News

Carlsberg, one of the world’s largest breweries, has filed further patent applications covering barley plants derived from conventional breeding, their usage in brewing as well as the resulting beer, new research by the NGO coalition ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ shows. In 2016, the company had already faced severe criticism from civil society groups because, together with Heineken, Carlsberg successfully applied to the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich for patents on barley plants from conventional breeding, which are used for the production of beer and other beverages. In 2017, together with 40 other organisations, ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ filed oppositions against the patents EP2384110 and EP2373154. Hearings were held in October 2018 and, as a result, the patents were restricted and reduced to certain plants with specific mutations concerning the flavour of the beer. ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ filed a complaint against the decision arguing that the patents have to be revoked completely. Even though no final decisions have been taken, Carlsberg in 2019 once again tried to claim seeds, barley and beer as its ‘invention’ and filed further applications (WO2019129736, WO2019129739, WO2019134962) for patents on barley.

This is strongly criticised by the member organisations of ‘No patents on seeds!’ which see a great danger in the increasing number of patents on plants, seeds and farm animals and their effects on farmers, breeders, innovation and biodiversity. They consider such patents as an abuse of patent law and fear that the basic resources in agriculture and food production will be threatened. “Patents create monopolies. If conventionally bred plants and animals are claimed in patents as ‘inventions’, they cannot be used for further breeding without the permission of the patent holder,” said Christoph Then, spokesperson for ‘No Patents on Seeds!’. “The patent holder can control, hinder and even block access to biological diversity in food plants and farm animals. As a result, a handful of big corporations can acquire far-reaching control over our daily food production.”

As with the patents already granted by the EPO, the three new patent applications for barley do not involve any technical inventions or the use of methods of genetic engineering which would justify patenting them. “Instead, well known processes were used to trigger random mutations: seeds from barley plants were brought into contact with chemicals to speed up the mutation rate and enhance genetic diversity. Afterwards, further crossing and selection was carried out to breed plants with desirable characteristics,” says a press release published by ‘No patents on seeds!’. According to the coalition, barley kernels with changed starch composition are supposedly more suitable for brewing beer. Even though there is nothing new or technical in the process described in the patent, Carlsberg is claiming the resulting seeds, plants, the harvest as well as food and beverages, such as beer, as its invention.

The patents granted on barley in 2016 are an example of the legal chaos and questionable patent granting practice of the EPO with its 38 member states. According to European patent law, plants and animals “obtained from essentially biological processes”, unlike genetically engineered crops, are not patentable. However, EPO continued to grant patents on conventionally bred plants and animals. In 2017, due to pressure from the EU and civil society, EPO adopted new rules in order to exclude from patentability plants and animals derived from conventional breeding using methods like crossing and selection. But legal loopholes remained since patents on random genetic variations were not excluded. In December 2018, the problems were exacerbated when the Technical Board of the EPO decided that plants and animals derived from conventional breeding should generally be considered to be patentable ‘inventions’. In 2019, the EPO president decided to suspend all the proceedings on patents and animals from essentially biological processes until EPO’s highest legal institution, the Enlarged Board of Appeal, decides. A decision is expected in the first half of 2020. (ab)

Human impact on wildlife through activities such as hunting, farming and the destruction of habitats has increased the risk of viruses spilling over from animals to humans, new research shows. According to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society on April 8, there is a link between environmental change and the transmission of animal viruses to humans: “Exploitation of wildlife through hunting and trade facilitates close contact between wildlife and humans, and our findings provide further evidence that exploitation, as well as anthropogenic activities that have caused losses in wildlife habitat quality, have increased opportunities for animal-human interactions and facilitated zoonotic disease transmission,” the authors write in the abstract of the study. “Spillover of viruses from animals is a direct result of our actions involving wildlife and their habitat,” said lead author Christine Kreuder Johnson from the University of California, Davis. “The consequence is they’re sharing their viruses with us. These actions simultaneously threaten species survival and increase the risk of spillover,” she added.

For the study, the scientists assembled a large dataset of the 142 known viruses that are transmitted from animals to humans and the species that are involved as potential hosts. They used the Red List of Threatened Species, compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and examined patterns in those species’ abundance, extinction risks and underlying causes for species declines. The researchers found that the top 10 mammalian species with the highest number of viruses shared with humans included eight domesticated species: pigs, cattle, horses, sheep, dogs, goats, cats and camels. This is likely a result of our frequent close interactions with these species for centuries. Wild animals that have increased in abundance and adapted well to human-dominated environments also share more viruses with people. This group includes, for example, some rodent, bat and primate species which live among people, close to human settlements and near farms and fields, making them high-risk for ongoing transmission of viruses to people. Bats have often been implicated as a source of “high consequence” pathogens, such as SARS.

