For decades, the mantra of “feeding the world” has dominated discussions about agricultural development and food security. The logic sounds straightforward: more food production equals less hunger.
Michael Grunwald, in his new book Feeding the World But Killing the Planet, acknowledges agriculture’s environmental toll but insists that industrial farming—backed by technological fixes—is necessary to meet humanity’s caloric demands. His stance doesn’t challenge the system, it tries to optimize it.
But critics argue this is a dangerous simplification. In The Enduring Fantasy of “Feeding the World”, which starts by quoting Grunwald, the Agroecology Research-Action Collective contends that hunger isn’t primarily about food shortages—it’s about poverty, inequality, and political exclusion. The production-first mantra, they argue, legitimizes destructive farming practices that serve elites while leaving the root causes of hunger untouched. They come up with a slogan of their own: “a world that feeds itself.”
One camp calls for systemic change—agroecology, local food sovereignty, and policies that tackle inequality. The other seeks to refine the existing model with new technologies and efficiency gains. Both see the ecological risks, but diverge on whether to reinvent or retrofit the system. 1
It occurs to me that I could fall back on my own usual ploy of observing with a self-satisfied smirk that, either way, crop diversity will be needed. But maybe it’s time to do away with catchphrases altogether. It’s more complicated, and more important, than that.
- Shades of the Erna vs Otto debate I discussed a few weeks ago.