Bioróżnorodność: czemu jest ważna i jak ją chronić?
Ponadto, wylesianie zmniejsza zatrzymywanie wody w glebie zwiększając zagrożenie powodzią, a także sprzyja erozji gleb. Wreszcie utrata pokrywy ...
Godfray i inni, 2010
Poza eliminacją emisji ważne jest również zwiększenie pochłaniania CO2 przez ekosystemy takie jak lasy i torfowiska. Zahamowanie wylesiania i powtórne zalesianie terenów niewykorzystywanych rolniczo będą w tym względzie pomocne. Osobnym zagadnieniem pozostaje zapewnienie odpowiedniej ilości żywności dla rosnącej populacji. Należy jednak pamiętać, że obecnie marnuje się około 30 – 40% produkowanej żywności ( <anchor>Godfray i inni, 2010</anchor>), ponadto istnieją możliwości zwiększenia produkcji żywności na obecnie użytkowanych gruntach. Istotnym problemem pozostaje jednak zagrożenie utraty gruntów rolnych w następstwie zmian klimatu oraz wzrost popytu na mięso i nabiał wraz  z bogaceniem się społeczeństw ( Wageningen University).
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People | Science
Advertisement

Quick Search anywhere

Enter Search Term

Quick Search in Journals

Enter Search Term

Quick Search in Journals

Enter Search Term

Quick Search in Journals

Enter Search Term

Quick Search in Journals

Enter Search Term

Quick Search in Journals

Enter Search Term

Quick Search in Journals

Enter Search Term

Searching:

Anywhere

###### Trending Terms:

- cancer
- climate
- [artificial intelligence](/action/doSearch?AllField=artificial intelligence)
- postdoc
- aging

Quick Search anywhere

Enter Search Term

AAAS Logo

No access

Special Issue Review

Share on

# Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People

Science

28 Jan 2010

Vol 327, Issue 5967

pp. 812-818

## Abstract

Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water, and energy, in addition to the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food, as will the urgent requirement to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and equitably. A multifaceted and linked global strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security, different components of which are explored here.

## Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER OR AAAS MEMBER? Sign in as an individual or via your institution

## References and Notes

1

World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2008).

2

3

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009 (FAO, Rome, 2009).

4

A. Evans, The Feeding of the Nine Billion: Global Food Security (Chatham House, London, 2009).

5

Tilman D., et al., Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292, 281 (2001).

6

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2005).

7

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M. L. Parry et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

8

Schmidhuber J., Tubiello F. N., Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 19703 (2007).

9

J. von Braun, The World Food Situation: New Driving Forces and Required Actions (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2007).

10

G. Conway, The Doubly Green Revolution (Penguin Books, London, 1997).

11

Piesse J., Thirtle C., Three bubbles and a panic: An explanatory review of recent food commodity price events. Food Policy 34, 119 (2009).

12

Royal Society of London, Sustainable Biofuels: Prospects and Challenges (Royal Society, London, 2008).

13

R. Skidelsky, The Return of the Master (Allen Lane, London, 2009).

14

Pretty J., Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 447 (2008).

15

Balmford A., Green R. E., Scharlemann J. P. W., Sparing land for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Global Change Biol. 11, 1594 (2005).

16

C. Nellemann et al., Eds., The Environmental Food Crisis [United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 2009].

17

Fargione J., Hill J., Tilman D., Polasky S., Hawthorne P., Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 1235 (2008); published online 7 February 2008 (10.1126/science.1152747).

18

Royal Society of London, Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture (Royal Society, London, 2009).

19

Cassman K. G., Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: Yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 5952 (1999).

20

Evenson R. E., Gollin D., Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300, 758 (2003).

21

P. Hazell, L. Haddad, Food Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 34, (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2001).

22

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra, Ghana, 2006).

23

K. Anderson, Ed., Distortions to Agricultural Incentives, a Global Perspective 1955-2007 (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009).

24

Pretty J. N., Ball A. S., Lang T., Morison J. I. L., Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30, 1 (2005).

25

G. C. Nelson et al., Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2009).

26

N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

27

Pretty J. N., et al., Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1114 (2006).

28

Hazell P., Wood S., Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 495 (2008).

29

Deininger K., Feder G., Land registration, governance, and development: Evidence and implications for policy. World Bank Res. Obs. 24, 233 (2009).

30

Collier P., The politics of hunger: How illusion and greed fan the food crisis. Foreign Aff. 87, 67 (2008).

