surge of interest in foreign investment in agricultural land

the challenge

The recent surge of interest in foreign investment in agricultural land has aroused substantial international concern. Certainly, complex and controversial economic, political, institutional, legal and ethical issues are raised in relation to property rights, food security, poverty reduction, rural development, technology and access to land and water. On the other hand, lack of investment in agriculture over decades has meant continuing low productivity and stagnant production in many developing countries. Lack of investment has been

identifed as an underlying cause of the recent food crisis and the diffculties

developing countries encountered in dealing with it. FAO estimates that gross annual investments of USD 209 billion are needed in primary agriculture and downstream services in developing countries (this in addition to public investment needs in research, infrastructure and safety nets) to meet global food needs in 2050. Developing countries’ own capacity to

fll that gap is limited. The share of public

spending on agriculture in developing countries has fallen to around 7 percent,

even less in Africa, and the share of offcial

development assistance going to agriculture has fallen to as little as 3.8 percent in 2006. Commercial bank lending going to agriculture in developing countries is also small – less than 10 percent in sub-Saharan

Africa and microfnance loans, while indispensable, have not proved suffcient

to agricultural investment needs. Private

investment funds targeting particularly African agriculture are an interesting recent development but actual investments are

still small. Given the limitations of alternative sources of investment fnance, foreign direct

investment in developing country agriculture could make a contribution to bridging the investment gap and realizing the hunger and poverty eradication goals. The question therefore is not whether foreign direct investment should contribute to meeting investment needs but how its impact can

be optimized to maximize the benefts

and to minimize the inherent risks for all involved. To answer that question we need to understand what is happening in foreign investment and why.

What do We knoW about reCent foreign investments in developing Country agriCulture?

Unfortunately, there are no detailed data on the extent, nature and impacts of these investments: international investment statistics are too aggregated and little is

divulged by those involved in specifc cases.

Much information is anecdotal, probably

exaggerated and diffcult to verify. However,

from what limited information is available, a number of observations can be made:

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing country agriculture does appear to have increased in the last two years, although the number of projects actually implemented is less than the number being planned or reported in the

media. Inward FDI stock in agriculture in 2007 stood at some USD 32 billion, four times higher than in 1990.

The infow of FDI into agriculture amounted

to more than USD 3 billion per year by 2007, compared to USD 1 billion in 2000. If food and beverages are included, the

fow rises to USD 7 billion in 2007.

The main form of recent investments is purchase or long-term leasing of agricultural land for food production. The area of land acquired in Africa by foreign interests in the last three years is estimated at up to 20 million hectares.

The major current investors are the Gulf

States but also China and South Korea. The main targets for recent investment are countries in Africa but there are also investments in Southeast Asia and South America.

Investors are primarily private sector but governments and sovereign wealth funds

are also involved in providing fnance and

other support to private investors or directly.

Private sector investors are often investment or holding companies rather than agro-food specialists, which means that necessary expertise for managing complex large-scale agricultural investments needs to be acquired.

In host countries it is governments who are engaged in negotiating investment deals.

foreign direct investment – win-win or land grab?Some baSic factS

Current investments differ from the recent pattern of foreign direct investment in several respects: they are resource-seeking (land and water) rather than

market-seeking; they emphasize

production of basic foods, including for animal feed, for repatriation rather than

tropical crops for commercial export;

they involve acquisition of land and actual production rather than looser forms of joint venture.

Key issues

Why foreign investment?

A major underlying driver of the recent upturn in investments, which perhaps differentiates it from the normal run of foreign investments, is food security. This

refects a fear arising from the recent high

food prices and policy-induced supply shocks, notably the result of export controls, that dependence on world markets for food supplies has become questionable. For those countries facing worsening land and water constraints

but with increasing populations, incomes and urbanization, and hence increasingly dependent on imported food, these fears provoked a serious reassessment of their food security strategies. Investing in producing food in countries where the land, water and labour constraints faced domestically are not present is seen as one viable strategic response. This offered investment opportunities to the private sector that governments have been willing to support. Some developing countries are making strenuous efforts to attract and facilitate foreign investment into their agricultural sectors. For them, foreign direct investment is seen as a

potentially important contributor to flling

the investment gap and stimulating domestic economic growth. However, how far these investments go towards meeting their real investments needs is

uncertain. The fnancial benefts to host

countries of asset transfers appear to be small, but foreign investments are seen as

potentially providing developmental benefts

through, for example, technology transfer,

employment creation, income generation and infrastructural developments. Whether

these potential developmental benefts will

actually be realized is a key concern.

the “land grab”

The much-publicised “land grab” involving the purchase or leasing of agricultural land in developing countries for food production is just one form of investment and one which arguably is least likely to

deliver signifcant developmental benefts

to the host country. Some countries are seeking foreign investments to exploit “surplus” land currently unused or underutilized. One reason land may not be used to its full potential is that the infrastructural investments needed to

bring it into production are so signifcant

as to be beyond the budgetary resources of the country. International investments might bring much needed infrastructural

investments from which all can beneft.

However, selling, leasing or providing concessional access to land raises the questions of how the land concerned was

figure 1: investor and target regions/countries in land investment for agriculture, 2006-2009

Source: UNCTAD

investor country target countrypreviously being utilized, by whom and on what tenurial basis. In many cases,

the situation is unclear due to ill-defned

property rights, with informal land rights based on tradition and local culture. While much land in sub-Saharan Africa may currently not be utilized to its full potential, apparently “surplus” land overall does not mean land is unused, unoccupied or unclaimed. Its exploitation under new investments involves reconciling different claims. Change of use and access may involve potentially negative effects on local food security and raise complex economic,

social and cultural issues. Such diffculties

at least demand consultation with those with traditional rights to land, and favour alternative mutual arrangements for investments.

