 pounds of potatoes.
Then there are the global impacts of war and climate change. For millions
of people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the latter means more frequent and intense floods, droughts and storms, accounting for up to 90% of all natural disasters annually, and which can quickly spiral into full-blown food and nutrition crises.
The push in Europe and north America to reduce dependence on imported oil and gas has led to the introduction of targets and subsidies for biofuels, which compete directly with endowments for food production and result in increased food prices for the
poor. Greenhouse gas emissions in wealthy countries drive climate change at a pace that outstrips even the most pessimistic projections of the climate modelers, and there are few signs of governments agreeing to the kinds of reductions needed to avoid catastrophic
temperature rises that will harm tropical agriculture in particular, thus countermanding the efforts towards small scale sustainable farming.
Globally, social and political instability
are on the rise. Since 2010, state-based conflict has increased by 60% and armed conflict within countries has increased by 125%. More than half of the food-insecure people identified in the U.N. report
(489 million out of 815 million) live in countries with ongoing violence; more than three-quarters of the world’s chronically malnourished children (122 million of 155 million) live in conflict-affected regions.
The number of refugees
and internally displaced persons doubled between 2007 and 2016. Of the estimated 64 million people who are currently displaced, more than 15 million are linked to one of the
world’s most severe conflict-related food crises in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, South Sudan, Nigeria,
northern Kenya and Somalia. While migration is itself uncertain and difficult, those with the fewest resources may not even have that option. Research from at the University of Minnesota shows that the most vulnerable populations may be trapped
in place, without the resources to migrate.
War makes the poor poorer in many ways. It’s the working-class, who struggle to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families in
the best of times, who pay for the war, both financially and with their lives. Violent disruptions to food systems and economies spill over to countries bordering such conflicts. Refugees might devastate livestock, trees, and other natural resources
as they move. Once forcibly settled or self-settled, they compete for land and resources and affect local markets for food and livestock. Their additional demand creates scarcities that drive up prices, while their need for cash drives down prices of livestock
and other assets when they enter markets to sell them to get the money to buy food. Such distortions interfere with local coping mechanisms that ordinarily allow people to respond effectively to drought and avoid destitution, and turn food shortage into famine,
as is painfully evident in much of the Middle East and North Africa today.
If we are sincere in our determination to resolve world hunger in a growing global population, surely we would focus as much on working for international
peace and justice, the reversal of climate change, building and protecting reliable lines of communication and distribution, universal economic growth, better diets, the revival of small scale agriculture, and increased educational opportunities, as we do
on providing food for the hungry at the expense of the health and longevity of our own resources. Hunger is both a cause and a symptom of poverty and, like so much else, it is underscored by issues of power, control, money and self-interest.
According to recent data from the UN, some 850 million people (one in eight of the world's population) go to bed hungry every night. Many of them are children, for whom malnourishment leaves a lifelong legacy of cognitive and physical impairment. Damaged
bodies and brains are a moral scandal most of all, as well as a tragic waste of economic potential.
We work hard to provide for the nutritional well-being and longevity of our bees, and pride ourselves on
acknowledging and absorbing the complexity of their society. We admire their constant business and their long term objective of the continued survival of the species in as strong and as healthy a form as possible. When we fail to challenge simplistic
statements that eschew such complexity in our own world, not least when they emanate from organizations that have a financial stake in obscuring the deeper issues, we deny extending to our fellow beings the courtesies we offer to our charges in