全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Compassion in World Farming is supportive of the report’s efforts to contribute to global food security and nutrition (FSN) by focusing on livestock.  We also welcome the inclusion of animal welfare in the report.  We do however encourage the report to be developed further, with particular recognition of the bio-physical limits of the planet[1] and the negative impact of intensifying livestock production in certain areas of the world.  A particularly pressing threat is the increase in grain-fed animal production on food security and nutrition (FSN) of the most food-insecure people[2].

We therefore encourage the report and policy recommendations to focus on exactly how sustainable agricultural development (SAD) can contribute to the goals of the FAO[3].  Specifically, we feel that the report should shift its emphasis from a focus primarily on increasing production to instead focusing on the contribution that SAD and livestock can make to:

i.    the FSN of the people who are most in need of more calories and/or specific nutrients;

ii.   the livelihoods of small-scale farmers and the poorest families and communities; and

iii.  restoration and protection of the environment and farm animal welfare.

It is currently unclear how increasing livestock production alone will meet these three goals, particularly as the report correctly states that hunger is the result of poverty rather than due to a lack of available food.  Focusing exclusively on producing more (animal-sourced food) ASF - without specifically targeting a reduction in the prevalence of under-nutrition and over-nutrition - could do more harm than good to global FSN.  For example:

i.    under-nourished poor people may not be able to afford these additional ASF and may find grain more expensive if crops are diverted to feed livestock instead of directly to feed humans.  This may therefore create a higher frequency of individuals suffering from hunger rather than fewer.

ii.   adequately nourished people with moderate incomes may be more likely to over-consume and become overweight if ASF become more available; over-weight and obese people may be more likely to stay or become more over-weight[4].

iii.  increased meat and dairy consumption does not necessarily improve nutrition depending on the types and amounts of meat and dairy consumed.  For instance, an increase in red and processed meat consumption is linked with higher frequencies of certain cancers[5] and increased processed meat consumption with coronary heart disease and diabetes[6].  Therefore purely increasing livestock production as a whole, without explaining how these ASF can be produced healthily, nutritiously and accessibly to those most in need, might exacerbate malnutrition.

The conclusion of the report is mostly well balanced and we welcome recognition of: the need for de-intensification in some areas; the fact that it is impossible to adopt a western diet globally; that policy or other interventions to shift consumption patterns towards healthy and sustainable levels are needed; and that reductions in waste and losses will be helpful towards achieving a sustainable food production.  We do however feel that there is limited discussion on: the negative effects on soil of increased livestock production; the inefficiency of feeding crops to livestock and its associated calorific waste due to livestock metabolism; and the benefits of agro-ecological livestock production in comparison to conventional western production.  There are examples of using low-tech, localised improvements in livestock management to benefit people, livestock and the planet[7],[8] without having to adopt an industrialised system, the latter of which costs $3.3 trillion annually in environmental damage through global intensive farming of crops and livestock[9].  Lastly, the report incorrectly assumes that food production must increase to feed a population of nearly 10 billion by 2050.  Enough food is already produced to feed 10 billion but is wasted due to overconsumption, pre- and post-harvest losses and calorific losses due to feeding human-edible crops to livestock.

We expand on these points and outline further concerns about the report in the attached document, as responses to the questions posed by FAO.