In a recent speech, Stanford professor Rosamond Naylor examined the wide range of challenges contributing to global food insecurity, which Naylor defined as a lack of plentiful, nutritious and affordable food. Naylor's lecture, titled "Feeding the World in the 21st Century," was part of the quarterly Earth Matters series sponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and the Stanford School of Earth Sciences. Naylor, a professor of Environmental Earth System Science and director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford, is also a professor (by courtesy) of Economics, and the William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

"One billion people go to bed day in and day out with chronic hunger," said Naylor. The problem of food insecurity, she explained, goes far beyond food supply. "We produce enough calories, just with cereal crops alone, to feed everyone on the planet," she said. Rather, food insecurity arises from a complex and interactive set of factors including poverty, malnutrition, disease, conflict, poor governance and volatile prices. Food supply depends on limited natural resources including water and energy, and food accessibility depends on government policies about land rights, biofuels, and food subsidies. Often, said Naylor, food policies in one country can impact food security in other parts of the world. Solutions to global hunger must account for this complexity, and for the "evolving" nature of food security.

As an example of this evolution, Naylor pointed to the success of China and India in reducing hunger rates from 70 percent to 15 percent within a single generation. Economic growth was key, as was the "Green Revolution," a series of advances in plant breeding, irrigation and agricultural technology that led to a doubling of global cereal crop production between 1970 and 2010. But Naylor warned that the success of the Green Revolution can lead to complacency about present-day food security challenges. China, for example, sharply reduced hunger as it underwent rapid economic growth, but now faces what Naylor described as a "second food security challenge" of micronutrient deficiency. Anemia, which is caused by a lack of dietary iron and which Naylor said is common in many rural areas of China, can permanently damage children's cognitive development and school performance, and eventually impede a country’s economic growth.

Hunger knows no boundaries

Although hunger is more prevalent in the developing world, food insecurity knows no geographic boundaries, said Naylor. Every country, including wealthy economies like the United States, struggles with problems of food availability, access, and nutrition. "Rather than think of this as 'their problem' that we don't need to deal with, really it's our problem too," Naylor said.

She pointed out that one in five children in the United States is chronically hungry, and 50 million Americans receive government food assistance. Many more millions go to soup kitchens every night, she added. "We are in a precarious position with our own food security, with big implications for public health and educational attainment," Naylor said. A major paradox of the United States' food security challenge is that hunger increasingly coexists with obesity. For the poorest Americans, cheap food offers abundant calories but low nutritional value. To improve the health and food security of millions of Americans, "linking policy in a way that can enhance the incomes of the poorest is really important, and it's the hard part,” she said.” It's not easy to fix the inequality issue."

Success stories

When asked whether there were any "easy" decisions that the global community can agree to, Naylor responded, "What we need to do for a lot of these issues is pretty clear, but how we get after it is not always agreed upon." She added, "But I think we've seen quite a few success stories," including the growing research on climate resilient crops, new scientific tools such as plant genetics, improved modeling techniques for water and irrigation systems, and better knowledge about how to use fertilizer more efficiently. She also said that the growing body of agriculture-focused climate research was encouraging, and that Stanford is a leader on this front.

Naylor is the editor and co-author of The Evolving Sphere of Food Security, a new book from Oxford University Press. The book features a team of 19 faculty authors from 5 Stanford schools including Earth science, economics, law, engineering, medicine, political science, international relations, and biology. The all-Stanford lineup was intentional, Naylor said, because the university is committed to interdisciplinary research that addresses complex global issues like food security, and because "agriculture is incredibly dominated by policy, and Stanford has a long history of dealing with some of these policy elements. This is the glue that enables us to answer really challenging questions." 

Outside of China, the world now has more food insecure and nutrient deficient people than it had a decade ago, and the prevalence of obesity-related diabetes, high blood pressure and cardio-vascular diseases is increasing at very rapid rates. Expanded food production has done little to address the fact that between one-third and one-half of all deaths in children under five in developing countries are still related to malnutrition.

“With only three years away from the Millennium Development Goals deadline, this is a terrible track record,” said food and nutrition policy expert Per Pinstrup-Andersen at FSE's Global Food Policy and Food Security Symposium Series last week.  

Pinstrup-Andersen, the only economist to win the World Food Prize (the ultimate award in the food security field), has dedicated his career to understanding the linkages between food, nutrition, and agriculture. What is driving persistent food insecurity and malnutrition in a food abundant world?

Poor food supply management is part of the problem. According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 20-30% of food produced globally is lost every year. That’s enough to feed an additional 3-3.5 billion people.

Jatropha in Africa. Photo credit: Ton Rulkens/flickr.

Biofuels production, such as jatropha in Africa, now competes with food for land, and climate change is already negatively impacting crop yields in regions straddling the equator—with major implications for food supply.

For low-income consumers in both the U.S. and developing countries increasing and more volatile food prices, such as those seen in 2007, are also driving food insecurity. Poor consumers respond by purchasing cheaper, less nutrient food, and less of it.

Nutritional value chain

Consensus is developing—at least rhetorically—among national policymakers and international organizations that investments in agricultural development must be accelerated. Members of the G8 and G20 have committed $20 billion in international economic support for such investments and some developing countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana are planning large new investments.

While most of these recent initiatives focus on expanded food supplies, there is an increasing understanding that merely making more food available will not assure better food security, nutrition, and health at the household and individual levels.

“It matters for health and nutrition how increasing food supplies are brought about and of what it consists,” said Pinstrup-Andersen. “We need to turn the food supply chain into a nutritional value chain.”