At the other end of the spectrum are threatened and endangered species, the study notes. This includes animals whose population declines were connected to hunting, wildlife trade and decreases in habitat quality. These species “were also predicted to host nearly twice as many zoonotic viruses compared to threatened species declining for other reasons,” the authors write. “Anthropogenic activities that have altered the landscape, such as forest fragmentation, development and conversion to cropland, have caused declines in wildlife habitat quality, and, as with exploitation, are likely to also increase the probability of animal-human interactions during and subsequent to land conversion activities.” The scientists warn that human encroachment into biodiverse areas increases the risk of spillover of novel infectious diseases by enabling new contacts between humans and wildlife. “We need to be really attentive to how we interact with wildlife and the activities that bring humans and wildlife together,” Johnson said. “We obviously don’t want pandemics of this scale. We need to find ways to co-exist safely with wildlife, as they have no shortages of viruses to give us.” (ab)

Coronavirus measures imposed by national governments could disrupt food chains around the world, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned. On March 26, the food agency’s Director-General, QU Dongyu, urged leaders of the G20 countries to take measures in order to ensure that food systems continue to work well, especially in relation to access to food for the world’s poor during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We have to ensure that food value chains are not disrupted and continue to function well and promote the production and availability of diversified, safe and nutritious food for all,” he said in an online address. “The poor and the vulnerable will be the hardest hit, and governments should strengthen social safety mechanisms to maintain their access to food,” he added.

QU Dongyu stressed that the supply of food is functioning well but there is growing concern that protectionist policies and restrictions on movement could disrupt food production, processing, distribution and sales, both nationally and globally. He drew a parallel to the 2007-08 global food price crisis, saying that uncertainty at that time triggered a wave of export restrictions by some countries, while others started importing food aggressively. This contributed to excessive price volatility, with negative consequences for low-income food-deficit countries. The same warnings are issued by Maximo Torero, chief economist at FAO, who underlined that governments must resist calls from some quarters to protect their own food supply by restricting exports. “Trade barriers will create extreme volatility. (…) That’s what we observe in food crises,” he told British newspaper The Guardian.

Torero warned that some countries have already introduced tariffs and export bans. Kazakhstan, for instance, has halted exports of wheat flour, and has imposed restrictions on buckwheat and vegetables including onions, carrots and potatoes, The Guardian reports. According to the newspaper, Vietnam, the world’s third biggest rice exporter, has temporarily suspended rice export contracts. It is suspected that Russia, the world’s biggest wheat exporter, might also threaten to restrict exports, as it has done before, not to mention measures which could be taken by US president Donald Trump. Another problem that could arise quickly in the coming weeks is the shortage of field workers caused by the corona pandemic. As governments close borders, recruiting seasonal workers is becoming impossible. “We need to be careful not to break the food value chain and the logistics or we will be looking at problems with fresh vegetables and fruits soon,” Torero told the Guardian. “Fruit and vegetables are also very labour intensive, if the labour force is threatened because people can’t move then you have a problem.” These types of produce often have short ripening times and are highly perishable, and need skilled pickers to work quickly at the right time. Torero said measures need to be taken to ensure workers can still move around, while preventing the virus from spreading. (ab)

Climate change will affect the availability, quality and quantity of water for basic human needs, undermining the enjoyment of the human rights to water and sanitation for billions of people, says a new UN report. The alteration of the water cycle will also pose risks for energy production, food security, human health, economic development and poverty reduction, thus seriously jeopardizing the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is the message of the UN World Water Development Report, published by UNESCO on behalf of UN-Water ahead of World Water Day, which was celebrated on March 22. The authors call on states to make more concrete commitments to address the challenge. According to SDG 6, access to safe drinking water and sanitation must be guaranteed for all by 2030. However, this will be difficult to achieve since 2.2 billion people currently do not have access to safely managed drinking water, and 4.2 billion or 55% of the world population are without safely managed sanitation.

