Thought-provoking as ever, John. The role of agribusinesses in the banana republics is a shameful episode and rightly highlighted as a reminder that business has an ongoing role to play in ensuring good local governance and human rights.
But I’d caution against a simple equation that seems to be implied of “organic = good; agrochemicals = bad” as it’s more nuanced. On the one hand, organic often means more heavy metals in the resultant crop (and usually more water usage, more disease, along with the lower yields that result in higher cost and therefore higher prices - not helpful when we are trying to feed 8billion people and encourage less meat, more fruit/veg); on the other hand, careful use of well-regarded “agri-chemicals” and agritech can mean the avoidance of these issues. A balanced approach is needed for healthy fruit.
I'm interested to hear what you think and how you think it fits in (challenge/opportunity) the unsustainable mass agrochemical and food industry in the factual disproportionate spoiling/waste of food in the global north.
The solution is not about overproducing low-quality, cheap, poisoned food but about doing it correctly, with minimal damage to people and nature, and justly feeding everyone, not just the rich.
Spot on. That’s the challenge, indeed. Around 30% of global food production is lost annually - around $1,500pa of uneaten food is thrown away on average by a US family of four (£700pa in the UK). And yet in both countries - as well as in the global south - there are people unable to even get food to eat. Food waste, including inefficient production and water usage in the production cycle, are crying out for solutions, some of which should be technology-based, some science- and some management-.
Thought-provoking as ever, John. The role of agribusinesses in the banana republics is a shameful episode and rightly highlighted as a reminder that business has an ongoing role to play in ensuring good local governance and human rights.
But I’d caution against a simple equation that seems to be implied of “organic = good; agrochemicals = bad” as it’s more nuanced. On the one hand, organic often means more heavy metals in the resultant crop (and usually more water usage, more disease, along with the lower yields that result in higher cost and therefore higher prices - not helpful when we are trying to feed 8billion people and encourage less meat, more fruit/veg); on the other hand, careful use of well-regarded “agri-chemicals” and agritech can mean the avoidance of these issues. A balanced approach is needed for healthy fruit.
I agree, Simon. Though too many agrochemicals are still the chemical equivalent of bludgeoning.
I'm interested to hear what you think and how you think it fits in (challenge/opportunity) the unsustainable mass agrochemical and food industry in the factual disproportionate spoiling/waste of food in the global north.
The solution is not about overproducing low-quality, cheap, poisoned food but about doing it correctly, with minimal damage to people and nature, and justly feeding everyone, not just the rich.
I agree.
Spot on. That’s the challenge, indeed. Around 30% of global food production is lost annually - around $1,500pa of uneaten food is thrown away on average by a US family of four (£700pa in the UK). And yet in both countries - as well as in the global south - there are people unable to even get food to eat. Food waste, including inefficient production and water usage in the production cycle, are crying out for solutions, some of which should be technology-based, some science- and some management-.