100
R.S.V. Pullin
and northern societies, but also in many developing countries. Increasing af fl uence
and sometimes irresponsible, corporate behaviour and marketing, have led to nutritional transitions into over-nutrition, a form of malnutrition (e.g., Gillespie and
Haddad 2001 ; Popkin et al. 2001 ) .
Is there more cause for optimism or for pessimism concerning the future dietary
behaviour of humans? Again, the present author sees grounds for optimism.
Education and free information on the health aspects of food choices are increasingly available worldwide. Religious and cultural determinants of food choices are
usually non-negotiable, but most tend to enhance global food security. Persuasion of
vegetarians to eat more meat and fi sh would have the opposite effect. The world’s
livestock produce 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, measured as carbon dioxide
equivalent, and occupy, including that needed for growing their feeds, 70% of all
agricultural land (Steinfeld et al. 2006 ) . In a Rockhopper TV fi lm, Taking the Credit
( www.rockhopper.tv ), broadcast by BBC World News on October 23, 2009, the
representative of a leading Swedish hamburger restaurant chain stated that over
70% of it carbon offsets purchased in Africa were accounted for by the production
of hamburger beef itself.
Concerning responsible dietary choices with respect to fi sh, there is an increasing availability of free advice about which fi sh to purchase or to avoid, from wild
harvests and from farms. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund’s recommendations target the USA and include farmed arctic char, farmed rainbow trout
and sable fi sh among its “Eco-best” buys, “tilapia (Latin America)” and “lobster,
American/Maine” among the “Eco-OK”, and farmed Atlantic salmon (for some
reasons considered far worse than other farmed salmonids) and imported shrimps
and prawns among the “Eco-worst” ( www.edf.org ). FishBase ( www. fi shbase.org )
and Sealifebase ( www.sealifebase.org ) provide links to the increasing online and
mobile phone-accessible sources that provide advice to earth-friendly purchasers of
fi sh in markets and consumers of fi sh in restaurants, including, where possible, recommended minimum size limits and eco-friendly fi shing and farming methods.
Food Security: The Case for an Interactive
Governance Approach
Food security requires not only responsible human behaviour, but also effective
institutions and tenable economics for all parties along human food chains, from
producers through processors and vendors to consumers. Farmers, fi shers, processors and vendors must be able to earn acceptable returns to their investments and the
prices of food products must be affordable to consumers. But all of those negotiable
scenarios always face a non-negotiable , three-fold reality: (a) all food is produced
in natural or arti fi cial ecosystems; (b) most of those ecosystems are not entirely
under human control; and (c) all food production is accompanied by uncertainty and
risk, especially concerning the weather, pests and diseases. Food security, though
itself a non-negotiable fact of life, is achieved or lost by mixes and interactions of
R.S.V. Pullin
and northern societies, but also in many developing countries. Increasing af fl uence
and sometimes irresponsible, corporate behaviour and marketing, have led to nutritional transitions into over-nutrition, a form of malnutrition (e.g., Gillespie and
Haddad 2001 ; Popkin et al. 2001 ) .
Is there more cause for optimism or for pessimism concerning the future dietary
behaviour of humans? Again, the present author sees grounds for optimism.
Education and free information on the health aspects of food choices are increasingly available worldwide. Religious and cultural determinants of food choices are
usually non-negotiable, but most tend to enhance global food security. Persuasion of
vegetarians to eat more meat and fi sh would have the opposite effect. The world’s
livestock produce 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, measured as carbon dioxide
equivalent, and occupy, including that needed for growing their feeds, 70% of all
agricultural land (Steinfeld et al. 2006 ) . In a Rockhopper TV fi lm, Taking the Credit
( www.rockhopper.tv ), broadcast by BBC World News on October 23, 2009, the
representative of a leading Swedish hamburger restaurant chain stated that over
70% of it carbon offsets purchased in Africa were accounted for by the production
of hamburger beef itself.
Concerning responsible dietary choices with respect to fi sh, there is an increasing availability of free advice about which fi sh to purchase or to avoid, from wild
harvests and from farms. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund’s recommendations target the USA and include farmed arctic char, farmed rainbow trout
and sable fi sh among its “Eco-best” buys, “tilapia (Latin America)” and “lobster,
American/Maine” among the “Eco-OK”, and farmed Atlantic salmon (for some
reasons considered far worse than other farmed salmonids) and imported shrimps
and prawns among the “Eco-worst” ( www.edf.org ). FishBase ( www. fi shbase.org )
and Sealifebase ( www.sealifebase.org ) provide links to the increasing online and
mobile phone-accessible sources that provide advice to earth-friendly purchasers of
fi sh in markets and consumers of fi sh in restaurants, including, where possible, recommended minimum size limits and eco-friendly fi shing and farming methods.
Food Security: The Case for an Interactive
Governance Approach
Food security requires not only responsible human behaviour, but also effective
institutions and tenable economics for all parties along human food chains, from
producers through processors and vendors to consumers. Farmers, fi shers, processors and vendors must be able to earn acceptable returns to their investments and the
prices of food products must be affordable to consumers. But all of those negotiable
scenarios always face a non-negotiable , three-fold reality: (a) all food is produced
in natural or arti fi cial ecosystems; (b) most of those ecosystems are not entirely
under human control; and (c) all food production is accompanied by uncertainty and
risk, especially concerning the weather, pests and diseases. Food security, though
itself a non-negotiable fact of life, is achieved or lost by mixes and interactions of