Hans Eenhoorn ~ Full interview

Associate professor Food Security and Entrepreneurship at Wageningen University and Research Centre and member of the UN Taskforce on Hunger

1.  What in your view are the most urgent problems in the field of food?

The current developments in the field of food are a great worry to me. At the moment food competes with fuel, but also with feed. Too many food crops are being converted to meat and milk for the rich. By upcoming countries in Asia that will only increase. At the same time food crops, especially corn, are being used for biofuels.

Most African countries south of the Sahara are net food importers. They will have an enormously rough time, because the world food supplies have decreased considerably and the prices have risen very high. The net food importing countries are hit twice, because they import food as well as energy (except maybe countries like Guinea, Angola and Nigeria that export a lot of oil).

The world food supply is historically low at the moment. Any buffering possibility is therefore missing. Good food crops are converted into biofuels with the help of subsidies. The EU has set the goal to add 10% biofuel to transportation fuels by 2015. In Germany farmers get a lot of subsidy for oilseed rape production and in the USA farmers get even more subsidy for corn production. As a result, the availability and the price of food are under enormous pressure. A lot of problems arise in the countryside and in the cities of Africa because of that.

I find it remarkable that so much farm land is not being used for the production of food crops, but for example for the production of sugar cane for bioethanol and for the production of palm oil for biodiesel.

We just should not do this. One SUV tank with bioethanol made of corn can provide food for one person for a whole year.

2.  What solutions do you see for these problems?

To solve the current problems, we must carry out large programs to make small-scale agriculture more productive and to realize a higher yield per hectare. The World Development Report 2008 of the World Bank sees this as a realistic solution as well. The West must be prepared to invest in these programs.

We also need improved governmental support. There´s a lot of talking, but there is a lack of action and decisiveness. The means in Western countries do not - or too slowly - become available. The governments in several poor countries are so bad, that any infrastructure is lacking. These countries must be called to account for this. The World Development Report does that, but as with many reports, the action is yet to follow. If the political will is not clearly present, in the South as well as in the West, than the world food supply will remain a problem.

We must therefore exert pressure on governments to finally go ahead. We must point out to governments that they do not keep their promises. We must also stimulate our governments to remind developing countries of their failure. Up until now that has been unprofitable, but that does not mean we should not continue.

3.  What in your view are the conditions for successful solutions?

We need sufficient honest political will - especially in African countries south of the Sahara - to improve infrastructure and to stimulate small-scale farming. That occurs insufficiently now. And the Western countries must be prepared both to exert pressure on those governments and at the same time finance these developments.

Food, feed and fuel are competing elements on the world market of raw materials. The dilemma that results from this must be brought up very clearly. The world deals with this issue inadequately now. If people get a higher income, than they eat differently. The net result is less food, because more food will be used for animals to produce meat and for biofuels. An example: one kilogram of steak is equal to eight kilogram of corn.

4.  Are there any biotechnological solutions for these problems? What biotechnology solutions are already available and what solutions may be available in the future? Is there a difference between genetic modification and other biotechnological techniques?

I think that biotechnology can contribute to these problems, as it also written in the World Bank report: do not put aside biotechnology by definition. Biotechnology is not just genetic modification. The consequences of biotechnology for humans are nil. It is completely clear that the GMOs you eat will be broken down in the gut system.

There is a lot of uncertainty on the long term effects of GMOs, though. We must do more research on cross-pollination between GMOs and non-GMOs. We must deal carefully with GMOs, but not execrate them too much. We need civil legislation and control.

Biotechnology in itself is nothing new, but genetic modification can speed up normal cultivation practices enormously without us knowing exactly what the long term consequences are. And I am talking about consequences for biodiversity, not about food safety.

5.  Should biotechnological solutions be placed higher on the social, political and/or scientific agendas? If so, why?

Biotechnology already is high on the agenda, but in an incorrect manner. In the USA there is only attention for the advantages of biotechnology for the producers, but not for consumers.

It already is high on the agenda of the advocates, they present biotechnology as the technology with only advantages. It is also high on the agenda of the opponents: they want to prevent its application under all circumstances. I would like to see a dialogue on the conditions under which we can use biotechnology to make this world a little bit better.

I especially see applications in the use of biotechnology for the production of food crops on farm land that now is unfit. This is especially important because of the climate change. Biotechnology must focus more on the development of crops suitable for dry or saline areas. This becomes more relevant as dehydration increases. That would really be an advantage for the world food production. Genetic modification could play a role here.

6.  What are the differences between developing and developed countries (in terms of both problems and opportunities)?

One thing that history teaches us is that no country has ever developed properly without being able to feed its own population. Economic development starts with a proper food supply. And if a country makes sufficient industrial products after that, the population of that country can grow without producing extra food. The people in that country can buy food on the global market from the profits of their own industrial products.

7.  In your view, what will the field of food look like in 20 years time?

I have no idea. At the moment food supplies do not develop well. More than 800 million people are starving. The number is falling a bit in some countries, but not in Africa. The world politics should intercede. Agriculture is high on the international agenda, fortunately, but not high enough. I am therefore pessimistic about the world food supplies and reaching Millennium Goal 1: “Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day and halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger”. A lot of work has to be done and the speed of change is too slow to actually make the Millennium Goals in 2015.

8.  Do you have any other remark on this subject?

What happens now is insane and immoral. There is obesity and undernourishment. 800 million people greatly lack a lot of things, are too weak to be productive, and die of hunger or disease, while at the same time a great number of people get ill through overweight, cardio vascular diseases and food related forms of cancer. It is a dangerous situation because of migration and the spreading of diseases. It is also economic madness to keep about 15% of the world population outside the world economy.

9.  Which statement/question/dilemma would you like to put to the readers of this interview?

It is morally inacceptable that one billion people die, while at the same time one billion people eat so much they get ill.