alternatives to land aCquisition

It is also not clear that land acquisition is necessary or desirable even for investors. Acquisition of land does not necessarily provide immunity to sovereign risk and can provoke political, social and economic

conficts. Other forms of investment

such as contract farming and outgrower schemes can offer just as much security of supply. It is interesting to note that in other contexts, vertical coordination tends to be based much more on such non-equity arrangements than on the traditional acquisition of upstream or downstream stages. The development of East African horticultural production for export by European supermarket chains is a case in point. Such looser arrangements may be more conducive to the interests of the receiving country. However, even here there are likely to be questions as to the compatibility of the needs of investors with smallholder agriculture, and this in turn raises questions about poverty reduction potential. Nevertheless, joint

ventures might offer more spillover benefts

for the host country smallholders. Under contract farming or outgrower schemes,

smallholders can be offered inputs including credit, technical advice and a guaranteed

market, although they do sacrifce some

freedom of choice over crops to be grown. Mixed models are also possible with investments in a large-scale enterprise at the centre but also involving outgrowers under contracts to supplement production. What business model is most appropriate

will depend on the specifc circumstances

and the commodity concerned.

What are the developmental benefits of foreign investment?

The key issue is the extent to which

benefts from foreign investments spill

over into the domestic sector in a synergistic and catalytic relationship with existing smallholder production systems.

Benefts should arise from capital infows,

technology transfer leading to innovation and productivity increases, upgrading domestic production, quality improvement, employment creation, backward and forward linkages and multiplier effects through local sourcing of labour and other inputs and processing of outputs and possibly an increase in food supplies for the domestic market and for export. However,

these benefts will not fow if investment

results in the creation of an enclave of

advanced agriculture in a dualistic system with traditional smallholder agriculture, which smallholders cannot emulate. The historical evidence on the effects of foreign direct investment in agriculture suggests

that the claimed or intended benefts do not

always materialize and catalogue concerns over highly mechanized production technologies with limited employment

creation effects; dependence on imported

inputs and hence limited domestic multiplier

effects; adverse environmental impacts

of production practices such as chemical contamination, land degradation and

depletion of water resources; and limited

labour rights and poor working conditions. At the same time, however, there is also

evidence of longer-run benefts in terms of

improved technology, upgrading of local suppliers, better marketing systems and improved product quality and sanitary and phytosanitary standards, for example.Additional political, social and ethical concerns are raised where the receiving country is itself food insecure. While there is a presumption that investments will increase aggregate food supplies this does not imply that domestic food availability will increase, notably where food produced is exported to the investing country. It

figure 2: fdi in agriculture, food and beverages 1990-2007, billions of dollars

Source: UNCTAD

Food and beverages Agriculture, forestry and fshing

6050403020100

billion

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 could even decrease where land and water resources are commandeered by the international investment project at the expense of domestic smallholders. Extensive control of land by other countries can also raise questions of political

interference and infuence.

Code of ConduCt

Fears that local concerns are not emphasized in investment contracts and international investment agreements, that foreign investments in land acquisition do not always lead to local long-term

developmental benefts and that domestic

law is inadequate have prompted calls for an international code of conduct or guidelines to promote responsible investment in agriculture. In fact many countries lack the necessary legal or procedural mechanisms to protect local rights and take account of local interests, livelihoods and welfare.FAO, UNCTAD, IFAD and the World Bank are collaborating to develop a voluntary code of conduct highlighting the need for transparency, predictability, sustainability and stakeholder involvement and including domestic food security and rural development concerns. Such a code of conduct, based on detailed joint research concerning the nature, extent and impacts of foreign investment and best practices in law and policy, could provide a framework to which national regulations, international investment agreements, global corporate social responsibility initiatives and individual investment contracts might refer.

FAO is also developing voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure of land and other natural resources in collaboration with other international organizations including UN-Habitat and the World Bank. The rationale for a code of conduct includes the considerations that: foreign investment has a great potential to help meet the investment needs of developing countries and provide

broader long-term developmental benefts;

international concern has been raised over the impacts on small farmers and food security of recent large-scale foreign land

acquisitions and leasing; there are fears that local concerns may not be suffciently

taken into account in investment contracts and international investment agreements, and that sometimes domestic law provides

inadequate safeguards; and international

guidelines might promote responsible

agriculture investments that would beneft

all stakeholders.

Questions for policy consideration

for developing Countries:

What policy and legal frameworks are

needed to maximize benefts, particularly

for local populations?

How can targeted inward investment be encouraged? How can a receptive domestic sector be created?

How can a positive investment climate be created?

How can consistency be achieved between encouraging inward investment

and existing food security and rural development strategies?

What safeguards are required regarding land-use rights and the involvement and compensation of stakeholders?

for investors:

Why focus on acquisition? What alternatives are there to equity investment?

How can outward investment be encouraged? What information and incentives are required?

How can private sector fnance be

mobilized?

What kind of national code of conduct is needed?

for the international Community:

How can investment programmes be devised to meet investment needs – matching capital to opportunities?

Is there a need for an international mechanism to cover covering investment agreements and dispute settlement?

How can global corporate social responsibility initiatives be brought into the process?

for further information

Wsfs secretariat

Offce of the Assistant Director-General

Natural Resources Management and Environment DepartmentFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

Tel: (+39) 06 570 53101Fax: (+39) 06 570 56172Email: wsfs2009-secretariat@fao.org

World summit on food security

Rome 16–18 November 2009

Food needs 'fundamental rethink'

Food crops, agriculture and biodiversity cannot be separated from one another

A sustainable global food system in the 21st Century needs to be built on a series of "new fundamentals", according to a leading food expert.

Tim Lang warned that the current system, designed in the 1940s, was showing "structural failures", such as "astronomic" environmental costs.
The new approach needed to address key fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanisation, he added.
Professor Lang is a member of the UK government's newly formed Food Council.
"Essentially, what we are dealing with at the moment is a food system that was laid down in the 1940s," he told BBC News.
"It followed on from the dust bowl in the US, the collapse of food production in Europe and starvation in Asia.
"At the time, there was clear evidence showing that there was a mismatch between producers and the need of consumers."
Professor Lang, from City University, London, added that during the post-war period, food scientists and policymakers also thought increasing production would reduce the cost of food, while improving people's diets and public health.

