Thursday, August 19, 2010


The main concern with the food movement these days is that old fashioned production methods will yield old fashioned yields, as in, one-third of our food would be lost.  This is a tough pill to swallow considering the people going hungry now all over the globe and the predicted population increase.

Still, no matter how many times farmers mention this life and death concern, it seems to fall on deaf ears.  How exciting to see our challenge graphically!  We hope this video will help more folks understand that while organic and local grown foods are great options, they are not long term solutions. 

In case you don't have time to watch (you really should MAKE time), the main point of the video is "Yesterday's agriculture cannot feed 9 billion people."  I wish more people would really hear this message.


  1. How arrogant of you to discard organic and local actions in favor of some mystical force that maintains today's practices but is somehow sustainable. This is not the truth. The route that we have used to funnel our innovation is aimed toward profit, not sustainability. Replacing the acres of farmland being exhausted to grow grains inedible to humans w/o processing does not get to be vilified for its amazing productivity. Using fertile farmland respectfully and to grow crops that will feed people is a viable solution. Using rooftop gardens and turning abandoned urban lots into community gardens are viable options. No kitschy video can disprove that.

  2. If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people. -Henry Kissinger

  3. I think it's interesting that Main Stream food feels intimidated enough by grassroots efforts to improve food access, quality and sustainability that they need to make an spinfomercial about it! To me this video is actually evidence that people are starting to realize the viability of local and organic foods: P

  4. is really important but at the same time quite contradictory
    Farmers put less land to production that no one can reap the harvest there is no law protecting against people of low education who wish to come to work on large plantations USa
    On the other hand the government only helps big producers to small producers but no help because they are micro farmers and those do not matter.
    super markets, corporations do not help the micro farmers to sell their products locally result more farmers leave their land and live on what they can. Support for agriculture in the New Technologies is only for big Farmers, Small Farmers do not qualify because they are small and do not qualify for financial aid.
    the slogan: no farmer no food.
    is true but will later reacccionar because hunger is in USA

  5. Here's a link to an excellent book on this topic:

  6. The question, "Who will feed them (the world of 9 billion people) and how?" makes me think that it is the responsibility of big, hi-tech farmers to feed the world. This is not the best way. We each have the responsibility to nourish ourselves and our families first, then reach out to others. But the dignity of the human well-being needs to contribute in this process.

    Rather than "feed the world" we need to continue to train and educate farmers and would-be farmers around the globe so that they can improve production and feed their part of the globe.

    Every day there are missionaries, aid workers, medical personnel, Peace Corps Volunteers and others who give of their lives teaching and helping people learn to farm and produce a little bit more.

    The world has sufficient resources to farm and feed the world. What are you and I doing to facilitate this? Are we satisfied to paternalistically "give a fish" to a hungry world, or are we willing to reach out together with the thousands of missionaries, PCV's and development practitioners to help the world "learn how to fish" instead?!?

    Larry Yarger