31

L. Cotula, S. Vermeulen, L. Leonard, J. Keeley, Land Grab or Development Opportunity? Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals in Africa [International Institute for Environment and Development (with FAO and International Fund for Agricultural Development), London, 2009].

32

A. Aksoy, J. C. Beghin, Eds., Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005).

33

Gilbert R. A., Shine J. M., Miller J. D., Rice R. W., Rainbolt C. R., The effect of genotype, environment and time of harvest on sugarcane yields in Florida, USA. Field Crops Res. 95, 156 (2006).

34

35

Lemaux P. G., Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist’s analysis of the issues (part II). Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 60, 511 (2009).

36

Lea D., The expansion and restructuring of intellectual property and its implications for the developing world. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 11, 37 (2008).

37

Cabinent Office, Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century (Cabinet Office Stategy Unit, London, 2008).

38

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), The Food We Waste (WRAP, Banbury, UK, 2008).

39

T. Stuart, Uncovering the Global Food Scandal (Penguin, London, 2009).

40

41

42

FAO, World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050 (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2006).

43

FAO, World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050 (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2003).

44

Smith M. D., et al., Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Science 327, 784 (2010).

45

Tacon A. G. J., Metian M., Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285, 146 (2008).

46

D. Whitmarsh, N. G. Palmieri, in Aquaculture in the Ecosystem, M. Holmer, K. Black, C. M. Duarte, N. Marba, I. Karakassis, Eds. (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008).

47

Hobbs P. R., Sayre K., Gupta R., The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 543 (2008).

48

Day W., Audsley E., Frost A. R., An engineering approach to modelling, decision support and control for sustainable systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 527 (2008).

49

J. Gressel, Genetic Glass Ceilings (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 2008).

50

FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2006).

51

Reij C. P., Smaling E. M. A., Analyzing successes in agriculture and land management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Is macro-level gloom obscuring positive micro-level change? Land Use Policy 25, 410 (2008).

52

UNEP, Africa: Atlas of Our Changing Environment (UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, 2008).

### Submit a Response to This Article

×

##### Compose eLetter

Title:

Title is required

Contents:

##### Contributors

remove contributor

First name:

Last name:

Email:

Role/occupation:

affiliation:

add another contributor

##### Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests?

YES

NO

Please describe the competing interests

CANCELSUBMIT

## (0)eLetters

eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Embedded figures cannot be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures within eLetters in general. If a figure is essential, please include a link to the figure within the text of the eLetter. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.

May. 19, 2010

###### Response to G. Flachowsky's E-Letter

H. Charles J. Godfray

In a wide-ranging review of a broad and complex subject we had limited space to explore fully all the factors affecting resource use in livestock production systems, their relative sustainability and broader impact on the environment ("Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people," H. C. J. Godfray et al., Reviews, 12 February 2010, p. 812). The data in our Table 2 was primarily derived from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IPCC reports and were quoted to illustrate some of the issues with livestock production that must be considered in food policy debates. We were aware of the complexities and concluded by stating "[o]f the five strategies we discuss here, assessing the value of decreasing the fraction of meat in our diets is the most difficult and needs to be better understood." We welcome G. Flachowsky's informative analysis, which elaborates some of these complexities and, we think, emphasizes the need for more and better data. There is no clear consensus on how we should compare the impacts of different livestock production systems on processes as diverse as fresh water consumption, provision of human macro and micro nutrients, gaseous emissions, eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems, biodiversity, animal welfare, and human cultural richness. Livestock policy is politically highly charged and the challenge to the research community is to develop disinterested metrics to inform debates on dietary choice, animal health, human physical and economic wellbeing, and environmental sustainability.

H. Charles J. Godfray

Department of Zoology and Institute of Biodiversity at the James Martin 21st Century School, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK.

John R. Beddington

UK Government Office for Science, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET, UK.

Ian R. Crute

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2TL, UK.

Lawrence Haddad

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK.

David Lawrence

Syngenta AG, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland.

James F. Muir

Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, Stirlingshire, FK9 4LA, UK.

Jules Pretty

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex, CO4 3SQ, UK.

Sherman Robinson

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK.

Sandy M. Thomas

Foresight, UK Government Office for Science, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET, UK.

Camilla Toulmin

International Institute for Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London, WC1H 0DD, UK.

May. 19, 2010

###### Food Production Through Better Animal Husbandry

Gerhard Flachowsky

I was happy to see the 12 February 2010 special section on Food Security. Unfortunately, as an animal nutritionist, I am disappointed in the livestock portion (pp. 816–817) of H. C. J. Godfray et al.'s Review ("Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people," 12 February 2010, p. 812). Animal scientists involved in breeding, nutrition, keeping, health, and welfare were underrepresented in the group of 10 authors.