We all know that waste is everywhere; it is immoral what is happening in the world of food Raymond Blanc, Chef and food campaigner

"But by the 1970s, evidence was beginning to emerge that the public health outcomes were not quite as expected," he explained.
"Secondly, there were a whole new set of problems associated with the environment."
Thirty years on and the world was now facing an even more complex situation, he added.
"The level of growth in food production per capita is dropping off, even dropping, and we have got huge problems ahead with an explosion in human population."
Fussy eaters
Professor Lang lists a series of "new fundamentals", which he outlined during a speech he made as the president-elect of charity Garden Organic, which will shape future food production, including:

• Oil and energy: "We have an entirely oil-based food economy, and yet oil is running out. The impact of that on agriculture is one of the drivers of the volatility in the world food commodity markets."
• Water scarcity: "One of the key things that I have been pushing is to get the UK government to start auditing food by water," Professor Lang said, adding that 50% of the UK's vegetables are imported, many from water-stressed nations.
• Biodiversity: "Biodiversity must not just be protected, it must be replaced and enhanced; but that is going to require a very different way growing food and using the land."
• Urbanisation: "Probably the most important thing within the social sphere. More people now live in towns than in the countryside. In which case, where do they get their food?"

Professor Lang said that in order to feed a projected nine billion people by 2050, policymakers and scientists face a fundamental challenge: how can food systems work with the planet and biodiversity, rather than raiding and pillaging it?
The UK's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, recently set up a Council of Food Policy Advisers in order to address the growing concern of food security and rising prices.

The 21st Century is going to have to produce a new diet for people, more sustainably, and in a way that feeds more people more equitably using less land Professor Tim Lang

Mr Benn, speaking at the council's launch, warned: "Global food production will need to double just to meet demand.
"We have the knowledge and the technology to do this, as things stand, but the perfect storm of climate change, environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity, threatens our ability to succeed."
Professor Lang, who is a member of the council, offered a suggestion: "We are going to have to get biodiversity into gardens and fields, and then eat it.
"We have to do this rather than saying that biodiversity is what is on the edge of the field or just outside my garden."
Michelin-starred chef and long-time food campaigner Raymond Blanc agrees with Professor Lang, adding that there is a need for people, especially in the UK, to reconnect with their food.
He is heading a campaign called Dig for Your Dinner, which he hopes will help people reconnect with their food and how, where and when it is grown.
"Food culture is a whole series of steps," he told BBC News.
"Whatever amount of space you have in your backyard, it is possible to create a fantastic little garden that will allow you to reconnect with the real value of gardening, which is knowing how to grow food.
"And once you know how to grow food, it would be very nice to be able to cook it. If you are growing food, then it only makes sense that you know how to cook it as well.
"And cooking food will introduce you to the basic knowledge of nutrition. So you can see how this can slowly reintroduce food back into our culture."
Waste not...
Mr Blanc warned that food prices were likely to continue to rise in the future, which was likely to prompt more people to start growing their own food.

Sustainable food helps protect rare breeds and varieties Raymond Blanc on good food

He was also hopeful that the food sector would become less wasteful.
"We all know that waste is everywhere; it is immoral what is happening in the world of food.
"In Europe, 30% of the food grown did not appear on the shelves of the retailers because it was a funny shape or odd colour.
"At least the amendment to European rules means that we can now have some odd-shaped carrots on our shelves. This is fantastic news, but why was it not done before?"
He suggested that the problem was down to people choosing food based on sight alone, not smell and touch.
"The way that seeds are selected is about immunity to any known disease; they have also got to grow big and fast, and have a fantastic shelf life.
"Never mind taste, texture or nutrition, it is all about how it looks.
"The British consumer today has got to understand that when they make a choice, let's say an apple - either Chinese, French or English one - they are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one.
"They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting."
Growing appetite
The latest estimates from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that another 40 million people have been pushed into hunger in 2008 as a result of higher food prices.
This brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.
The FAO warned that the ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.
"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," said FAO assistant director-general Hafez Ghanem at the launch of the agency's State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 report.
"The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," he added.
Professor Lang outlined the challenges facing the global food supply system: "The 21st Century is going to have to produce a new diet for people, more sustainably, and in a way that feeds more people more equitably using less land."

Food figures need a pinch of salt

VIEWPOINT Isobel Tomlinson

The idea that the world needs to double its food production by 2050 in order to feed a growing population is wrong, says Isobel Tomlinson from the Soil Association. In this week's Green Room, she says the misuse of data could be used to allow even greater intensification of the global agricultural industry.

It is important that scientific research is now done to show how a better future is possible Food needs 'fundamental rethink'

In the last couple of years, scientists, politicians and agricultural industry representatives around the globe have been using two statistics: the need to increase global food production by 50% by 2030, and for food production to double by 2050 to meet future demand.
These figures have come to play a significant role in framing current international policy debates about the future direction of global agriculture.
These apparently scientific statistics have been dominating the policy and media discourse about food and farming, leading almost everyone to assume we need vast increases in agricultural production to feed a population of nine billion people by the middle of this century.
While ensuring an equitable and sufficient future food supply is of critical importance, many commentators are using this to justify the need for more intensive agricultural practices and, in particular, the need for further expansion of GM crops.
Cooking the books
When the Soil Association, in its report Telling Porkies, looked into the reported sources for these figures, none of the sources actually stated that global food production needs to increase by 50% by 2030, or to double by 2050.