Diet diversity is incredibly important for good nutrition. Agricultural researchers and food production companies need to look at a number of different commodities, not just the major food staples, said Pinstrup-Andersen.

“The Green Revolution successfully increased the production of corn, rice, and wheat, increasing incomes for farmers, and lowering prices for consumers, but now it is time to invest in fruits, vegetables and biofortification to deal with micronutrient deficiency,” said Pintrup-Andersen.

Biofortification, the breeding of crops to increase their nutritional value, offers tremendous opportunity for dealing with malnutrition in the developing world, but is not widely available.

This is particularly important for areas in sub-Saharan Africa where between one and three and one and four people are short in calories, protein, and micronutrients. Obesity is actually going up in these countries with the introduction of cheap, processed, energy-dense foods (those high in sugar and fat) contributing to the diabetes epidemic.

Pathways to better health

Women hauling water to their gardens in Benin.

The path to better health and nutrition must look beyond the availability of food at affordable prices, clean water, and good sanitation, and consider behavioral factors such as time constraints for women in low-income households.

“Field studies have shown time and time again that one of the main factors preventing women from providing themselves and their families with good nutrition is time,” explained Pinstrup-Andersen.

He told the story of a woman in Bolivia too burdened with farm and household responsibilities to take the time to breastfeed her six-month old daughter. Enhancing productivity in activities traditionally undertaken by women could be a key intervention to improving good health and nutrition at the household level.

Access is another issue. A household may be considered food secure, in that sufficient food may be available, but food may not be equally allocated in the household.

“If we focus on the most limiting constraint we can be successful,” said Pinstrup-Anderen. “But we must tailor our response to each case.”

For sub-Saharan Africa, this includes investments in rural infrastructure, roads, irrigation systems, micronutrient fertilizer, climate adaptation strategies, and other barriers holding back small farmers.

Fortunately, there has been a renewed attention to the importance of guiding food system activities towards improved health and nutrition. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which facilitates the distribution of some of the G8 and G20 $20 billion commitments, prescribes that country proposals for funding of agricultural development projects must show a clear pathway from the proposed agricultural change to human nutrition.

“But it’s not going to be easy to implement good policies,” warned Pinstrup-Andersen. “There are few incentives in government for multidisciplinary problem solving. The economy is set up around silos and people are loyal to their silos. Agricultural and health sectors are largely disconnected in their priorities, policy, and analysis."

Incentives must change to encourage working across ministries and disciplines to identify the most important health and nutrition-related drivers of food systems, impact pathways, and policy and program interventions to find win-wins for positive health and nutrition.

In advance of the third presidential debate, Freeman Spogli Institute center directors thought about key international policy issues that need addressing by presidential candidates Barak Obama and Mitt Romney. FSE center director Rosamond L. Naylor posed the question below among a list of other suggested FSI foreign policy questions to debate:

Should our government help American farmers cope with climate impacts on food production, and should this assistance be extended to other countries – particularly poor countries – whose food production is also threatened by climate variability and climate change?

What to listen for: Most representatives in Congress would like to eliminate government handouts, and many would also like to turn away from any discussion of climate change. Yet this year, U.S. taxpayers are set to pay up to $20 billion to farmers for crop insurance after extreme drought and heat conditions damaged yields in the Midwest.

With the 2012 farm bill stalled in Congress, the candidates need to be clear about whether they support government subsidized crop insurance for American farmers. They should also articulate their views on climate threats to food production in the U.S. and abroad.

Without a substantial crop insurance program, American farmers will face serious risks of income losses and loan defaults. And without foreign assistance for climate adaptation, the number of people going hungry could well exceed 15 percent of the world's population. 

~Rosamond L. Naylor, director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment 

Inspired by the spirit of debate, FSE fellows took the opportunity to pose a few additional questions for the candidates. 

Questions from FSE deputy director Walter P. Falcon:

The US now uses more that 40% of its corn crop for biofuel. While some argue this contributes to long-term energy independence, others note that ethanol mandates, along with unfavorable weather, can contribute to higher and more volatile food prices like those seen in recent years. Do you regard the US policy emphasis on biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol, as being a successful program to date? Have the benefits from biofuels outweighed the negative impacts on higher food costs around the world, and do you believe that mandates continue to be the most appropriate policy going forward?

One of the largest agricultural programs in the US is in the form of food stamps to poor consumers. Would you prefer to cap, perhaps even eliminate, the food stamp (SNAP) program? Would you prefer to replace it with a direct cash transfer system? Whom do you think generally should qualify either for food stamps or cash transfers?

Questions from FSE associate director David Lobell:

A major initiative of the Obama Administration has been Feed the Future, which aims at improving food security in other countries. Is the U.S. focused sufficiently on hunger in other parts of the world? Have actions matched rhetoric? Is a $3 billion expenditure on this initiative the right sum in an era of large fiscal deficits in the U.S.?

Question from research scholar Bill Burke:

The United States is viewed by many as a world leader, but its role in foreign assistance is contentious. In dollar terms, the United States consistently gives more foreign assistance than any other donor nation. In 2012, for example, the U.S. provided nearly 34 billion dollars, or more than twice as much as any other country. On the other hand, many criticize the U.S. for contributing relatively little in comparison to other countries when donations are measured as a share of GDP. Some also point out that much of what is labeled foreign assistance is actually military or security assistance, and does not contribute directly towards economic development. Does the U.S. spend too little or too much on foreign assistance, and should a greater proportion of U.S. funding go directly towards poverty reduction and food security?