Godfray et al.'s Table 2 (p. 817) contains unrealistic values for the drinking water intake, the feed required to produce 1 kg of meat, and methane emissions. It is not clear to me why pigs, sheep, and chickens should consume the same water amounts, independent of keeping form (grazing or intensive), whereas intensively kept cattle should consume about 5 times as much water as grazing animals. Roughly calculated, the water intake of animals amounts to about 3 to 5 times their dry matter (DM) intake, depending on animal performance—diet composition, ambient temperature, and other factors ( 1–3). A laying hen consumes about 100 g of DM per day and drinks about 300 to 500 g of water per day (not 1.3 to 1.8 liters; this is nearly the body weight of such a hen). No attention was given to animal performances. For example, 1 liter of milk contains nearly 87% water; milk yield, therefore, is an important influencing factor on water intake. Why did the authors not consider the data of various countries' scientific societies, such as the National Research Council in the United States or the Society of Nutrition Physiology in Germany, which deduce and update energy and nutrient requirements for food-producing animals?

Apart from water intake, meat yield is not a clearly defined term. It is not measurable under field conditions. Normally, the hot standard carcass weight, or the empty body weight [meat plus bones ( 4)] is registered in the slaughtering houses and given as a value to the statisticians. What happens to the other edible fractions such as liver, heart, and, lungs?

The values given for cereal to produce 1 kg of meat seem to be unrealistic. Not only cereals, but also food industry by-products are fed to animals. We can produce 1 kg of beef (cattle) without any cereal and only roughage, whereas in the case of broiler chicken meat, more than 1 kg (not only cereals) is required.

The main objective of animal husbandry in North America, Europe, and other regions is the production of edible protein in milk, meat, fish, and eggs. Therefore, the estimation of edible protein of animal origin is better suited as a measure for scientific studies to assess animal production, feed input, and efficiency, as well as outputs of environmental relevance. Our Institute of Animal Nutrition data ( 5, 6) shows some values on this topic dependent on animal yields measured under European conditions.

Gerhard Flachowsky

Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI), Bundesallee 50, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany.

References

1. J. Kamphues et al., FAL Agricultural Research 57, 255 (2007).

2. U. Meyer, M. Everinghoff, D. Gaedeken, G. Flachowsky, Livest. Prod. Sci. 90, 117 (2004).

3. U. Meyer, W. Stahl, G. Flachowsky, Livest. Sci. 103, 186 (2006).

4. G. M. Peters et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1327 (2010).

5. G. Flachowsky, J. Appl. Anim. Res. 22, 1 (2002).

6. G. Flachowsky, S. Hachenberg, J. Consumer Prot. Food Safety 4, 1190 (2009).

Loading...

## Information & Authors

### Information

#### Published In



Science

Volume 327 | Issue 5967

12 February 2010

#### Copyright

Copyright © 2010, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

#### Article versions

You are viewing the most recent version of this article.

#### Submission history

Published in print: 12 February 2010

#### Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

#### Acknowledgments

The authors are members of the U.K. Government Office for Science’s Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures. J.R.B. is also affiliated with Imperial College London. D.L. is a Board Member of Plastid AS (Norway) and owns shares in AstraZeneca Public Limited Company and Syngenta AG. We are grateful to J. Krebs and J. Ingrahm (Oxford), N. Nisbett and D. Flynn (Foresight), and colleagues in Defra and DflD for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. If not for his sad death in July 2009, Mike Gale (John Innes Institute, Norwich, UK) would also have been an author of this paper.

### Authors

#### Affiliations

Department of Zoology and Institute of Biodiversity at the James Martin 21st Century School, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.

John R.Beddington

U.K. Government Office for Science, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET, UK.

Ian R.Crute

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire CV8 2TL, UK.

LawrenceHaddad

Institute of Development Studies, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK.

DavidLawrence

Syngenta AG, Post Office Box, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland.

James F.Muir

Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.

JulesPretty

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK.

ShermanRobinson

Institute of Development Studies, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK.

Sandy M.Thomas

Foresight, U.K. Government Office for Science, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET, UK.

CamillaToulmin

International Institute for Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, UK.

#### Notes

*

To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

## Metrics & Citations

### Metrics

#### Article Usage

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to this delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication.

#### Altmetrics

### Citations

#### Cite as

- H. Charles J. Godfray et al.