The food web is complex and tough to break down into simple soundbites

What the reports on which the claims are based do say is that certain sectors, in certain parts of the world, may have to increase food production by significant amounts.
For example, for cereals, there is a projected increase of one billion tonnes annually beyond the two billion tonnes produced in 2005.
For meat, in developing countries only (except China), the reports say that some of the growth potential (for increased per capita meat consumption) will materialise as effective demand, and their per capita consumption could double by 2050.
So this is a projected doubling of meat consumption in some developing countries - not a doubling of global food production.
Indeed, recent calculations show that the key source for the "doubling" claim - a 2006 report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - implies that global food production for 2006-2050 would need to increase by around 70%, not 100%; a difference that is equivalent to the entire food production of the continent of America.
But while a re-evaluation of the veracity of the claim that food production needs to double by 2050 is to be welcomed, simply switching to the figure of 70% does not solve the problem.
Food for thought
The statistic of a 70% increase is still predicted on the same "business as usual" model as the "doubling" figure and that is problematic for several reasons:

Some region will have to produce considerably more food Food push urged to avoid hunger

First of all, the projections reflect a continuing pattern of structural change in the diets of people in developing countries with a rapid increase in livestock products (meat, milk, eggs) as a source of food calories.
However, the continuation of dietary transition in developing countries, as assumed by the modelling work, is likely to cause worsening health problems as such diets are a leading cause of non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular disease, some cancers and Type 2 diabetes.
Secondly, the data used to measure food security focuses attention on the level of agricultural production without considering access to food, distribution, and affordability which are all important in ensuring that people do not go hungry.
Thirdly, the projections assume that the developing world continues to import growing quantities of staple food stuffs when, in fact, increasing local production of staple foods is vital in ensuring food security.
Finally, according to these scientists, meeting these projected food demand targets will not solve food insecurity anyway. Indeed it is predicted that there will still be 290 million under-nourished people worldwide in 2050.
The assumptions and projections in this modelling reflect the authors' vision of the "most likely future" but not necessarily the most desirable one.
At the Soil Association, we now want to have an honest debate about how we can feed the world in 2050 in a way that doesn't lead to the further increases in obesity and diet related diseases, ensures that the global environment is protected, and that puts an end to hunger and starvation.
The misuse of the doubling statistic, based as it supposedly is on just one particular forecast of future demand for food, has prevented alternative visions of food and farming in 2050, which do not rely on the further intensification of farming and use of GM technologies, from being taken seriously in food security policy circles.
It is important that scientific research is now done to show how a better future is possible.
One recent scientific study has examined how we can feed and fuel the world sustainably, fairly and humanely. It explored the feasibility of feeding nine billion people in 2050 under different diet scenarios and agricultural systems.
The study showed that for a Western high-meat-diet to be "probably feasible" would require a combination of massive land use change, intensive livestock production and intensive use of arable land.
This would have negative impacts for animal welfare and lead to further destruction of natural habitats like rainforests.
However, the study also provides evidence "that organic agriculture can probably feed the world population of 9.2 billion in 2050, if relatively modest diets are adopted, where a low level of inequality in food distribution is required to avoid malnutrition".
Isobel Tomlinson is the policy and campaigns officer for the Soil Association, the UK's leading organic organisation
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

