Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 2--Scarcity and Distribution

First, a brief recap of part 1, from yesterday:

Global food scarcity is an increasing problem, which is made worse by increases in inefficient, resource-intensive meat production/consumption. It's not just that we need to feed more people (a linear increase). Low- and middle-income countries (with large population bases and high population growth rates) are consuming more resource-intensive animal products, so the effect is multiplied. The United Nations predicts that this, combined with the already high per capita consumption rates of the wealthy nations, will result in global meat consumption doubling over 50 years (2000-2050).

Scarcity and Distribution Are Connected

So meat consumption is increasing, and more people will go hungry? Yes, because we have more people to feed due to population growth and because distribution is increasingly uneven, with more meat-eaters bidding away food staples from the world's poor.

It's common to hear people (even experts) say that hunger is a problem of distribution, not scarcity. But it's not a question of scarcity versus distribution--scarcity and distribution problems are connected.

When scarcity is high, distribution issues are exacerbated because there is even less to go around. It seems obvious, but it needs to be made crystal clear--increased scarcity increases hunger, and meat increases both scarcity and distribution disparities.

It's basic supply and demand.

Eating meat increases the demand for basic food supplies (grain, corn, soy, etc.) much more than consuming these staples directly.

The increased demand for basic staples increases their price and makes it more difficult for the world's poor to buy food. Instead, those who are better off buy the food for animal feed to produce meat. Some countries actually export food during famine, selling food for feed while their own people starve because they can't afford it.

In short, your hamburger increases the price of their corn, grain, soy, etc.

-Continue reading after the jump-

If food supply could increase sufficiently, the extra demand would not affect price so drastically. But that's not the current or predicted situation. Food supply has become relatively inelastic/fixed (at best) and is tightening (at worst).

An example of increased food demand increasing price was recently demonstrated by the food crisis and the debate over biofuels. Biofuels compete for limited food supplies. This competition increases the price of food and precipitated a global food crisis. Meat consumption is a much bigger competitor for food staples than biofuels, but few people discuss the obvious benefits of reducing meat consumption to reduce the price of food.

The Shell Game

Okay, so supply and demand show how scarcity and distribution are connected. But there must be ways around it, right? I already conceded that if supply increased, it would offset the increased demand, so the effect on price would be muted.

How about technology? If we increase yield, that will provide more food. How about population control? If we have fewer people, we will need less food. Both are true. But neither are sufficient in real terms.

We are already working to reduce population growth and increase food yield. These are already the favored solutions, but these approaches are not effective enough. In addition to these and other efforts, we need to promote reduced global meat consumption.

Meat Consumption Can't Double

Even as I spend all of my professional time and quite a bit of my "off-time" working to promote the benefits of plant-based solutions, I don't think the UN's prediction-that meat consumption will double-will come true.

We currently consume 56 billion land animals a year. It was 50 billion in 2000 (more than 5 million an hour). If that were to increase to 100 billion by 2050, the consequences would be dire. So dire that I don't actually think it's possible.

Meat consumption will decrease. It's just a matter of how and when. Either we make responsible decisions and consciously reduce our meat consumption as individuals and society, or it will be forced upon us by environmental and/or economic destruction.

Some groups avoid promoting the needed reforms by saying that increased meat consumption is "demand-driven." While they agree that reducing global meat consumption would positively impact many global problems, including improving food security and reducing global warming, they dismiss the notion as "well-meaning" or "idealistic" and redirect the agenda to focus on how to meet the demand.

But as public opinion leaders and policymakers, it is their duty to promote the most effective solutions, even if they think it's a "hard sell."

It is our duty as concerned individuals to support these solutions, even if we personally fall short of the ideal. It's bad enough that we are killing ourselves and others with our meat consumption; let's not call the vegetarians/vegans the irrational ones. It's not just inaccurate; it's dangerous.

Reducing meat consumption won't solve global hunger. It is not a panacea. But it is a critical and commonsense component of a sustainable food system, and it's irrational to avoid it. Reversing the trend of increased meat consumption is something to which each of us can easily contribute. As Americans, the largest per capita meat consumers in the world, our changes and our example are especially significant.

---

Image: indiana.edu