According to the report, water use has increased six-fold over the past 100 years and will continue to grow at a rate of about 1% per year as a result of population growth, economic development and shifting consumption patterns. Climate change, along with the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events such as storms, floods and droughts, will affect the availability and distribution of water resources. This will aggravate the situation in countries which are already experiencing ‘water stress’ and generate problems in regions where water is still abundant. Changes in water supply will not only hit agriculture but also industry, energy production and fisheries. Water quality will also be affected by increased water temperatures and a decrease in dissolved oxygen, leading to a reduction in the self-purification capacity of freshwater basins, the authors warn. “We will see increased risks of water pollution and pathogen contamination caused by floods or higher concentrations of pollutants during periods of drought. In addition to the impact on food production, the effects on physical and mental health – linked to disease, injury, financial loss and the displacement of people – are therefore likely to be considerable,” they write. Many ecosystems, particularly forests and wetlands, are also under threat. The degradation of ecosystems will not only lead to biodiversity loss, but also affect the provision of water-related ecosystem services.

The report includes a chapter on food and agriculture which highlights where land-water linkages are expected to become apparent in terms of climate impacts and where practical approaches to land and water management offer scope for both climate adaptation and mitigation through agriculture. Agriculture, which accounts for 69% of freshwater withdrawals, still dominates global water use, but competition from other sectors is slowing the growth of freshwater allocations to the agriculture sector. Expansion and intensification of crop production on irrigated land is the most significant driver of agricultural water demand. According to the authors, the specific challenges for agricultural water management are twofold. The first is the need to adapt existing modes of production to deal with higher incidences of water scarcity and water excess. The second is to ‘decarbonize’ agriculture through mitigation measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance water availability.

With respect to adaptation, the authors propose approaches to land and water management, soil conservation and agronomic practice that sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These measures are summarized under the umbrella of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), a concept which has also earned criticism from NGOs. The report claims that CSA practices help to retain soil structure, organic matter and moisture under drier conditions, and include agronomic techniques (including irrigation and drainage) to adjust or extend cropping calendars to adapt to seasonal and interannual climate shifts. The authors point out that the role of agricultural water management is central to agriculture’s adaptive response. In rainfed agriculture, adaptation is determined largely by the ability of crop varieties to cope with shifts in temperature, as well as by soil moisture management which is crucial in maintaining soil structure and promoting root growth and plant establishment to sequester carbon. Irrigation would allow cropping calendars to be rescheduled and intensified, thus providing a key adaptation mechanism for land that previously relied solely on precipitation.

In terms of mitigation, the authors mention two paths for reducing emissions: carbon sequestration through organic matter accumulation above and below the ground, and emission reduction through land and water management, including adoption of renewable energy inputs. Increased use of renewable energy in agriculture, such as solar pumping, provides additional opportunities to cut emissions and to support the livelihoods of smallholders, the authors argue. They propose specific agroforestry and agronomic practices targeted at carbon sequestration and emission reduction. One of them is agroforestry, which exists in multiple forms, from productive trees for fruit products to native trees for wind breaks and shade. “Agroforestry can have positive impacts on soil water infiltration, soil water storage, groundwater recharge, runoff and erosion control, soil nutrient cycling, and biodiversity,” the authors highlight. In addition, alternate wet-dry cultivation of rice has been shown to reduce methane emissions, maintain yields and reduce water demand by up to 24% when compared with continuous flooding. In forestry, the best options for mitigation are reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and afforestation to sequester carbon. (ab)

Insect declines lead to the loss of essential, irreplaceable services to humanity, the consequences of which are unpredictable, scientists have warned. They are calling for urgent action to halt population declines and further extinctions. In two papers, published in the February issue of the journal “Biological Conservation”, 30 experts from around the world review what is known about the drivers of insect decline and the consequences, and suggest practical solutions to mitigate the insect apocalypse. First of all, the researchers point to a lack of knowledge: “The current extinction crisis is deeply worrisome. Yet, what we know is only the tip of the iceberg,” they write, arguing that the number of threatened insect species is woefully underestimated because so many species are undescribed. Current estimates suggest that insects may number 5.5 million species. “It is surprising how little we know about biodiversity at a global level, when only about 10 to 20 % of insect and other invertebrate species have been described and named,” said lead author Pedro Cardoso from the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus and University of Helsinki, Finland. “However, it is likely that insect extinctions since the industrial era are around 5 to 10%, i.e. 250,000 to 500,000 species,” the authors write. “In total at least one million species are facing extinction in the coming decades, half of them being insects.”

