News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Food supply must drastically increase 

Food supply must drastically increase

01 Aug, 2010 04:00 AM
THE world’s food system provides food for nearly seven billion people each day.

But according to a new report from the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), more advances are critical for an adequate food supply, which must nearly double during the next several decades, for the future world population.

The first-of-its-kind scientific review, to be published in the September 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, takes a historical look at the food system, the many challenges ahead, and the crucial role of food science and technology in meeting the needs of the growing population.

IFT produced the report to inform the public about the advances in food science and technology that were necessary to meet the needs of an evolving society, which today has much greater access to an abundant, diverse food supply that is largely safe, flavorful, nutritious, convenient, and less costly than ever before.

The report summarises the historical developments of agriculture and food technology, details various food manufacturing methods, and explains why food is processed.

The report also describes and stresses why further advancements in food science and technology are needed - to more equitably meet growing world population food needs with enhanced food security in developing countries and solutions to complex diet-and-health challenges in industrialised countries.

“Thanks to food science and technology and modern food manufacturing methods, nutritional deficiencies and inconsistent food availability can be addressed, harvests can be protected, and various commodities can be transformed into new products having specific nutrients for better health and wellness,” said John Floros, PhD, of the Pennsylvania State University Department of Food Science.

“However, this success has distanced consumers from the agricultural origins of today’s food products and understanding of why processing is important. As a result, there are concerns and misconceptions regarding food safety, and the food system’s effect on health and the environment,” he said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Perhaps it is time we had some controls on our population growth. The impact of growing, harvesting, processing and distributing food on the environment is never fully disclosed and the planet can't afford it. Then what we grow is moving away from nutritious consumables for our optimum health and towards sugary, watery, nutritionally dilute plant parts and fatty animals on hormones and antibiotics. It's not my idea of food. We do not have an option but to reduce world population or Nature will take care of the human condition.
Posted by Vic Cherikoff, 2/08/2010 7:19:51 AM
The farm gate price of the food supply must drastically increase. The consumers are going to have to learn to pay the full cost of food.
Posted by Qlander, 2/08/2010 8:41:16 AM
perhaps it’s time we adopted an economic system that actually reflects a farm gate price that is relative to the scarcity of the product, food in this case. would also be nice to also have a system that reflects a payment for "quality " food instead of bulk food. It has always amazed me, supported by ABARE’s comments that the farmer gets paid less each year relative to urban wages, yet the basic product is in short supply around the world. (one could be a sceptic that us urban people need our incomes increased relative to inflation, yet our country cousins do not deserve this “Australian” benefit/right). Surely the economic system must be terribly distorted by the regulations imposed on the economy by govt. Why else would demand and pricing be so out of reality? Farm gate share of the retail price is declining, even now in times of looming world shortages. Surely this should be climbing to send a price signal for increased production? Can anyone give an answer to why we have this situation occurring?
Posted by dunart, 2/08/2010 9:10:24 AM
For five decades successive Australian governments have fought the good fight against international trade distorting farm subsidies. Bravely ordering the country's farmers into the front line against the richest and most powerful governments in modern world. The casualty rate has been horrendous(in 1960 there were 8 farming families on the land that my brother and I now own, we are the sole survivors) but our governments have not flinched in their resolve. Unfortunately they are running out of troops, when the current generation falls there are no reserves to replace them with.
Posted by Qlander, 2/08/2010 10:50:14 AM
There's no problem, just import it - that's the govt's answer e.g. apples from China. Who cares? Food's cheap. This is someone else's problem until we are held to ransome by another country over food then we will look back and say what a horrible thing our supermarkets and govt's did to our producers.
Posted by shaun farmer, 2/08/2010 11:27:28 AM
One must remember, if you make us city people pay more for food, I can claim from my employer, a wage increase and get it. History tells us this happens - go look at the inflation rate and wages growth, they run parcel. We will never pay more for food under present policy. Just look at real food cost since WW2. As for distorting subsidies, what about all the distorting subsidies us city industries/people get? It's great you are not able to see reality, as I continue to get enough pay rises to keep me in front of the costs. Do you farmers get govt regulated wage rises to keep you in front of costs? Time for you people to get out of the square and really see what happens in this world instead of blaming foreign govts who have some compassion for the agriculture sector. There are 2 sides to the story, start opening your minds to the other side of the debate, the one you use at the moment has successfully failed your industry.
Posted by dunart, 2/08/2010 6:30:17 PM
dunart: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'opening your minds to the other side of the debate'. But I'm guessing that you mean agricultural subsidies like the rest of the developed world. I think you're right about the urban majority not being prepared to pay the real cost of food individually at the checkout. So that leaves only one other option they will have to pay for it and that is collectively via their tax, in the same way they pay for health, education, and wage security. The question is: how do we get our governments to admit that they have lost the international agricultural trade war, and capitulate on farm subsidies? I have never been a fan of subsidies, but the situation as it stands is that we have less than 10 years to completely reform the agricultural pricing system in Australia. An entire generation is walking away from farming.
Posted by Qlander, 3/08/2010 8:27:26 AM
Dunart how very true. That is why the ETS would fail bcause cost increases would be covered by wage rises.
Posted by john from tamworth, 3/08/2010 8:45:08 AM
hi qlander. I am not talking about subsidies at all in Australia. They are not needed at all. What is needed, and the only way agriculture will survive, is for the domestic economy to be opened to the world market, the same as the agriculture products are. You have the same costs as the city business and wage earner, yet are regulated to total exposure to world market incomes. This means when you pay $10 for a product that has a $2 value on the world market, you actually pay $2 for the product, and $8 for a subsidy to the urban areas out of your pocket. I as a city person on the other hand have had regulated pay rises to cover this cost increase. I don’t think that is fair, do you?
Posted by dunart, 3/08/2010 6:27:33 PM
We should all be exposed to the world market, and let our productivity give a us a higher real wage, as it will do. You farmers produce wheat against cheap labour market economies, like China, and can sell at a lower price than the Chinese farmers due to much higher productivity. The same applies to the domestic economy, but with regulations not allowing competition, they have got lower productivity for a start. The second reason, and “john from Tamworth” has also worked this out, that with ETS, the govt was going to not only return all the cost of the ETS scheme to the wage earner, but in some case also more than the cost. As the govt has a few billion $ from ETS tax, where does it come from? Not me that’s for sure. For a start read the WA farm weekly, 21 jan, page 6. As for your future, my models, which have been accurate in the past, show real difficult times to come, regardless of commodity prices.
Posted by dunart, 3/08/2010 6:28:01 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
28 July, 2010
30 July, 2010
POLL
Q: What is the issue of most concern to you when deciding how to vote at this election?

Health
(13.2%)

Education
(3.2%)

Climate change
(11.5%)

Infrastructure
(18.1%)

Agricultural policy
(39.8%)

Other
(14.2%)

Total Votes: 620
Poll Date: 25 July, 2010

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...