Food Security: Two world Outlooks, A World Apart

This week I attended two main conferences: The World Food Prize (WFP), and 'From Commodity to Community', the 13th Annual Community Food Security Conference (CFSC), with a buffer conference between them the Third Iowa Hunger Summit (IHS). (#foodprize, #csfc) I saw two movements unfortunately a WORLD APART. The first, the CFSC, was attended by 800 passionate activists. Seventy percent of them in their 20's, dungaree and tee shirt wearing, with a passion and energy level that was exhilarating. The second, the WFP, was attended by 950 gray haired, three piece suited, corporate or governmental officials. The sessions were educational, stimulating with a call to action clearly stated. What was missing was the passion of the CFSC. What was missing from both was the missed opportunity for cross pollination between the two. When I had heard the CFSC was being held immediately before the WFP I expected this was done to foster this. However, I was severely disappointed.

There were many areas of common goals between the conferences and their attendees. They both agreed that within 40 years the world population will increase 50% and the need for food will therefore double ( to take into account those living in Hunger now). That this increase needs to be done in a sustainable manner. That women were the key to success (give women: 1-Educational access {the most important}, 2-Economic equality with men, 3-health access, and 4-Political equality with men). That agricultural improvements need to be done in a sustainable manner. Climate change will significantly hinder the ability to meet the world food demand.

There were some serious areas of conflict. Simply put those attending the CFSC felt all solutions needed to be bottom up, while the WFP attendees felt the solutions need to mostly be top down (however they felt bottom-up needs to be incorporated). The CFSC attendees were violently opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO), while the WFP attendees were it's prophets. They each have their own research the one that shows GMO's are nothing but pure evil while the other has their research that GMO's are manna from heaven. If only there could be more dialogue and sharing of those studies. There was more talking past each other then to each other. However, I did feel that the WFP attendees were more open to bringing in the CSFC people then the other way around.

Those attending CSFC complained of lack of access to the discission makers both in the US and abroad. Yet hardly any of them stayed on (actually in talking to over one hundred of them, most didn't even know anything about the WFP meeting - A failure of the CSFC to inform their members), to interact at the WFP conference. There were many world discission makers at the WFP. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak, eight Ministers of Agriculture, several former heads of state and multiple CEO's of the most important corporations in Big-AG-Biz.

The big shining light was Dr. Gebisa Ejeta, the WFP winner, in his talk at Iowa State on Monday to kick off the WFP meeting. He talked about the importance of Ag. extension type programs to get small farmers into the 21st century through education while also needing the large Ag-Biz to be the structure over this agricultural revolution.

So I hope that there is more dialogue between the dungarees and the three piece suits. We need both to move this forward and to have any chance of solving the loaming food and climate crisis.

Sustainable Food Conference, An Eye Opening: Hope for the Future.

I was at first shocked and surprised then encouraged by the distribution of attendees at the Food Security Conference. This week in Des Moines is a series of three international food conferences. The first one 'From Commodity to Community' the 13th Annual Community Food Security Conference, began Saturday 10/10 and will run through Tuesday 10/13. The first day was taken up with field trips to see the state of agriculture in Iowa. Today began with everyone at a breakfast plenary session setting the tone for the conference. But that is not what this first blog is about.

What I noticed, and as I interviewed many people, I found I wasn't the only one to notice, was that there was a bi-modal distribution of ages. Almost everyone fell into two age groups, either 20-32 or over 50. This made me wonder both about why and then what it means for the sustainable food movement. I talking to several attendees, the consensus seemed to be that those over fifty were motivated by the various movements of the sixties and early seventies. These participants felt that they had maintained their drive to improve and save the world. One women expressed despair that here 28 year old daughter was working for a defense contractor and felt having a nicer car and clothes was all she wished for. The older group was after almost four years seeing a new younger generation get enthusiastic about their causes.

The missing group, the doughnut hole, of those between 32 and 50 that were glaringly absent. To a person the attendees felt they were products of the me generation. The generation that went through high school and college and then entered the work force during the late seventies through the ME eighties and into the corporate boom of the nineties. They never got that spark of as the jewish religion says 'Tachun-o-lum', Repair the World. Fortunately, the generation to follow got the bug.

So what does this mean for the sustainable food movement. Well, the movement will survive and thrive. The young blood was both excited and enthusiastic. I saw a movement that has a new strong base that will work hard to move the movement forward. However it will be another ten to fifteen years till this momentum will cause a major shift in public opinion. That fifteen years will though have lots of small victories. Those who have been fighting this battle for four decades can be encouraged that there is a new generation who will take their fight to it succesful conclusion.