The main drivers of insect extinctions outlined in the paper are habitat loss, pollution, invasive species, climate change, and overexploitation. “Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are probably the most relevant threats to biodiversity,” the authors write. “Processes associated with deforestation, agricultural expansion, and urbanization are the proximate drivers of loss of natural or semi-natural habitats and their insect assemblages.” According to recent modelling, agro-economic pressure for land will reduce the currently very restricted natural intact vegetation by a further 50% by 2050 in one third of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. Pollution, including harmful agricultural practice, is another key cause of species extinction. “Pesticides are key drivers of insect declines due to their intensive use, as well as inappropriate risk assessment regulations,” the authors find. “Pesticides impact insect populations via direct toxicity and sub-lethal effects (mainly insecticides), and indirectly through habitat alteration (mainly herbicides).”

The consequences of insect declines and extinction are dire since “the fate of humans and insects intertwine”, the scientists warn. We lose biomass, diversity, unique histories, functions, and interaction networks. “With species loss, we lose not only another piece of the complex puzzle that is our living world, but also biomass, essential for example to feed other animals in the living chain, unique genes and substances that might one day contribute to cure diseases, and ecosystem functions on which humanity depends,” highlights Cardoso. Ecosystem functions include pollination, as most crops depend on insects to survive. Insect pollination may have an economic value of $235–577 billion per year worldwide. “Insect declines can negatively affect the maintenance of food supply and put at risk human well-being,” the authors warn. Other functions are nutrient and energy cycling, pest suppression, seed dispersal, and decomposition of organic matter.

The scientists appeal for urgent action to close key knowledge gaps and curb insect extinctions. An investment in research programs that generate local, regional and global strategies that counter this trend is essential, they say. “Many solutions are now available to support insect populations at sustainable levels, especially through preserving and recovering natural habitats, eliminating deleterious agricultural practices including harmful pesticides, implementing measures for avoiding or eliminating the negative impacts of invasive species, taking aggressive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and curbing the deleterious effects of overexploitation of many taxa.” In order to maintain insect habitats, “key is to have more expansive sustainable agriculture and forestry, improved regulation and prevention of environmental risks, and greater recognition of protected areas alongside agro-ecology in novel landscapes,” the authors write. In addition, engaging civil society and policy makers is essential. “While small groups of people can impact insect conservation locally, collective consciousness and a globally coordinated effort for species inventorying, monitoring and conservation is required for large-scale recovery” says Michael Samways, Distinguished Professor at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. “Solutions are now available – we must act upon them,” the scientists conclude. (ab)

Agricultural droughts and conflicts have aggravated food insecurity in Africa and the desert locust outbreak in East Africa is further threatening the livelihoods and food security of millions of people. 34 countries in Africa are in need of external assistance for food, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In its latest edition of the quarterly report “Crop Prospects and Food Situation“, the agency writes that the effects of inadequate rainfall on agricultural production added two countries – Namibia and Tanzania – to the list of countries in need of external assistance for food. The list currently comprises 44 countries worldwide. FAO warns that the desert locusts have not yet fully developed their destructive potential, since so far they only had minimal impact on crops in Africa because in late 2019 the main cropping areas were largely outside of the infested areas and harvests had largely been concluded before the scourge arrived. However, there are serious concerns for 2020. In East Africa, where planting of the main 2020 cereal crop will begin in March/April, the widespread outbreak of desert locusts poses a serious risk to crops and pasture resources and the food security of the people. With the current biomass conditions at well above-average levels and weather forecasts pointing to above-average March-May rains, favourable breeding conditions are expected at least until June 2020, raising the risk of outbreaks in other areas.

“Farms in Ethiopia and Somalia can expect substantial crop losses if control measures are not scaled up, with the important seasonal ‘Gu’ harvest in Somalia at risk, which accounts for about 60 percent of the country’s total annual cereal output,” the report warns. “Locusts are already present in Somalia's key sorghum producing areas and are near the main maize growing areas.” According to FAO’s latest “Desert Locust situation update“ published on March 10, the situation remains extremely alarming in East Africa, specifically Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia where widespread breeding is in progress and new swarms are starting to form. But desert locusts are also present in Eritrea, especially at the northern coast of the Red Sea near the Sudan border. For the period March to June, the number of desert locusts is projected to increase by up to 400-fold in the Horn of Africa. This represents “an unprecedented threat to food security and livelihoods at the beginning of the upcoming cropping season,” FAO warns. Desert locusts are highly mobile and can travel on the wind up to 150 km per day. They feed on large quantities of any kind of green vegetation, including crops, pasture and fodder. A typical swarm can be made up of 150 million locusts per square kilometer. But FAO says that even a very small, 1 km2 locust swarm can eat the same amount of food in one day as about 35 000 people. (ab)