---

Do you agree with Isobel Tomlinson? Is it wrong to suggest that the world needs to double its food production by 2050? Will it lead to the intensification of the globe's agricultural industry? Or do we just have to accept that there is never going to be universal food security, and develop ways to help as many people has possible with the resources we have?
We have to plan infinite things to satisfy one unplanned thing i.e. Growth of human population. Either, there are 'without power' powerful leaders, who can not speak on the most basic issue or there are 'genuine' powerful leaders who are wasting their power in neutralizing the frivolous issues raised by their opposition and media. Most of the places, we are handling the results of the problem. Why do not we hit at the source? Why do not we raise the most basic issue? Why not this issue is getting importance in my own country? Not a single political leader is realizing the abnormal growth of human population.
Sanjay Singh Thakur, Indore,India
If more were done to encourage people to have fewer babies, then, whatever the statistics, less food would be needed to feed the global population.
Venetia Caine, Poitiers, France
The FAO was very quick to adjust their projection to a 70 per cent increase after the initial quote got out and most commentators adjusted accordingly long ago, so it's a bit disingenuous to extend the critique of an estimate that has already been refined and will continue to be. To quibble about how big an increase will be required diminishes the matter at stake, but of course that's the objective of the article. To sum it up: FAO has made a credible forecast; we'll never know for certain until it's all over and we certainly can't wait till then to do something about it. It's our food supply after all. Whether we need to increase production by 50 or 70 or 100 percent is not the point. What's really important is that the population of Europe and the world will continue to increase and food supplies will have to be boosted in the face of critical challenges (climate change, availability of water, environmental protection, biodiversity, distribution, affordability etc). The big question is whether we are going to increase the agricultural land base (and cut down more forests to grow food) or become more productive in a sustainable way on existing farmland. Deforestation is agriculture's single biggest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the destruction of biodiversity. It's a fact that organic methods require more land to grow the same amount of food (up to three times) and the crops are by far more susceptible to the pests and disease that have plagued food production throughout human history when the whole of agriculture was "organic". Organic is fine in some circumstances and not in others, but it's not the answer to the food supply challenge, which is very likely the biggest we face. It would be very helpful if every stakeholder in the agricultural and food policy community accepted this cold, hard fact as soon as possible. It's not a matter of the right or wrong ideology of farming. It's about resisting the age-old human solution to hunger which is to expand farmland. It's about efficiency and productivity, quality and affordability, and the full and rational application of science and technology to sustaining the our food supply sustainably. Phil Newton, ECPA (European Crop Protection Association)
Phil Newton, Brussels
One would hope that long before 2050 or even 2030, we in the so-called Developed World will have realised that we are eating far too much. I was born in 1969, and everyone I grew up with was slim during the 1970s and 80s. Now 1 in 3 are overweight or obese. And guess what, our calorie intake is much higher. The answer is to drop back down to a more reasonable level of personal consumption - which will also overcome many of the diseases of excess such as heart disease and tumours. Then make projections on what is likely. The fact is that, much as advertisers would like us to, we don't need to all eat a burger and chips and chocolate diet.
Andrew Smith, Milton Keynes, UK
You can't believe anything when it comes to food. We're all on a healthy eating kick now. Due to the large number of centenarians in the Mediterranean countries, we've been coerced and bullied into changing our diet. Now we find that most of these 104 year olds have been dead for decades while their families continued to claim their pensions.
Alan, UK
Food equality is the key issue. Global production of food in vegetable form is twice what is needed to feed the world's population - 4,200 calories per person per day. But it's not so unequally distributed, and much is wasted. E.g. about 40% of global food production is fed to animals not people, and the meat produced contains less than a third of the calories of the animal feed. So I think we urgently need an open debate on alternatives to "business as usual". We don't need high-tech, but we do need high-ethic.
Phil Entwistle, Beverley
Nobody should take any prediction that far into the future seriously. On the other hand, the Soil Association wants to move the world backwards in agriculture, not forwards. They and the rest of the anti-technology anti-GM comfortable middle class (i.e. rich) are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
W Boucher, Cambridge, UK
It's certainly a question of how food is produced, rather than just focusing on how much is produced. As mentioned recently on BBC News - looking at bees shows a clear indication of increasing broad scale mono-culture is unhealthy, and ultimately unsustainable. Here in Australia, there are many examples of farmers applying ecological perspectives in land management, utilising natural services and producing greater yields more "naturally".I also agree that much of the western diet and food management creates both needless health problems and excessive waste. Isobel is correct in saying that we need to "have an honest debate about how we can feed the world in 2050 in a way that doesn't lead to the further increases in obesity and diet related diseases, ensures that the global environment is protected, and that puts an end to hunger and starvation." There is great potential for improvement which should lead to greater efficiency (and ultimately reduction in cost of food, plus health related issues). However, the problem is as much social - where it's cheaper to grow (often with transport being cheap, this leads to what seems odd choices), what is culturally desired etc. Eventually you'll find that you're no longer looking at food production, but how we choose to live. Asking questions here will lead to even greater resistance. But again - real debate and discussion, based on solid evidence, is the only way forward. I also feel it premature to rule out GM as playing any role - not that I'm advocating GM over all else, but I do feel that it must play an important role in some way.
Tim Lubcke, Adelaide
I think the most important thing is to tell some countries and people stopping produce more human beings, slowing down the depletion our limited resources, recycling everthing as much as we can. Don't chase the luxury life, have a comfortable and happy life.
Caren Wang, China
I have mixed feelings,it is very essential to explore how globalization, broadly conceived to include international human rights norms, humanitarianism, and alternative trade, might influence peaceful and food secure outlooks and outcomes. It should review studies on the relationships between (1) conflict and food insecurity, (2) conflict and globalization, and (3) globalization and food insecurity. Next, it would be analyzed country level, historical contexts where export crops, such as coffee and cotton, have been implicated in triggering and perpetuating conflict. It suggest that it is not export cropping per Se, but production and trade structures and food and financial policy contexts that determine peaceful or belligerent outcomes. Export cropping appears to contribute to conflict when fluctuating prices destabilize household and national incomes and when revenues fund hostilities.
Engr Salam, LGED, Bangladesh

China battles pork meat laced with a poisonous drug

China battles pork meat laced with a poisonous drug 27 Jan 2011

There have been reports of consumers in China becoming ill and ending up hospitalised with stomach pains and heart palpitations after consuming pork laced with Clenbuterol.

Related

• Russia says no to poultry from Germany -...
• Neogen: Tests for Salmonella in feed meet FDA...
• Dioxin levels in contaminated feed fat are 78...

Clenbuterol, in China is also known as "lean meat powder," and is banned in the country. However, animal feed is sometimes mixed with this dangerous drug because some farmers want to profit on the market – as it is used in animal feed because it can decrease a pig's body fat to a thin layer, which makes the meat appear leaner and while it also makes skin pinker – making the meat look fresher for a longer period.

Clenbuterol-treated pork requested from pig farmers

Because of the effects on pork meat, it has made some Chinese meat suppliers request Clenbuterol-treated pork from pig farmers. With using Clenbuterol fat burning and muscle growth happens rapidly, which is why some see it as an ideal a feed additive. Though there have been reports in China of the drug entering the food supply, exactly how much food tainted with this drug is not known currently – the Chinese government will not state how many cases of contaminated meat or related illness occur annually.

Pork meat mostly affected
It seems that tainted pork is a major concern in the country as Clenbuterol-tainted pork is considered to be one of China's largest food threats as reports have mostly involved this meat.

"It's really a big problem in China," said Pan Chenjun, a senior industry analyst with Rabobank. "It's not reported frequently so people sometimes think it's not a big issue but actually it's quite widespread."

Despite strict Chinese laws against "Clenbuterol" which carry a prison term for offenders who produce or sell tainted food products, there are often cases where a fine or a bribe can get the offender out of a tight spot.

Clenbuterol – quick info:

• Clenbuterol is approved for use in some countries via presciption as a bronchodilator for asthma patients.
• In instances is has also been used as a performance-enhancing drug in sports – with cases where athletes have been suspended from respective sports.
• In some parts of the world Clenbuterol is used for the treatment of allergic respiratory disease in horses.
• In September 2006 more than 330 people in Shanghai were reported to have been poisoned by eating pork contaminated by Clenbuterol that had been fed to the animals to keep their meat lean – as it increases the rate at which body fat is metabolised

the elderly, including his mother Freda Rose who died at 96, were often treated as "unworthy of our time and consideration"

