09.04.2022
Innovation is solidarity
Dear Readers,
We have been shocked by the war in Ukraine and its devastating impact on the global food supply. According to ‘Die Zeit’, David Beasley, Head of the World Food Programme, has told the UN Security Council of an ever-worsening food shortage. The war has "piled one disaster on top of another", he claims. The toxic combination of conflicts, climate change and the economic impact of Covid-19 means that millions of people in the Middle East and North Africa are already struggling to feed themselves. Even before the war in Ukraine, inflation and rising prices had meant that the poorest could no longer afford basic foodstuffs. According to the World Food Programme, the costs for a basic food basket – the minimum food requirements for a family – in 2021 increased by 351 percent in Lebanon, 97 percent in Syria and 81 percent in Yemen. The additional disaster comes on top of what was already a tense situation on the global market, fueled by climate change and an increased demand. ‘SRF News’ quotes Christian Jörg, who is responsible for food security at the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund, as follows: "We are preparing for a storm that has not been seen since the Second World War."
An estimated 70 million people died of starvation in the 20th century. A look at history shows: wars and political calculations fuel famines. Today, the threat to agricultural production caused by climate change is also added to the mix. The authors of ‘The Conversation’ discuss war, starvation and climate change. And they draw lessons from the past: "Our success in addressing the first serious global food security challenge of the 21st century will show how well equipped we are to deal with other disasters in the future. We cannot prepare for a crisis in isolation. We need to think about how crises work together." In other words: the world needs to react to the fall-out of the war in Ukraine. But the impact of climate change still needs to remain on the agenda. This is also what the International Energy Agency says. It calls for trillions of dollars of investments in renewable energies. Just as energy policy needs a long-term strategy and openness to technology, so does global food security. Because of climate change, there could be a significant impact on corn yields from as early as the mid 2030s. Mitigating against starvation crises in the long term requires resilience. This means long-term thinking and a precautionary mentality on the part of the state. As in energy policy, the course in food security cannot be short term or opportunistic. Hectic reaction to threats is the wrong approach. A plan is needed.
What is needed are resilient food systems, not pipe dreams. Resilient food systems are characterised by an intelligent combination of domestic production, imports and exports. The fact is: due to the war in Ukraine, the supply of grain for many African states could permanently deteriorate. Russian exports also play a key role. If Russian grain exports are also significantly depleted, some of the poorest countries in the world would face a severe famine. This is evidenced by model calculations by the Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in Kiel. According to Prof. Tobias Heidland, IfW Research Director for International Development, many African countries are not in a position to replace a shortfall in Russian and Ukrainian grain supplies even in the long term. "There is a risk of starvation and social unrest." Export restrictions and ‘food nationalism’ also worsen the situation. If supply chains are already broken by wars and pandemics, trade restrictions will only make the situation worse. It is difficult to predict how the war will develop in the months to come, explains Matin Qaim, agricultural economist at the University of Bonn. "It is all the more important that other countries now assume their responsibility for feeding the world." For this to happen, world trade needs to remain "as open as possible" as export bans, once again, hit the people in the poorest countries in the world hardest. They suffer from shortages and price increases.
But prices are going up for farmers too. Central factors for agricultural production have also been hit by price increases. The British newspaper ‘The Telegraph’ reports on the difficult situation for family farms in Britain. The three Fs: “feed”, “fuel” and “fertilizer” become massively more expensive. And this also makes milk more expensive for consumers. Price increases of up to 50 percent are anticipated. This is huge amount for a basic foodstuff that cannot be swallowed simply, even by consumers in affluent countries. Even Swiss crisps manufacturer Zweifel has confirmed that everything is getting more expensive: energy, raw materials and oil. In addition, the poor harvest in 2021 means there is an approximately 30 percent shortfall in potatoes in Switzerland. They are processing imported potatoes. Rapeseed oil is used in the production of crisps these days instead of sunflower oil. As of recently, rapeseed is subject to expensive mandatory storage obligations. The production of domestic rapeseed oil, in turn, is only possible with synthetic pesticides against insect pests. However, for several pests, only one group of active substances is still available for protection and this is in danger of being completely eliminated by the end of 2022. Growing insect-tolerate rape would be possible in principle using DNA alien to the species, although pesticides would also be required because of the variety of pests.
One thing is clear: resilient food systems also mean stepping away from illusions. If agricultural products become more expensive even in affluent developed countries and have a significant impact on the household budgets of millions of people, then many people in countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia will not be able to afford food at all. Starvation will follow. ‘ZDF’ covered the problem some time ago in a piece entitled "Organic: a luxury which hurts developing countries". The conclusion: organic is no good for feeding the world. European organic farming is a luxury, the costs of which ultimately have to be paid by the whole world. The space required and CO2 impact throw a spanner in the works of the organic illusion. This article is more relevant now than ever.
We are learning once more: if productivity is taken out of the equation, there is something wrong with the system. We are reminded of this by a statement by Swiss farmer Moritz Stamm, who runs a farm in Ukraine and is therefore contributing to global supply. "Swiss agricultural colleges no longer really teach you how to produce food. They turn you into landscape gardeners." However, given the current and longer-term threats to food security, the world needs farmers who are committed to comprehensive sustainability. In other words: an agriculture that is highly productive, can live primarily from from fair prices for its products and protects the climate and biodiversity through comprehensive resource efficiency.
Agricultural economist Matin Qaim also shares this view: "If we want to produce more food within the limitations of our planet, then we have to increase productivity and crop yields. This means being open to and using modern technology." Hendrik Varnholt, Industry Department Manager at ‘Lebensmittel Zeitung’, adds: "The war in Ukraine shows that a world worth living in is only possible if sustainability is also understood as a social goal. This requires honesty. We have to admit that solutions that are one-sided and only conceived for the better-off sometimes soothe the conscience at the expense of others." This honesty is diametrically opposed to the obsession with naturalness and marketing stories that are intended to secure wholesale margins at the expense of the farmers.
Science is needed for a change of direction. Insofar, the minor easing of restrictions on genetic engineering passed by the Swiss parliament is a small glimmer of hope. Europe is working on it too. And the United Kingdom is leading the way by smoothing the path for the cultivation of gene-edited crops. Of course, innovation has many different faces. For example ‘Enogen’ corn from Syngenta reduces agricultural greenhouse emissions by demonstrably reducing methane emissions from cows by up to 5 percent. And DSM is now launching a feed additive that considerably reduces methane emissions from cows. Careful fact-based evaluation of inventions is required in the battle against both climate change and hunger.
Switzerland has one advantage here. As ‘SRF News’ reports, Switzerland submitted more than 8400 patents to the European Patent Office last year. This puts it at the top in terms of patent applications per capita. The spokesman for the European Patent Office adds: "This figure is an indicator of the intensity of innovation in Switzerland and therefore highly relevant. It shows that Switzerland is planning on a long-term basis when it comes to technical innovations. After all, patents are always indicative of a long-term interest, a long-term development for companies that are planning for the future and not just for the moment." It is important to note that while a patent protects an invention, it also makes it public. In this sense patents are more than just legal titles. They are also a documentation of technical progress. Patents have an overwhelming advantage: they drive innovation. This is also the case with patents on plant breeding. Innovation needs protection, and this protection drives innovation while at the same advancing society.
This means innovation is solidarity made real. If you play to your own strengths, you can help advance society towards more food security and comprehensive sustainability. But if you create your own agenda and steer away from science, you are only helping yourself – if anyone at all – and then only for as long as the marketing bubble does not burst.
The swiss-food editorial team