The world’s biggest pesticide manufacturers earn more than a third of their income from selling products that pose serious hazards to human health, the environment and bees, new research shows. Most of these sales are made in low- and middle-income countries and often with substances which have long been banned in Europe. This was revealed by a joint investigation conducted by Public Eye, a non-governmental organisation based in Switzerland, and “Unearthed”, the investigative unit of Greenpeace UK. It is based on a huge dataset from the leading agribusiness analyst company Phillips McDougall and focuses on pesticide sales of the world’s biggest agrochemical giants BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Syngenta. They control 65% of the global pesticide market, estimated at 57.6 billion US dollars in 2018. The data covers $23.3bn in pesticide sales of the top-selling products in the most important markets. Since the data only amounts to 40% of the global pesticide market, the NGOs describe their estimates as “highly conservative”. The organisations analysed the data using the highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) list compiled by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International, which is based on assessments performed by regulators.

The results of the analysis show that in 2018, the five agrochemical giants made 13.4 billion dollars in sales with their leading products in the world’s highest-spending pesticide markets. More than a third (35%) of these sales or $4.8bn involved pesticides classified by regulators as “highly hazardous” to people, animals or ecosystems. The companies made around half of their highly hazardous pesticide sales in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India. In 2018, the five companies made almost $3bn (22% of sales) from chemicals found by regulators to pose chronic health hazards. Pesticides classified as probable human carcinogens alone constituted 13% of the five CropLife members’ sales that year. Among the top sellers were BASF’s weedkiller glufosinate and Corteva’s fungicide cyproconazole, both classed by EU regulators as damaging to fertility, sexual function or the unborn child.

In addition, the five firms made 4% or 600 million US dollars of sales from pesticides classified as highly toxic. Such substances cause 25 million severe farmer poisonings each year, resulting in 220,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. These estimates date back to 1990, but according to experts, the situation might now be even worse due to the massive increase in pesticide use in developing countries over the past 30 years. Syngenta is responsible for two-thirds of the sales in this category. Its top seller is an insecticide marketed as lambda-cyhalothrin, which is still permitted in the EU, but it is classified as “fatal if inhaled” by the European chemical agency (ECHA). Second comes Syngenta’s paraquat, a herbicide so toxic that even small amounts can be fatal and which has long been banned in Europe.

The investigation also found that the five companies made 10% of their leading products income ($1.3bn) from chemicals classed as highly toxic to bees. These include neonicotinoids which are adversely affecting bees and other pollinators on a large scale. According to Baskut Tuncak, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on toxic substances and human rights, the threat neonicotinoid pesticides “present to our food security and our biodiversity is a human rights concern, in and of itself”. Syngenta accounted for almost half of CropLife’s bee-toxic pesticide sales. The neonicotinoid thiamethoxam was Syngenta’s best-selling HHP in 2018, while imidacloprid was in Bayer’s top-selling list. Brazil was their main market for these chemicals which in 2018 were permanently banned from outdoor use in the EU. Unearthed and Public Eye identified a further 37 chemicals sold by the CropLife companies that are classed as highly toxic to bees. “This practice of the agrochemical giants is irresponsible and contradicts their public commitment to a more sustainable agricultural model,” said Tuncak.

The companies made the majority of its highly hazardous pesticide sales in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India, where experts say the risks posed by using these chemicals are greatest. “We are in the midst of an invisible explosion of pesticide use in low-and middle-income countries that are ill-equipped to manage such hazards,” Tuncak commented. “Governments do not have enough capacity to monitor conditions on countless farms and plantations, analyse food and environmental samples, track the health of seasonal and migrant workers, investigate allegations of gross misconduct on farms and plantations, or verify the integrity of the information being provided by industry-funded scientists.” The two NGOs are calling for an international legally binding treaty to phase out highly hazardous pesticides and replace them with safer alternatives. Given the refusal of the pesticide manufacturers to act voluntarily, countries in which these companies are based should enact strict measures to guarantee that the companies respect human rights and the environment in all the countries where they operate. (ab)

Today’s children are facing an uncertain future: Climate change, environmental damage, migration and conflict, economic inequality and exploitative marketing practices threaten the health and future of children across the globe. This is the sad message of “A Future for the World’s Children?”, a new report published by the WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission consisting of 40 child and adolescent health experts. The international team finds that not even a single country is adequately protecting children’s health, their environment and their futures. “Despite improvements in child and adolescent health over the past 20 years, progress has stalled, and is set to reverse,” according to Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Co-Chair of the Commission. “It has been estimated that around 250 million children under five years old in low- and middle-income countries are at risk of not reaching their developmental potential, based on proxy measures of stunting and poverty. But of even greater concern, every child worldwide now faces existential threats from climate change and commercial pressures,” she added.