Parkinson seeks dignity for elderly in care

Sir Michael was concerned about the way his mother was treated Stereotypes of older people must be broken down to ensure those in care receive the dignity they deserve, Sir Michael Parkinson has concluded. The former chat show host has spent the last year as ambassador for the government's Dignity in Care campaign. Sir Michael said the elderly, including his mother Freda Rose who died at 96, were often treated as "unworthy of our time and consideration" while in care. He said breaking down stereotypes was a key part in restoring dignity in care. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Sir Michael said his mother's care was "nothing awful or evil" but "just sheer carelessness". Dignity must be at the heart of care Andy Burnham, Health Secretary He said there was a danger that carers did not see a "person who had lived a life, a worthwhile person, but a piece of decrepit and useless flesh". In his report, My year as national dignity ambassador, Sir Michael described the bad aspects of his mother's care. He said she was patted on the head and called "ducky" or "dear" and, on one occasion, her face had been "painted garishly", "like a clown, a figure of fun, and far from the woman who brought me up". "We need to banish outdated attitudes and assumptions that can be a barrier to good quality care," Sir Michael said. "Becoming national dignity ambassador has strengthened my belief that dignity in care needs to be everybody's business. "It's not just about the government, or nurses or carers - we can all make a difference. " Positive aspects Sir Michael was also keen to stress the positive aspects of care. He recounted how Gill Hicks, a survivor of the 7 July London bombings, had told him about the nurse who had jumped into the shower - fully clothed - to assist her when she was having difficulties. "That story really sticks with me not only because it demonstrates the true meaning of care and compassion but also because I can imagine how, in a less enlightened organisation, that nurse could quite easily have found herself being disciplined," Sir Michael said. "It is nice to hear of staff who have the confidence to use their own judgment on how best to meet the needs of their patients, without fear of reprisal." The Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, said: "Sir Michael's report is an invaluable insight into the experiences of people who rely on support and those who dedicate their lives to helping others. "Dignity must be at the heart of care - to achieve this we are transforming the care and support system to make it fairer, simpler and more affordable for everyone." Sir Michael was appointed in May 2008 to promote dignity in care, as part of the Department of Health's Dignity Campaign

The home support given to people with dementia and their carers is an "absolute travesty"

Alzheimer's Society ambassador Kevin Whately: "The more family and friends can take care of a patient the better"

Continue reading the main story

Related stories

• Dementia: Your stories
• NHS 'turning its back on elderly'
• Kevin Whately on his mother's dementia

The home support given to people with dementia and their carers is an "absolute travesty", a charity says.

The Alzheimer's Society study - based on feedback from carers, health workers and patients - said the problem was causing unnecessary admissions to hospital and care homes.
The authors called for better training for staff and access to services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The government said the charity was right to highlight the issue.
About 750,000 people in the UK have dementia, two-thirds of whom are living at home with support from loved ones and sometimes social services.
But the report said too many were ending up in hospital or being admitted to care homes too early because of the lack of support being provided to ensure people could remain in their own homes.
Breaks
Respite care, which allows carers to have breaks, was found to be lacking, while there was said to be too little joined up working between the NHS and social care.
In particular, the report criticised the ever-tightening criteria councils were using to see who should be eligible to social care support. It said much of the £2bn extra being promised by government for social services by 2014 would be needed to rectify this.
The study also pointed out that it was essential that dementia patients received proper assessments and had personalised care plans drawn up to ensure they were getting the right medication and support.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Many people are having their health put at risk and being forced into hospital or care homes against their will”

End Quote Kevin Whately Actor

Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, said: "It is an absolute travesty that so many people with dementia are being forced to struggle without the care and support they need. The consequences of this represent an unacceptable human and financial cost."

Actor Kevin Whately, who is one of the Alzheimer's Society's celebrity supporters and whose mother had dementia, added: "Many people are having their health put at risk and being forced into hospital or care homes against their will.
"It also represents a huge financial burden which society cannot afford to take on, especially in these economic times."
Care services minister Paul Burstow said: "The Alzheimer's Society is right to turn the spotlight on home care for people with dementia. While there are some outstanding services, as this report demonstrates too many people with dementia and their carers feel let down."
But he added: "What needs to be done to put things right is not rocket science, it requires compassion, common sense and a determination to treat people as people, not boxes to tick."

More on This Story

Related stories

• Dementia: Your stories 25 JANUARY 2011, HEALTH
• NHS 'turning its back on elderly' 28 SEPTEMBER 2010, HEALTH
• Kevin Whately on his mother's dementia 25 JANUARY 2011, HEALTH
• Ageing 'a problem for councils' 18 FEBRUARY 2010, HEALTH
• Dementia 'losing out' on funding 03 FEBRUARY 2010, HEALTH
• Elderly in care 'deserve dignity' 12 JANUARY 2010, EDUCATION

Related Internet links

• Age UK
• Alzheimer's Society
• Department of Health

Around the BBC

• BBC Health - treating dementia

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Share this page

antibiotics can increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome

Giving children antibiotics can increase risk of irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn's disease later in life, the Daily Mail has reported. The newspaper article says that “scientists believe the drugs may encourage harmful bacteria and other organisms to grow in the gut, which trigger the conditions”.

This study looked at the medical records of over 500,000 children in Denmark, and found that children who had been prescribed antibiotics were more likely to develop inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than those who had not received such prescriptions. IBD is a group of diseases which includes Crohn’s disease, but not (as suggested by the Mail) irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

While this study has found a relationship between antibiotic use and IBD, it is not possible to say for certain why such a relationship exists. It might be that antibiotics do raise the risk of IBD, or that the infections being treated with them cause or trigger IBD, or that in some cases antibiotics were being used to treat symptoms of undiagnosed IBD that was later identified. These findings are worth further investigation.

It is important to remember that the risk of IBD in children is very low. In this study of more than half a million children, only 117 were diagnosed with the disease, despite almost 85% of the subjects taking at least one course of antibiotics.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark and funded by Danish Medical Research Council and the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Gut.

This study was reported by the Daily Mail, which has confused inflammatory bowel disease (investigated by this study) with irritable bowel syndrome, which is not an inflammatory bowel disease (and was not investigated in this study).

What kind of research was this?

