We are already 7 billion people. Will there be enough food for everyone? There are several answers. We will pick one, from the Agrimonde Group (see, Développement et civilisations, September 2011) based in France, that studied the food situation of six critical regions of the planet. This group of scientists is optimist, even when we reach 9 billion inhabitants. The group suggests two paths: to deepen the green revolution of the 1960s, and the so-called double green revolution.

The green revolution had the merit of refuting Malthus’ thesis, according to which an imbalance would develop between population, which is growing geometrically, and food production, which is increasing only arithmetically, causing the collapse of humanity. The green revolution showed that with new technologies, a greater utilization of land for agriculture, and massive application of toxins, previously destined for war and now for agriculture, we could produce much more of what the population demands.

This proved to be correct, because there was a significant rise in the sale of food, even though the inequities of the neoliberal and capitalist system causes millions and millions of people to continue suffering chronic hunger and misery. It is also true that this increase in food production has come at an extremely high ecological cost: soils were poisoned, waters contaminated, and bio-diversity impoverished, in addition to causing erosion and turning arable land into deserts in many regions of the world, especially in Africa.

It all got worse when food became just another commodity, instead of being considered a means of life that, given its nature, never should be subjected to market speculation. There is enough food for everyone, but the poor do not have access to it, for lack of money. The poor stay hungry, and their numbers are increasing. The current neoliberal system still supports this model, and experiences no need to change its logic, which allows it to cynically coexist with millions of hungry people, who are considered irrelevant to the goal of limitless accumulation.

This solution is not only myopic, but false, besides being cruel and pitiless. Those who still defend it do not take seriously the fact that the Earth is undeniably adrift and that global warming causes great soil erosion, the destruction of harvests, and millions of climate migrants. To them the Earth is nothing more than merely a means of production, not the Common House, Gaia, that must be cared for.

To tell the truth, the farmers understand about food. They produce 70% of all that humanity consumes. For that reason, they must be heard and included in any solution that may be taken by the public powers, by enterprises, and by society, because it is about the survival of all.

Given human overpopulation, all arable land must be used, but within the reach and the limits of its eco-systems; all organic residues must be used or recycled to the extent possible, the conservation of energy must be maximized, alternative energies developed, and precedence given to family farms, medium and small cooperatives. And finally, we must move towards a food democracy, where producers and consumers are conscious of their respective responsibilities, with knowledge and information about the realities of sustainability of the planet, and a different model of consumption, in solidarity, frugally and without waste.

Taking into account these facts, Agrimonde proposes a double green revolution in the following form: it accepts continuation of the first green revolution, with its ecological contradictions, but simultaneously proposes a second green revolution. This implies that the consumers incorporate daily habits different from the current ones, more aware of their environmental impact, and open to international solidarity, so that food may become in fact a right accessible to everyone.

Being optimists, we can say that this proposal is reasonably sustainable. It is being organized in an embryonic form everywhere in the world, through the organic family farms, small and medium enterprises, ecological agriculture and towns, and other ways of being respectful of nature. It is possible, and may well be the obligatory path for humanity in the future.