2010

It’s Christmas – the season when we invest extra time and energy in opulent and sumptuous food and then sit around the table to enjoy it. In western society we automatically assume that there will be enough food to go around and a wide enough variation to suit all palates. Regrettably, this is a privilege that we do not share with fellow human beings across the world. Nor has it always been the case in our own part of the world. In the second half of the 20th century a veritable revolution – the Green Revolution – had to take place to address this imbalance. Thanks to, amongst others, the systematic breeding of plants and animals, the use of artificial fertiliser, new techniques for combating blight and disease, and mechanisation, there has been a spectacular rise in the yield from agriculture and livestock farming. Even though the world population has burgeoned from 1.6 billion to more than 6 billion, more food is available per person now than in 1900.

Last week, I visited Brussels to attend an interesting symposium about the use of nanotechnology in food. This is a controversial issue, as consumers naturally prefer food with as little technological enhancement as possible. And to make things worse, many people associate nanotechnology with biotechnology on the one hand, and asbestos on the other. A veritable minefield. But to my mind, nanotechnology will prove very useful to both consumers and the food industry. Furthermore, it is a powerful driving force behind the type of innovation that will provide unique opportunities for safeguarding the cost-effectiveness of this vital sector in Europe, and more importantly in the Netherlands.

Recently, the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands, which is part of Wageningen UR, published a report entitled ‘Veredelde Zaken’. The report, which looks into the effect of patent law and plant breeder’s rights on the structure of plant breeding, was compiled by a team of people from within and outside Wageningen UR headed by Niels Louwaars. It concludes that the current application of patent law is enabling undesirable concentration within the industry, and that amendments need to be made to the letter and spirit of patent law, in the areas where it affects plant breeding.

Much can be said about the increasing social status of animals. We won't do so here, but it's a fact that we keep millions of such animals, deserving of protection, for the sole purpose of eating them. And to do so cheaply, production methods have been developed which are controversial. In the Netherlands, the pig seems to have become the object (or perhaps subject?) of such discussions. How do you combine pettable and edible?

Waves of shock went through the nature sector after the present Cabinet announced its intention to make cuts in the budget for nature. The Cabinet is planning to cut the budget by a staggering 40%, while a total of around 2% will be retrenched. The decision to scrap plans for ecological links connecting the main natural areas in the Netherlands was also met with criticism. A disjointed National Ecological Network [EHS] would be even worse than no Ecological Network. A network of areas and connections is essential if we are to preserve biodiversity and stimulate nature´s potential to adapt (to climate change, for example). So nature is now facing serious problems, but is this really all down to the new Cabinet?

On paper a lot was achieved at the biodiversity summit in Nagoya, Japan. A protocol has been drawn up for access to natural resources, and fair distribution of the benefits reaped from them. And there is now a strategic plan with biodiversity goals for 2020. If we manage to implement all that, we'll have taken great strides. As well as that, agreements have been made - although these are a bit softer - on how to organize the financing of this plan. So a major environmental summit has produced results - which we needed after Copenhagen. So much for what's on paper - but will we reach those targets? Some of them are feasible without changing our lifestyle. For example, extending the amount of land under protection areas. We can do that without switching to a sustainable economy. But that is not the case for most of the targets. And I really wonder whether the world is prepared to make that switch.

Campaigns promoting a healthy lifestyle only have a modest or sometimes even a negative effect ('Campaigns against alcohol ineffective'). This was the gist of a report in the NRC newspaper early last month in response to a publication in The Lancet. According to the authors, the most important advice is: support campaigns with services or products and assess the impact in advance. Unfortunately, if this is the only aspect set to change, the next few decades will probably see very little change. The successful anti-smoking policy implemented in the Netherlands and many other European countries is a good example of how it should be done.

Food science and the food industry face the enormous challenge of making food both healthy and tasty. I would like to suggest that food science desperately needs the help of physicists on this issue.
Because of the pressures of life in modern society, many consumers tend to choose food rich in fats and carbohydrates – which is logical, given our genetic background. However, the society of today is far removed from the living situation in which we evolved, and these biologically dictated choices can result in obesity and diabetes. The challenge for the food industry is to make healthy food a logical choice for the consumer.

To meet the increasing demand for agricultural products from a world population that will grow to 9.3 billion people in 2050, agricultural production must double. The essential problem is not whether this increased production is possible, but whether it can be achieved sustainably. This question is not easy to answer in view of all the competing claims on land and the need to maintain biodiversity. Consequently, considering sustainable marine agriculture is not a futuristic fantasy, but a necessity. It is comparable to the transition we made 10,000 years ago from hunting and gathering to agriculture and animal husbandry on land, but with the expertise and experience resulting from 10,000 years of agriculture.

Many Dutch municipalities have land rights in rural areas. This is an open secret. That land often lies ‘idle’ for years, awaiting a land exchange or construction project. In the meantime, it is leased to farmers with no further ambition. The agriculture and nature association Ark & Eemlandschap developed an idea to use that land – which after all had been purchased with taxpayers’ money – to encourage agrarian nature management and farmland footpaths.

From Sunday 10-10-10, the tropical islands of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (BES) will become part of the Netherlands in the form of special municipalities. On 10 June 2010, the Netherlands declared a Caribbean Exclusive Economic Zone. These political changes mean an enrichment of the Netherlands’ biodiversity. We will gain 15,000 new plant and animal species! Tropical ecosystems such as coral reefs, cloud forests, seagrass fields and mangrove forests will be added to dunes, forests and mudflats. The Netherlands will become the owner of the biggest coral atoll in the Caribbean region. This also means taking responsibility for the sustainable management and use of these natural riches and observing obligations under international treaties.