This was a nationwide Danish cohort study looking at whether there was a link between the use of antibiotics and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in childhood. The balance of microorganisms in the intestine has been suggested to be important in the development of IBD. As antibiotics can alter this balance, one suggestion is that their use could potentially affect the risk of IBD.

The main limitation of this type of study design is that the groups being compared (in this case, children exposed and unexposed to antibiotics) may differ in ways other than their use of antibiotics. Any such differences might potentially affect the results and therefore obscure the true relationship. Researchers can try to reduce the likelihood of this by taking such factors into account in their analyses.

Limitations of this nature could potentially be avoided by looking at the risk of IBD in children who had participated in randomised controlled trials of antibiotics, although the practical constraints of such studies mean they would not be likely to include the very large number of children that this study had.

What did the research involve?

The researchers looked at the healthcare records of all Danish children born between 1995 and 2003 who were not part of multiple births (e.g. twins or triplets). They obtained information on collections of antibiotic prescriptions, diagnoses of IBD and other factors that could affect results. They then looked at whether children who had received antibiotics were any more or less likely to subsequently develop IBD compared with children who had not received antibiotics.

The researchers drew data from various national registries to locate eligible children, their filled prescriptions and medical history. The researchers identified:

• all prescriptions for systemic antibiotics antibiotics for internal rather than external (topical) use, given between 1995 and 2004
• the type of antibiotic given, and how many different courses of antibiotics were given in the study period
• all recorded diagnoses of IBD, which includes Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. These diagnoses were identified using records of hospitalisations, emergency department visits and outpatient hospital visits.

The researchers also obtained a range of information on factors which could affect results, including gender, birth order (whether the child was born first, second or third), level of urbanisation of the place of birth, birth weight, length of gestation, mother’s age at the child’s birth, educational level of mother in the year preceding the year of birth, and socioeconomic category of father in the year preceding the year of birth.

However, none of these factors were found to be independently associated with the risk of IBD, so they were not taken into account in the main analyses. These only took into account the child’s age and year of the diagnosis.

What were the basic results?

Overall, the researchers collected data on 577,627 children, with an average follow-up time of about 5.5 years. This provided over 3 million years of data in total. Most of the children (84.8%) had received at least one course of antibiotics.

Across both study groups 117 children developed IBD – 50 of these children had Crohn’s disease and 67 had ulcerative colitis. On average, diagnosis of these conditions was first recorded between the ages of three and four years old.

The researchers reported their outcomes using a measure called the "incidence rate ratio" [iRR], which is the relative proportion of people given a new diagnosis in two different groups within a specified period of time. They found that children who had collected an antibiotic prescription were 84% more likely to develop IBD during follow-up than those who did not [iRR 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 3.15].

When looking at the different types of IBD separately, antibiotics were only associated with an increased risk of Crohn’s disease [iRR 3.41] but not ulcerative colitis. The risk of being diagnosed with Crohn’s disease was greater in the first three months after the prescription collection [iRR 4.43], and greater in children who received seven or more courses of antibiotics [iRR 7.32].

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that their study is the “first prospective study to show a strong association between antibiotic use and [Crohn’s disease] in childhood”. This suggests that antibiotics or the conditions for which they are prescribed (infections) could potentially increase the risk of IBD or trigger the disease in people who are susceptible.

However, they note that as with all studies of this type, it cannot prove that antibiotics or the illnesses they were prescribed to treat cause IBD. They say that a possible explanation might be that the children had been prescribed antibiotics to treat intestinal symptoms caused by undiagnosed Crohn’s disease that would later be identified.

Conclusion

Overall, this large study has suggested a link between antibiotic use and IBD, although it should not be assumed that antibiotic use is necessarily the cause of the condition. There are a number of alternative explanations for the association, such as the possibility that antibiotics had been given to the children to deal with symptoms of Crohn’s disease that had not yet been diagnosed. Further research will be needed to clarify the situation.

The strengths and limitations of this research must also be considered when interpreting its results:

• The large size of this study, its ability to include most of the children of the relevant age group in the entire country and the level of data available on antibiotic prescriptions are all strengths.
• As exposures and outcomes were based on medical records, the reliability of the findings may depend on the accuracy of the records.
• Standard diagnostic assessments of each child were not carried out, therefore some cases of IBD may have been missed and some children may have been misdiagnosed. However, the authors report that the hospital registers used have previously been found to have a high level of validity and completeness in identifying individuals with IBD.
• Although the prescriptions were filled out, not all of the antibiotics may have been taken by the children. However, this would tend to reduce any link between antibiotics and IBD, rather than make it stronger.
• In this type of study, the groups being compared – children exposed and unexposed to antibiotics – may differ in ways other than their use of antibiotics, and these differences may be affecting the results. Although the researchers took into account factors that they thought could affect results (as the causes of IBD are not well understood), it is difficult to know whether all the important factors have been accounted for.

As the authors acknowledge, it is not possible to say whether the link found is due to the antibiotics, the infection that prompted the need for antibiotics or treatment of existing but undiagnosed IBD.

the wreck of the barque Libelle

Wreck of the Libelle

Wake Island first received international attention with the wreck of the barque Libelle. On the night of March 4, 1866, the 650 ton Libelle, of Bremen, Germany, struck the eastern reef of Wake Island during a gale. Commanded by Captain Tobias, the ship was en route from San Francisco to Hong Kong. Among its passengers were opera singer Anna Bishop (ex wife of the celebrated French harpist Nicolas Bochsa), her husband Martin Schultz (a New York diamond merchant), and three other members of an English opera troupe.

After 21 days on Wake, the 30 stranded passengers and crewmen sailed in a longboat and the gig for the then Spanish island of Guam. The longboat, containing the opera troupe, Mr. Schultz and other passengers, reached Guam April on 8. Unfortunately, the gig, commanded by the captain, was lost at sea. Captain Tobias had buried valuable cargo on Wake, including 1,000 flasks (34,500 kg) of mercury, as well as coins and precious stones worth about US$150,000. At least five ships conducted salvage operations for its recovery. The plight of the Libelle's passengers and the buried cargo was reported by newspapers around the world.

