Ed i to r ia l

Hungry mouths, now and in the future – how will our eldersfare?

A report entitled ‘Global and Farming Futures’ pub-

lished in January of this year by Foresight, a UK

Government think tank, has suggested that there

needs to be fundamental changes in food produc-

tion throughout the world. By 2050, there could be

potentially an extra 2.4 billion people to feed with

very little extra land on which to grow that food.

The report has involved over 400 experts and has

considered food production from farming on land

and in the sea. It states that the major threats to

food production come from climate changes, com-

petition for water supplies, competition for energy

resources, and changes to the dietary requirements

and choices of the population with a move towards

greater meat and dairy consumption. Professor Sir

John Beddington, the Head of the Foresight Pro-

gramme, reported that current systems for food

production are failing in a number of ways with

resources being used at a faster rate than they can

be replaced; however that is not the end of it as

food consumption is not evenly distributed with a

billion people who over-consume, a billion who

suffer from ‘hidden hunger’ and latterly and more

importantly, a billion who are going hungry. He

also stated that by 2050, ‘the world will need 50%

more energy, 30% more water and last but not

least, 40% more food’ (Sir John Beddington,

24.01.11).

The report has three main findings; firstly, the

threat from food shortages is already present and it

is predicted that the cost of food will rise substan-

tially over the next few decades; not good news for

our increasing number of older adults with limited

financial resources; secondly, sustainability needs

to take centre stage to allow resources to stand any

chance of being replenished: and thirdly, as with

many of these issues, ‘there is no quick fix’, but

reducing or eliminating the amount of food that is

wasted or thrown away is a must! In the area of

food waste it is suggested that up to 40% of food

that is bought by people in developed countries is

actually thrown away. The French national agri-

cultural and development research agencies (INRA

and CIRAD) found that this was equivalent to

800 calories per person. It has also suggested three

main areas for change; firstly, reduction of waste as

already mentioned could significantly increase the

availability of food to deprived groups and popu-

lations; secondly, balancing supply and demand to

allow modification to the environmental impact of

food production; and thirdly, by reducing trade

barriers and protectionism that can disadvantage

deprived countries and their populations. The

report states that there is an urgent need to add

food production to the wider world agendas

including climate change, international develop-

ment and biodiversity.

It has also been suggested that one of the ways

out of this dilemma is a move towards and even

embracing the use of genetically modified (GM)

crops. Scientists have stated that there need to be

the equivalent of a second ‘green revolution’ but

this time it is essential that it is not to the detriment

to the environment. If there is genetically modified

produce that is safe for human and animal con-

sumption, safe for the environment and can solve

particular problems, then it should be used. How-

ever, other problems could arise from new diseases,

drought and changes in the properties of farm land

and the sea and great care would need to be taken

as there is ‘no silver bullet’.

Professor Charles Godfray, who chaired the

expert group, reported that more food needs to be

produced in a more sustainable manner and

country’s should have no expectation of becoming

self-sufficient. However, the downside of all of this

will ultimately mean that food prices will increase

probably of the order of 50% by 2050. For some

country’s, particularly poorer ones with large

populations and a low level of food production,

such as Pakistan and Nigeria, the risk is quite large

as opposed to those that can produce large quan-

tities of food but have relatively small populations,

such as New Zealand and Argentina. To give some

specific examples, the Argentineans have been

growing GM crops since the mid 1990s doubling

the countries grain production and in Eastern

Europe large areas of grain-growing land are not

used (The Telegraph, 14.01.11).

The UK Environment Secretary, Ms Caroline

Spelman is reported as stating that by investing in

the poorer countries, they might be in a better

position to support their own populations and be

able to deal with potential hikes in food prices. Also

the potential for countries to protect themselves

and their food producers by trade barriers must also

be avoided. It is interesting to note that in a leading

article in The Independent (25.01.11) there was clear

� 2011 The Gerodontology Society and John Wiley & Sons A/S, Gerodontology 2011; 28: 1–2 1

support for protection of the poorest in all nations

from significant rises in food prices and again this

clearly includes our elderly population wherever

they may live. There was also the realisation that

GM crops must be embraced to meet the demands

of the world’s growing population but there was

the caveat that the potentially dangerous issues

with regards to side effects needed to be borne in

mind.

But why is all this so important to our elders and

what is the potential impact? It has been reported

that in general older people spend a greater pro-

portion of their income on essential items such as

food and fuel and that this has increased signifi-

cantly over the last 5 years. Spending on basic

items has increased by around 10% but the cost of

household fuel has gone up by over 30% and

according to a longitudinal study of ageing, the

poorest households are the most affected. Age

Concern has reported that the health of people

65 years and over is at serious risk due to a poor

diet and lack of exercise. They found that those on

low incomes only spent around £23 whereas they

estimated that the minimum cost to stay healthy

was over £32. It was also stated that around a fifth

of people over 65 years could not walk 200 metres

without having to stop or having some form of

discomfort. The Director General of Age Concern

expressed his concern that whilst younger cohorts

of the population are encouraged to exercise and

have healthier lifestyles, the needs of older people

tended to be overlooked. Low income is obviously

an issue as this will continue to impact on this latter

group to maintain a healthier way of life, improve

their wellbeing and become fitter by being able to

attend leisure centres which are more suited to

their needs. This is particularly so for people on

fixed incomes whose value becomes increasingly

devalued over the years.

One of the issues where efforts have been made

is to address the prevalence and incidence of mal-

nutrition in the older age groups. Perhaps firstly,

we should define what is understood by malnutri-

tion and one that is generally accepted is:

‘A state of nutrition in which a deficiency, or excess or

imbalance of energy, protein and other nutrients causes

measurable adverse effects on tissue, body form, function and

clinical outcome.’ (The ‘MUST’ Report, Elia, M., 2003).

In a report published by the Scottish Govern-

ment (2009) on such a subject, it was stated that

malnutrition had substantial clinical and health

implications. It predisposed to issues associated

with quality of life, illness, recovery from ill health

with significant economic consequences (NICE,

2006). The reasons for malnutrition are many and

varied but include decreased mobility, difficult

access to facilities, social isolation and poverty

(European Nutrition for Health Alliance, 2006). They

also found that there were very few studies of the

problem and it was difficult to discover its extent. It

has been estimated that more than 10% of those

aged 65 and over were undernourished and 70% of

this was not identified. A further investigation

reported that of those admitted to hospital, 20–30%

of 60–80 year olds and 35% of those over 80 years

were malnourished.

It does not take much imagination to appreciate

that if the availability of food does not increase to

meet the growing world population or that its cost

increases, the older cohorts in many countries are

going to be at risk from either an imbalanced diet or

malnutrition.

‘It is an eternal obligation towards the human being not to

let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming

to his assistance’

Simone Weil (1910–1943)

James P. Newton

Editor

2 � 2011 The Gerodontology Society and John Wiley & Sons A/S, Gerodontology 2011; 28: 1–2

2 Editorial