Aid Policies and World Hunger

Aid Policies and World Hunger

Question 1

Issue 13-Aid Policies and World Hunger The origin of the debate on aid policies and worlds hungerstems from the need to review food assistance practices and policies. International donors find themselves in an argument over the best way to contribute resources to world hunger Clapp, 2012).

Robert Paarlberg recommends against the giving of food aid as a response to global hunger. In his view food aid donations do not address the underlying problem of low food productivity in developing countries; in fact he argues that these free foods hurt the small scale farmers buy reducing demand for their produce. Paarlberg advices that the better solution is to invest in agricultural development that will enable these people feed themselves. According to Paarleberg United States spends twenty times more money on food aid than agricultural development. It does not make sense to him that United States has cut its agricultural development aid by eighty five percent yet double food aid since 1980 (Paarlberg, 2009).

Lester Brown on the other hand believes that there is no relationship agricultural advances and productivity. Countries with advanced agricultural technologies do not experience any increase in yields. He gives an example of Japan, which has not seen increase in yields per acre in the past fourteen years, though it had experienced a sustained rise in the past. Hunger is caused by decreased food production as a result of population growth, decreased soil quality, changes in temperature and decreasing earth’s water table (Brown, 2012).

Paarlberg does not support the theory that international prices are the cause of the global food problem. Food prices on the international market tell little about global hunger. In his argument he says that those who are affected by hunger in Africa and South Asia are shielded from price fluctuations in the global market by their government’s trade policies and poor infrastructure. The solution is to put more resources into irrigation, mechanization of farming and better infrastructure (Paarlberg, 2009).

Lester Brown attributes the increase in food prices to hunger in developing countries. In his opinion increase in prices is a calamity to the world’s poorest population. Food takes up fifty to seventy percent of their income. Brown says that as the international food prices double so does the local food prices in the developing nations. Therefore the solution to hunger is to regulate food prices (Brown, 2012).

I support Paarberg’s argument that though helpful food aid does not solve the problem of hunger. More should be done to avoid the problem of hunger instead of relying on the short term solution of food aid when hunger occurs. It is important to empower communities facing hunger so that they are able to feed themselves.

References

Brown, L (2012) Full Planet, Empty Plates The new Geopolitics of Food Scarcity New York, NY: Norton & company

Clapp, J.(2012) Hunger in the Balance: The New Politics of International Food Aid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press

Easton, T. A. (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (14th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Paarlberg, R. (2009) Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is being kept out of Africa. Harvard University Press

Question 2

Issue 14-Genetically Modified Foods

The world health organization describes genetically modified foods; as foods derived from organisms that have had modifications in their genetic material in an unnatural way. The current genetically modified crops have been modified so that they are, drought, disease or herbicide resistant. These modifications are aimed at increasing crop production. Genetically modified foods are not allowed into the market before assessment (Easton, 2011).

Controversies surrounding genetically modified food are as a result of concern about their safety. It is argued that Genetically Modified Foods miss vital nutrients that are found in non modified food (Easton, 2011). Scientists who support genetic modification however claim that they are superior to naturally occurring crops when it comes to nutrition. Scientists who propose Genetically Modified Foods say that there is no difference between Genetic modification and the natural cross breeding and hybridization. Those who oppose argue that cross breeding and hybridization respects the boundaries of different species. There are also concerns over the effects of Genetically Modified Foods on human health and the environment.

Gerald Coleman is a proponent of Genetically modified foods he promotes genetic engineering as the solution to hunger and malnutrition experienced in different parts of the world. A study by National Center for Food Agriculture found that farmers in United States harvested 5.3 billion more crops and realized 22 billion increases in income as a result of using biotech products (Silver, 2007).

In relation to solving food shortages Father Sean McDonagh an opponent wonders if those producing genetically modified food will distribute their produce to the poor for free. In his view hunger can only be alleviated when issues pertaining to economic and social inequalities are addressed. He gives an example of the 1840 famine of Ireland where by even though there was food in the country the poor could not access or buy food.

Hybrid seeds cannot be replanted thereby necessitating the farmer to buy seeds each season argues McDonagh. He quotes John Perkins who wrote that genetic engineering has led to the loss of three quarters of major food crops genetic diversity (Silver, 2007).

Father Sean McDonagh links the patenting of genetically modified organisms as patenting of life. He supports an Indian Scientists Dr Vandana Shiva who believes that there can be food dictatorship as a result of food patenting. This will lead to starvation and hunger conflicts. Life is a gift of God and should be freely shared. In response to concerns of the morality associated with patenting of Genetically Modified seeds he says that there are proposals that research universities to share their intellectual property through open licensing. The developing countries where the research was carried out can then have negotiating rights. This would put human interest above that of corporate.