,

Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People.Science327,812-818(2010).DOI: 10.1126/science.1185383

#### Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Please select one from the listRIS (ProCite, Reference Manager)EndNoteBibTexMedlarsRefWorks

Direct import

#### Cited by

1. Title Pending 16246, Meat and Muscle Biology, (2033). https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.16246
   Crossref

2. - Stephen Gonzalez,
   - Joseph Swift,
   - Adi Yaaran,
   - Jiaying Xu,
   - Charlotte Miller,
   - Natanella Illouz-Eliaz,
   - Joseph R Nery,
   - Wolfgang Busch,
   - Yotam Zait,
   - Joseph R Ecker,

3. - Stephen Gonzalez,
   - Joseph Swift,
   - Adi Yaaran,
   - Jiaying Xu,
   - Charlotte Miller,
   - Natanella Illouz-Eliaz,
   - Joseph R Nery,
   - Wolfgang Busch,
   - Yotam Zait,
   - Joseph R Ecker,

4. - Wang Chunyu,
   - Wang Junbang,

5. - Guna Muthuvairavan,
   - Saranya Manikandan,
   - Elavarasan Elangovan,
   - Sendhil Kumar Natarajan,

6. - Nadeem Iqbal,
   - Riyazuddin Riyazuddin,
   - Muhammad Nauman,
   - Zalán Czékus,
   - Malik Tahir Hayat,
   - Péter Poór,
   - Attila Ördög,

7. - Merve Şeyda Karaçil Ermumcu,
   - Bengi Aloğlu,
   - Narin Akdağ,
   - Nilüfer Banu Köroğlu,

Türkiye Beslenme Rehberinde Yaş Gruplarına Özgü Önerilen Menülerin Yaşam Döngüsü Göstergeleriyle İncelenmesi: Su Ve Karbon Ayak İzi, Fenerbahçe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 4, 1, (144-164), (2024). https://doi.org/10.56061/fbujohs.1257481
Crossref

8. - Muhammad Mahmood Ahmed,
   - Samina Perveen,
   - Rabia Shabir,
   - Alishba Hadi,
   - undefined Noor ul Ain,
   - Mirza Abid Mehmood,
   - Zulfiqar Ali,
   - Zulqurnain Khan,

Optimization of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation conditions for efficient Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton transformation, Plant Bulletin, 3, 1, (113-120), (2024). https://doi.org/10.55627/pbulletin.003.01.0750
Crossref

9. - İbrahim Ortaş,

   Under Long-Term Agricultural Systems, the Role of Mycorrhizae in Climate Change and Food Security, Manas Journal of Agriculture Veterinary and Life Sciences, 14, 1, (101-115), (2024). https://doi.org/10.53518/mjavl.1355101
   Crossref

10. - Marie-Catherine Wendt,
    - Ramona Weinrich,

Consumer Acceptance of Pesticide-Free Dairy Products in Germany: A Partial Least Square Model, German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 2, (2024). https://doi.org/10.52825/gjae.v73i2.1358
Crossref

Loading...

## View Options

### Check Access

#### Log in to view the full text

Loading institution options

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

#### More options

As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or
register for free to read this article.

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

### View options

#### PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

#### Full Text

## Media

### Figures

### Multimedia

## Tables

## Share

### Share

#### Share article link

Copy Link

Copied!

Copying failed.

#### Share on social media

FacebookXLinkedinRedditWeChatWhatsAppemail

#### Current Issue

### Microbial dietary preference and interactions affect the export of lipids to the deep ocean

- By
  - Lars Behrendt
  - Uria Alcolombri
  - et al.

### Autoregulated splicing of TRA2 β programs T cell fate in response to antigen-receptor stimulation

- By
  - Timofey A. Karginov
  - Antoine Ménoret
  - et al.

### Transcripts of repetitive DNA elements signal to block phagocytosis of hematopoietic stem cells

- By
  - Cecilia Pessoa Rodrigues
  - Joseph M. Collins
  - et al.

#### Advertisement

### Sign up for ScienceAdviser

Subscribe to ScienceAdviser to get the latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily.

#### LATEST NEWS

#### Advertisement

#### Advertisement

Now Reading:

SHARE

Open in viewer

GO TO

GO TO

Show all references

Request permissionsExpand All

Collapse

Expand for more

SHOW ALL BOOKS

###### Follow Us

###### Follow Us

© 2024 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. AAAS is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, OARE, CHORUS, CLOCKSS, CrossRef and COUNTER. Science ISSN 0036-8075.

back to top

Get the latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily.

×

Back to article