European discovery and exploration

Wake Island as depicted by the United States Exploring Expedition, drawn by Alfred Thomas Agate

On October 20, 1568, Álvaro de Mendaña de Neyra, a Spanish explorer with two ships, Los Reyes and Todos Santos, discovered "a low barren island, judged to be eight leagues in circumference", to which he gave the name of "San Francisco". The island was eventually named for Captain William Wake, master of the British trading schooner, Prince William Henry, who visited in 1796.^[14]

Jeremiah N. Reynolds' 1828 report to the US House of Representatives describes Capt. Edward Gardner's discovery of a 25-mile (40 km) long island situated at 19°15' N, 166°32' E, with a reef at the eastern edge when he was captain of the Bellona in 1823. The island was "covered with wood, having a very green and rural appearance" and, Reynolds concluded, was probably Wake Island. It was placed on charts by John Arrowsmith.^[15]

On December 20, 1840, the United States Exploring Expedition, commanded by Commodore Charles Wilkes of the U.S. Navy, landed on Wake and surveyed the island. Wilkes described the atoll as "a low coral one, of triangular form and eight feet above the surface. It has a large lagoon in the centre, which was well filled with fish of a variety of species among these were some fine mullet." He also noted that Wake had no fresh water but was covered with shrubs, "the most abundant of which was the tournefortia." The expedition's naturalist, Titian Peale, collected many new specimens, including an egg from a short-tailed albatross and various marine life specimens

The 1595-1596 Voyage

A much larger and costlier expedition had been planned by the early 1590s, after Mendaña had spent years courting favour in Madrid and Lima. Four ships and 378 men, women and children were to establish a colony in the Solomon Islands. Again, the leaders of this voyage had “widely divergent personalities.” ^[11] Mendaña was again in command, accompanied by his wife Doña Isabel Barreto, her three brothers and a sister. Chief Pilot was to be a young Portuguese navigator in Spanish service, Pedro Fernández de Quirós. An argumentative old soldier, Pedro Merino Manrique was chosen as camp master. Manrique caused disputes before the fleet had even departed.

The four ships, San Geronimo (the Capitana), the Santa Isabel (the Almiranta), the smaller frigate Santa Catalina and the galiot San Felipe left Callao on 9 April 1595. Spirits were high in the first month, fifteen marriages being celebrated.^[12] Mendaña had Quirós prepare charts for his Captains that only showed Peru and the Solomon Islands.^[13]

On 21 July 1595 the ships reached the Marquesas Islands, (named for the wife of the then viceroy of Peru, García Hurtado de Mendoza, 5th Marquis of Cañete) to be met by four hundred people in canoes. Although the Spaniards admired their “graceful shape” and “almost white” complexion, the relationship again descended into violence. When the expedition left two weeks later, Quirós estimated 200 Marquesans had been killed ^[14]

Despite Mendaña’s confidence that the Solomon Islands were nearby, it was not until 8 September that they sighted land again, this time the island of Nendo, which they named "Santa Cruz".^[15] The Santa Isabel had disappeared, however, and despite searches by the two smaller vessels, it could not be found.^[16] Arriving at what is now Graciosa Bay, a settlement was commenced. Relations with local islanders and their chief Malope started well, with food provided and assistance in constructing buildings. However, morale amongst the Spanish was low and sickness (almost certainly malaria) was rife. Manrique was murdered at the orders of, and in front of Mendaña, and shortly afterwards, the generous Malope was killed by soldiers. Relations with the Islanders soon descended again into the all too familiar cycle of violence.

Wracked by internal divisions and an increasing death toll, internal bickering increased and the settlement began to fall apart. Mendaña himself died on 18 October 1595, leaving his wife as heir and Governor, her brother Lorenzo, Captain-General. On 30 October, the decision was made to abandon the settlement. When the three ships departed on 18 November 1595, forty-seven people had died in the space of one month ^[17]

Pedro Fernández de Quirós is generally credited with bringing the San Geronimo safely into the Philippines without the aid of charts, arriving in Manila Bay on 11 February 1596. Over fifty people died on the twelve week voyage from Santa Cruz, in part due to Dona Isabel’s refusal to share out her private store of food and water.^[18] The frigate (carrying Mendaña's body) disappeared during the voyage, while the galiot San Felipe limped in to the southern end of Mindanao several days later.

Blackbeard captured a French slaver known as La Concorde in 1717 and renamed it Queen Anne's Revenge. He captained the ship until it ran aground, perhaps intentionally, at Beaufort Inlet in June 1718. (For more on Blackbeard, see sidebar.)

Some accounts at the time suggested that Blackbeard wanted to break up his crew of some 300 to 400 men—and keep the choicest booty for himself.

The ship is still officially classified as "believed to be" the QAR. But mounting evidence suggests to many that the wreck is that of Blackbeard's ship.

"It's not like CSI," said Cheryl Ward, a Florida State University maritime archaeologist not involved in the project. "In the real world nobody solves anything in a 24-hour period. We may never get a definitive answer, but I think that they've got a very good case for this being the Queen Anne's Revenge. I certainly know of nothing they've found to suggest that it can't be."

Email to a Friend

<<> 5 of 6 Next >>

What's This? SHARE Digg StumbleUpon Reddit RELATED STORIES Blackbeard: Pirate Terror at Sea "Blackbeard's Ship" Wreck to Get Protection From Currents, Hurricanes "Blackbeard's Ship" Yields New Clues to Pirate Mystery A copper-alloy sword guard was recently found in a shipwreck thought to be Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge, archaeologists said in March 2009. The guard would have sat between the sword's steel blade and its wooden handle. An x-ray of the sword guard (bottom) shows a small hole where a decorative chain might have been attached. Infamous pirate Blackbeard grounded his ship while trying to enter the harbor of Beaufort, North Carolina in 1718.