Sean refutes the claim that Genetically Modified crops require less chemical use in agriculture. He gives an example of a study where it was found that when Genetically Modified Organisms were first introduced they required twenty five percent less chemicals for the first few years. Over the years however, the same crops required five percent more chemicals (herbicides) compared to natural crop varieties. Coleman however supports those who believe that it reduces use of pesticides and as a result helps the environment. In his opinion Genetically Modified Foods are nutrient rich, drought resistant and require less water use. This leads to increase in crop production at a lower cost (Ruse, 2002).

Genetically Modified Foods is a solution of hunger but not the only solution in my opinion. More research should be done to address the concerns of those opposing Genetically Modified Foods.

References

Easton, T. A. (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (14th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ruse, M. (2002) Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books

Silver, L. M.(2007) Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning will Transform the American Family Harper Perennial

Issue 15-Organic Farming Organic farming is a form of farming that uses natural techniques only to produce crops. Organic farming uses organic manure, crop rotation and biological pest control. Catherine Badgley advocates for organic farming. According to her Organic agricultural methods can sustain the current world population without increasing the farm land put into production. Organic agriculture can contribute to food supply globally with less environmental impact compared to conventional agriculture (Easton, 2011). John Miller is against organic farming in his opinion organic farming is wasteful. Organic farming yields half of what conventional farming produces. Modern agricultural technology allows food production in large quantities in the limited land available.

Catherine Badgley that synthetic nitrogen fertilizers widely used today can be replaced by green manure from legumes that biologically fix nitrogen in the soil and compost manure. John Miller disagrees with the fact that organic manure is better than industrial nitrogen fertilizers. He says that organic manure creates a breeding ground for all kinds of microbes. In United States for example Organic Manure accounts for eight percent of all Escherichia Coli cases.

John Miller opposes the argument that organic foods are healthier because they are grown in a chemical free setting. Miller states that organic foods have not more nutritious than non organic foods that are genetically altered, use pesticides and fueled by industrial fertilizers. There is no evidence that organic foods are safer and more nutritious than conventional foods according to Miller’s argument. He quotes the Secretary for Agriculture during Clinton Administration who says that Organic labels are just marketing tool. Miller points out that because organic farming does not use pesticides and herbicides, organic crops are susceptible to fungi and bacterial infections as well as weeds and insects.

References

Easton, T. A. (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (14th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Question 4

Lester Brown: The Persistent Prophet

Barbara Crossette talks about Lester Brown in her article called “The persistent prophet”. The author describes Lester brown as the creator of the first research institute in 1974, dedicated to addressing global environmental issues like climate change, natural resources threats and harmful energy policies. The writer talks about the different achievements of Lester Brown including the United Nations Environmental prize and McArthur ‘genius’ Scholarship. He has published fifty books.

She writes about how Lester Brown has been viewed as a gloomy prophet because his teachings have never been taken seriously. However, recently Lester has been more optimistic that people are beginning to practice more environmental conscious and sustainable energy use. On the issue of global food supplies shortage and population pressure he was to do more work to convince people.

The writer discusses Lester’s opinion on different issues including the issue of world hunger. He says that democracies have been weakened by poor governance and corruption, making them unable to feed their populations, necessitating organizations like U.N world food program to intervene. I agree with the author’s support of Lester’s work and advocacies. There is indeed much that needs to be done to stop the current practices that are not sustainable (Easton, 2011).

References

Crossette, B. (2009)“The persistent prophet”. Scientific American 19 p44-51

Easton, T. A. (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (14th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Question 5

Large Scale Organic Farming

The article is called ‘Sustainable, organic farming practices are the best way to feed the future’ written by Greg Seamanwritten on twenty fourth October two thousand and eleven.

In his view the author writes that today farmlands are dependent on chemical fertilizers, even though these practices have short term benefits they leads to soil depletion. Water retention in non organic farms is diminishing resulting to erosion and chemical residues being transported to water bodies. He observes that people have accepted these practices because they believe there is no alternative. He is of the opinion that large organic farming is the best way to feed the population in a sustainable way and that organic farming is more productive according to research carried out by Rodale Institute that studied both agricultural practices side by side over a thirty year period of time.

The study found that organic farming profits the farmer three times more than conventional farming systems. This profit is as a result of the higher price organic foods fetch as well as the low input cost of organic farming (Hansen, 2010).

He writes that it is wrong to assume that organic farming is not sufficient to feed large populations. Organic farms gain seventy nine percent more productivity compared to conventional farming. The other reason for advocating for organic farming is that it reduces the energy required for farming by forty five percent. Conventional systems also produce forty percent more green house gases compared to organic farming. Whereas conventional farming maintains the overall soil health, organic practices improves the soil quality and improve soil moisture retention. I agree with the author’s position that large scale organic farming can lead to high enough produce to feed the population.

References

Easton, T. A. (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (14th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. S. (2010)Organic Farming Manual: A comprehensive guide to starting and running a Certified Organic Farm North Adams, MA: Storey publishers. Print.

Seaman, G. (2011) ‘Sustainable, organic farming practices are the best way to feed the future’. eartheasy.com .Web