Strategies to increase food supply inevitably have detrimental effects for people and the environments they live

in To what extent do you believe?

The worlds population is expected to grow to nearly 9 billion by 2050, which means there has been a need to increase the amount of food that is produced. As the population increases the amount of available land for agriculture decreases, therefore food production capacity is faces with a number of growing challenges. As a result different strategies have been introduced to try and increase food supply. Some of which are very effective, whereas others bring detrimental environmental and social effects with them. GM crops are a strategy that were first put onto the market to help increase food supply in 1996. GM crops stands for genetically modifying crops and involves taking some of the DNA (A complex molecule that holds genetic code for each plant or animal) from one species and adding it to the DNA of another species. When a plant is genetically modified, some of the characteristics of the donor plant are transferred to the new plant. For example you can add genes of a herbicide resistant weed to a wheat seed so a wheat type is produced thats not harmed by herbicides. This means that a field of wheat can be sprayed with weeds without the crop being affected. People argue that GM crops could solve food shortages around the world and reduce the amount of chemicals being inputted into farming. This could mean that chemicals such as fertilisers that have significant damage to the environment as they cause eutrophication when they're washed off the land by rainwater into rivers and lakes. The increase of nitrate or phosphate in the water encourages algae growth, which forms a bloom over the water surface. This prevents sunlight reaching other water plants, which then die. Bacteria break down the dead plants and use up the oxygen in the water so the lake may be left completely lifeless. So for this reason GM crops can be said to bring about environmental advantages. However there are arguments against them. Firstly an environmental impact is that the pollen of GM plants might pollinate nearby crops which could spread the modifications in an uncontrolled way. Aside from this a detrimental effect on people is that the health effects from GM crops are unknown therefore, they could potentially cause health problems that are life threatening. The green revolution occurred between 1967 and 1978 and was composed of 3 basic elements: the continued expansion of farming areas, double cropping of existing farmland and using seeds with improved genetics (HYV). Between 1947 and 1967 efforts at achieving food selfsufficiently were not successful. Efforts were mainly focused on expanding

farm areas but starvation deaths were still reported and the population was growing at a faster rate than food production, so drastic action was called for, the green revolution. It applied in many 3rd world countries but not most successful in India. However with most strategies to increase food production some negative impacts were causes as a result. These include problems that effected humans, like increased rural unemployment, HYV crops being less palatable to eat and area under irrigation increasing, meaning there was a lack of water for people. Other problems such as Extra fertilisation and pesticides being used increasing pollution of water were major environmental impacts. The green revolution didnt bring about many environmental successes however it did benefit humans as the wheat and rice yields double, it caused some road improvements and the need for fertilisers also created jobs and a new industry. Another strategy used to increase food supply is high technology approaches. This includes Integrated pest management, irrigation, micro propagation and growth hormones. Integrated pest management is a pest control management that uses complementary methods, natural predators and parasites, pest resistant varieties, cultural practices and biological control. Mechanical trapping devices, natural predators, insect growth regulators and pheromones are all strategies used again pests. Pesticides are only used as a last resort. Using Pheromone traps on insects reduced pesticide by 50% and saving farmers 20million. This strategy is an example of one that doesnt cause social or environmental implications. Irrigation has been used since agriculture began, and ensure crops get the water they need, however irrigation does not help water conservation and cause soil erosion. However if new methods of irrigation are used such as drip irrigation, these problems are limited due to water being delivered ear the roots and evaporation and runoff are minimised. Micro-propagation includes using tissue culture to allow rapid multiplication of plantlets. This produces disease free plants and rooted plants that are ready for growth unlike seeds resulting in a more robust plant. The problem however which this approach is that its very expensive, so the benefits might be outweighed by the cost to produce them. Also infections in the plant can be easily passed on, which could cause detrimental effects to people eating the food produced. Finally growth hormones, which are steroid hormones that can be implanted in beef cattle to improve weight gain. The same can also be done to dairy cattle by 10%. This is a very successful approach in improving food production however it has been banned in many countries, the uk included. Critics believe that growth hormones in food could have negative effects on people health and also state that it is against animal welfare.

A major problem with food production is that there is not enough land in which to produce the amount of food needed for the population. Land colonisation is where areas of land have been exploited and developed for agriculture to provide more land for subsistence farmers / to grow commercial crops. Examples can involve reclaiming land from the sea, draining marshes and extending cultivation into dry areas through irrigation. An example of where this has happened is Brazil. Here vast tracks of the amazon have been opened up to provide more farmland. Yet this has caused lots of damage to the rainforest and such deforestation has caused drastic effects on the environment. Land reform is slightly different, and is the redistribution of land. It includes expropriation of large estates by redistributing land to individual owners, consolidation of small fragmented farms, attempting land colonisation projects and moving land into state ownership. This process doesnt have any drawbacks, yet there can sometimes be an equality issue If the government force land owners in colonising there land. Also commercialisation is a strategy thats used to increase food production. More and more supermakets in developed countries are sourcing their food products from LEDCSs. This has benefits and issues associated with it. The small farmers that are being drawn into contracts increase their outputs and are able to sell al their produce, yet this also means that theres a decline in the amount of food provided for the local populations. This process means that some areas (MEDCs) are solving their problem of limited food supply, but its making the food production problem in LEDCs much worse. The last solution to the food supply issue thats being tried in appropriate/ intermediate technology. This is the use of small scale, sustainable low tech ideas that are appropriate to the local climate and environment and the wealth, skills and needs of the local people. This could include farmers using cheap organic fertilisers like animal dung instead of chemical fertilisers. Also tools are built and maintained locally rather than importing expensive machinery. This can save farmers money and can also provide jobs for local people. This strategy is an example of one that doesnt have negative effects for people and the environment and focuses of sustainable food production. After looking that many of the strategies that have been trailed to try and improve food production, I have come to the conclusion that I do not fully agree with the statement Strategies to increase food supply inevitably have detrimental effects for people and the environments they live in. Although I feel that many of the strategies that have previously

been put into place have brought about detrimental effects to the environment and people, most of them have also brought many benefits and have helped to increase the amount of food produced. You could argue that negative effects to the environment and people from these strategies are not as bad as those that would occur if the amount of food production wasnt increased. Also there are lots of strategies such as appropriate technology that dont cause any of these negative effects and instead increase food production in a sustainable way. This proves that no all strategies inevitably have disadvantages like the statement suggests.