Letter: Letters : Food first

From David Hall

Newcastle upon Tyne

Rob Edwards gets the connection between biodiversity and hunger wrong
(“Tomorrow’s bitter harvest”, 17 August, p 14). To start with, the starvation
during the Irish potato famine was far from natural, since Ireland was at the
time an exporter of grain. The poor diet of the Irish and their reliance on one
crop were caused by the British occupation, and the effects of the famine were
exacerbated by the soldiers who prevented starving people from eating any other
crops when the potato blight struck.

In this century, the concentration on a few high-yielding crops has been
important in feeding a rising population, while the apparent loss in
biodiversity has not been significant as a cause of hunger. In the future we
will need to develop new varieties in order to reduce disease and increase
yields, and a broad gene pool will be part of this. But we should not overstate
the problems, nor should we lose sight of the main goal of feeding people.

This does not require massive advances in food technology, however. Instead
we need to apply existing best practice more generally across the world. For
example, China manages to feed 20 per cent of the population of the world with 7
per cent of the land. In spite of this, there is still spare land in China. If
there is any limit here, it is economic rather than natural.

So rather than decrying the development of modern agriculture, we should
celebrate its successes, and argue for further advances. If this approach were
adopted, maybe a solution to the problem of hunger could be found at the UN
conference later this year.