Comments on: The human and technological dimension

By: peter

peter — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:35:37 +0000

I feel it is the human element that needs the most work.
Given the problem is over-population,where is the research into effecctive population control and population reduction? Are we just to wait for war, famine and disease to cull us back to sustainable levels?
In a finite world, you cannot have infinite growth.
What is the maximum population level the world can sustain? It depends what level of lifestyle you want. The higher the lifestyle, the fewer the people that can be supported.
Rather than tackle the downstream problem of feeding extra people, why not tackle the upstream source of the problem and reduce the number of people needing to be fed?

By: BBSRC

BBSRC — Fri, 14 May 2010 07:21:53 +0000

Simon Leather – The last BBSRC Masters funding call specified priorities in a number of areas and available funding is, unfortunately, not unlimited. This means that there is a difficult job for any funding panel – in this case BBSRC’s Training Awards Committee – to reach decisions about the ranking of proposals such that we can award limited funds. As a member of a BBSRC training awards committee you will recognise these difficult decisions that have to be made. As we mentioned in our blog comment of 18 January 2010, BBSRC worked closely with the Chief Scientific Advisor’s Food Research Partnership to undertake an analysis of the high-level skills needs in the agri-food sector. The report, which is now available (http://tinyurl.com/2vfdgyz), indicates the need for provision at both Masters and Doctoral level to be targeted at professionals already employed in the agri-food sectors. Our Advanced Training Partnership funding scheme (www.bbsrc.ac.uk/atp), which was launched on 10 February 2010, seeks precisely to help support partnerships between universities, institutes, employers and others, to design and deliver training targeted at people already working in the sector. These people will then gain the high-level skills that companies need in order to access and apply new research findings and so help the UK achieve food security.

By: Simon Leather

Simon Leather — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:25:51 +0000

The BBSRC is being somewhat disingenuous. They particularly called for Masters Programmes in so called niche subject areas such as soil science, plant pathology and entomology. Yet despite having applications from Masters programmes in these areas, from the SOLE remaining providers – they declined to fund them, from reasons ranging from “the people who run the course do not publish in Science and Nature”, to “this course is not within the remit of the BBSRC”. Until the committee structure of the BBSRC is changed, it is unlikely that food security training issues will be adequately addressed.

By: BBSRC

BBSRC — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:13:23 +0000

Simon Leather –

The BBSRC Training Awards Committee recently took the decision to fund a number of masters programmes which will provide high-level training in the skills needed for food security. Announcements of these awards will be made shortly and they will start in October 2010.

Working in conjunction with the Chief Scientific Advisor’s Food Research Partnership, BBSRC is has also been involved in an analysis of the high-level skills needs in the agri-food sector. This showed a pressing need for mechanisms to help agricultural and food science professionals to access research coming out of universities and research institutes. BBSRC is developing a new initiative to help business access high-level skills training in a range of strategically important, specialist agri-food areas. We hope to launch this shortly.

By: Wyn Grant

Wyn Grant — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:49:53 +0000

I very much agree with Hilary that what we need is a multi-faceted approach to these problems that does not rely just on technological fixes which is not to say that technology is unimportant, but it always has to be used in a broader social and political context. What this requires is a dialogue between different academic disciplines and practitioners which is what the RELU programme has offered. I do, however, share the concerns of an earlier poster about the CAP and I fear that the revival of the food security discourse will inhibit the range and content of the reform debate in the run up to 2013. Talk of a ‘third pillar’ of the CAP dealing with climate change is interesting, but at the moment it is just talk.

By: Simon Leather

Simon Leather — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:31:31 +0000

It is a shame given the Royal Society’s and the Chief Government Scientist’s call for improved crop protection, that the BBSRC are not willing to fund courses in Entomology, Plant Pathology and Integrated Pest Management. Entomology and Pest Management as specialist disciplines are now only taught at Master’s level in the UK, and only at one university – Imperial College. Without adequate training in these areas who will protect the crops of the future? Without a cadre of suitably trained crop protection scientists, UK food security will very soon be in jeopardy. The funding bodies must act NOW if these much needed disciplines are to be saved.

By: Hilary

Hilary — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:57:59 +0000

If population continues to grow as predicted we need all these elements. Reformed governance, reformed diets, the acceptance of ‘new’ science and well-used ‘old’ science, public and private accountability, people wisdom, skills and engagement and a realisation that these last 50 years of increasing food consumption in the West will never be repeated. Huge but urgent problems that need to be tackled collectively.

By: Liz Charles

Liz Charles — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:50:32 +0000

I very much agree with Philip’s comments regarding the importance of the human dimension in tackling future global food security. If this is ignored the ‘law’ of unintended consequences will mean that however good the technology is, it will not produce the desired results. His examples illustrate this to good effect. I would like to add another dimension, that of the micro level setting. I think we should not discount the potential of the cumulative impact of an increase in self-provisioning (individual and community) and small scale food production enterprises aimed at the local market. These growing sites (e.g. private gardens, allotments, urban sites, land rented from larger farms) have potential to improve yield by the more efficient use of unused or underused land. Take a look around you and it is not difficult to observe such sites. Research into this potential is also required.

By: Thinkingaboutfood

Thinkingaboutfood — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:49:03 +0000

NZ’s model of unsubsidised and very productive agriculture has been exemplary in one way — but in another way illustrates a dilemma at the heart of food security debates. NZ now is very skilled at providing food products for the rest of the world — which then have to be transported on long journeys by ship, which we are learning is a less benign form of transport (in terms emissions) than we used to think. I was (maybe inaccurately?) told recently by some NZ environmentalists that NZ expects to be ‘shielded’ from some of the more adverse effects of global warming. But having an agricultural economy dependent on long-distance exports surely isn’t sustainable?

By: Frankenstein's Monster

Frankenstein's Monster — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:03:16 +0000

I can’t disagree with Don MacLeod, but I would still like to add that GM crops will almost certainly alleviate the adverse effects of cereal monoculture, especially when that cereal is milled and polished. Golden Rice, for example, has the potential to reduce the incidence of blindness in countries whose staple is rice.

Overcoming squeamishness about “Frankenfoods” is only part of the story. We must also abandon the pharmaceutical model, where companies can patent a lifeform for profit. It should also be illegal to modify plants so that the seed is sterile.

So the problem is not solely technological, nor solely economic, but legal as well.