By now most of you already know that, as of December 2010, we reached a population of seven billion souls on earth. This is an astonishing amount considering the generation born in 1900 before World War I entered a world of about 1.6 billion people. This is to say, in little more than one hundred years, we have seen an almost sixfold increase in the world population! Although we have accomplished great feats over this period of time, this exponential growth has led to unsustainable resource depletion which threatens our “peaceful” way of life on earth. As resources become scarcer and we demand more from a larger population, it is probable there will be more international disputes over who gets access to what. Over the next forty years we now begin the greatest challenge of all time: how to survive peacefully in a world populated by almost 10 billion people in 2050 in a world with dwindling resources.

Above: Chart demonstrating exponential population growth currently being experienced. Red line indicates population at 7 billion, which we reached in December 2010.

Taking into account current trends, population growth is expected to plateau at 9.5 billion around 2040, although this is just an estimate based on what we have already experienced. Most developed nations will not show any growth; in fact, from now to 2050, Japan’s population is projected to decline from 127 million to 90 million. Most growth will come from developing nations where there is a high infant mortality rate and little or no access to medical care. By 2050 Africa is estimated to double its population from 1 billion people today to 2 billion in 2050. Global population stability will depend on whether we reach a total global fertility rate of about 2.1 where population would no longer increase.

Above: Although developing nations are increasing their fertility rate, total global fertility rate is on a decline, this evidence leads to the suggestion that the population will plateau around 2050 at about 9.5 billion.

Nevertheless, our problems may turn out to be more economic than demographic. Aside from all the challenges that population changes bring governments—such as funding education for younger growing populations, providing access to adequate sanitation, and the provision of family planning programs—our real challenge lies in how we manage our resources effectively and efficiently.

We already rely on systems that give us access to cheap food; how else would we feed 7 billion people and still keep the economy growing? Nowhere is this more apparent than the United States of America, where the food industry has already destroyed most of the ecosystems and polluted the environment. The US food industry already uses 19% of US fossil fuels in order to grow all the corn needed to feed people as well as the massive livestock industry. In 1966 Americans spent 18% of their income on food. Today the figure is around 10%. There is a surprisingly inverse relationship when it comes to food prices and resource usage: intuitively, you would think that the more resources, we deplete the more expensive they become; hence food should be more expensive today, but the opposite is occurring.

Above: Food expenditure reductions over the past one hundred years due to industrialized production and increases in efficiencies with machinery and technology.

How is it possible to keep producing cheap food in the US? The answer is government subsidies. The corn industry in the US is huge and so far no political party has dared make a dent in it. Consequently, old laws granting subsidies for corn growth have not been modified with the times and in the past decade around $50 billion has been given out in corn subsidies. This government subsidy is reflected in lower food prices that drive consumption in the economy, so in effect taxpayer subsidies are underwriting cheap grain. The question becomes, “How long can we keep producing at an economic loss without having effects on the way we consume cheap food?”

Cheap food may be a noble notion. However, the negative consequences it has on our health and the environment far outweigh any possible economic advantages it may bring. But as usual, with so many human decisions, our greed and short-term vision will lead us to long-term misery.

Most grain produced in the US goes to feed the livestock industry, which accounts for 51% of total global emissions. Yes, that’s right: our obsession with meat consumption accounts for more emissions than all forms of transportation combined. Added to this is the ethical dilemma of housing millions of animals in close proximity, which is not only uncomfortable for the animals, but also facilitates the quick spread of disease. Consequently most livestock are regularly dosed with antibiotics, which in turn go into the meat we consume, adding toxins to our bodies and leading to negative health effects such as increased blood pressure and higher risks of cancer.

Above: Example of one of the negative health effects related to meat consumption.

One of the problems of the livestock industry is how to dispose of the waste. Normally manure lagoons are created and filled, leading to air pollution, but even worse is the fact that a large part of the manure filters and flows into rivers like the Mississippi, which leads straight into the Gulf of Mexico. The same happens to the millions of tons of fertilizers used for the subsidized grain production, where after filtering down through rivers they reach the sea and not only kill fish but intoxicate them, as estuaries are usually where fish breed. These fish grow, consuming toxins in the water, and we eat them. The gradual consumption of these chemicals into our bodies is already having negative health effects which may not be curable; for example, many of these toxins are being related to causes of cancer.

Chemical pollutants running down the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico have already left a dead area of six thousand square miles with no sea life. These areas are now referred to as dead zones and there are four hundred similar zones round the world. The question we need to ask ourselves is: does cheap food justify the environmental consequences we are suffering?

With meat demand set to rise 25% by 2015, we need more than a solution. We need a change in the way we consume and the way we eat. It’s interesting to note that a Big Mac, fries and Coke add up to 1200 calories, more than half the adult daily requirement. Not only are we eating the wrong food, but we are eating too much of the wrong food, leading to negative health effects and unnecessary expenditures.





Industrially produced cheap food is not beneficial to our health or to the environment. Most cheap food items like burgers have their accompanying health problems as well as being a contributing denominator in the fight against obesity, which contributes $147 billion a year to medical bills.

These case points give us an idea of the challenges we are already facing with the current global population of 7 billion. If we cannot manage our resources at current levels, how will we mange with a population of almost 10 billion? The US is the largest meat consumer in the world with developing nations gaining pace. It is said that if the entire world consumed food like the average US citizen, we would need five Earths to support the population. It’s never been a better time to rethink the way we eat and the way we live.