The report introduces a new global index of “child flourishing” in 180 countries, assessing performance with regard to measures of child survival, wellbeing, sustainability and equity. It includes data on child health, education and nutrition, as well as data on greenhouse gas emissions or income gaps in those countries. The authors find that the poorest countries need to do more to support their children’s ability to live healthy lives, while excessive carbon emissions, which are disproportionately caused by wealthier countries, threaten the future of all children worldwide. According to the index, children in Norway, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, France and Ireland have the best chance at survival and well-being. At the lower end of the scale are low-income countries, such as Central African Republic, Chad, and Somalia, which perform poorly on both child survival and thriving.

If per capita CO2 emissions are taken into account, the picture changes: Then, the top countries trail behind, with Norway ranking 156, the Republic of Korea 166, and the Netherlands 160. These three countries emit 210% more CO2 per capita than their 2030 target allows. The US, Australia and Saudi Arabia are among the ten worst emitters. If global warming exceeds 4°C by the year 2100 in line with business-as-usual scenarios, this would have devastating health consequences for children due to the inundation of coastal cities and small island nations, increased mortality from heatwaves, the proliferation of diseases like malaria and dengue, as well as malnutrition caused by disrupted food production systems. The only countries on track to meet CO2 per capita emission targets, which also perform fairly (among the top 70) on child flourishing, are Albania, Armenia, Grenada, Jordan, Moldova, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay and Viet Nam.

The report also highlights the threat posed to children by harmful marketing practices. “Children around the world are enormously exposed to advertising from business, whose marketing techniques exploit their developmental vulnerability and whose products can harm their health and wellbeing,” the authors write. “Companies make huge profits from marketing products directly to children and promoting addictive or unhealthy commodities, including fast foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol, and tobacco, all of which are major causes of non-communicable diseases.” Children’s exposure to commercial marketing of junk food and sugary beverages is associated with the consumption of unhealthy foods, overweight and obesity. The report links predatory marketing to the alarming rise in childhood obesity. The number of obese children and adolescents increased from 11 million in 1975 to 124 million in 2016, an 11-fold increase. The authors point out that industry self-regulation does not work.

The Commission calls for a radical rethink on child health, offering 10 recommendations to build a new global movement for the health and wellbeing of children and adolescents. One specific recommendation is to stop CO2 emissions with the utmost urgency, in order to preserve the planet for the next generation. In addition, the experts call for new policies and investment in all sectors to work towards child health and rights. Countries should also tighten national regulation of harmful commercial marketing. “From the climate crisis to obesity and harmful commercial marketing, children around the world are having to contend with threats that were unimaginable just a few generations ago,” said Henrietta Fore, UNICEF Executive Director. “It is time for a rethink on child health, one which places children at the top of every government’s development agenda and puts their well-being above all considerations.” (ab)

Organic farming is on the rise across the globe. A total of 71.5 million hectares were farmed organically at the end of 2018, representing a growth of 2 million hectares or almost 3% compared to the previous year. These are the latest figures of “The World of Organic Agriculture” published by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM – Organics International. The report collects data on 186 countries with organic farming activities. Australia has the largest area farmed organically with 35.7 million hectares, followed by Argentina with 3.6 million hectares and China with 3.1 million hectares. Due to the large organic area in Australia, almost half of the global organic agricultural land (36 million hectares) is in Oceania, followed by Europe with 22% or 15.6 million hectares and Latin America with a share of 11% or 8 million hectares.

Currently, only 1.5% of the world’s agricultural land is farmed organically, but many countries have far higher shares. The three countries with the largest share of organic land are Liechtenstein (38.5%), Samoa (34.5%) and Austria (24.7%). In sixteen countries, 10% or more of all agricultural land was under organic management in 2018. This top 16 countries include the European countries Estonia, Sweden, Italy, Latvia, Switzerland, Finland and Slovakia. According to the report, there were 2.8 million organic farmers in 2018. Around 47% of the world’s organic producers live in Asia, followed by Africa (28%) and Europe (15%). As in previous years, the country with most organic producers was India (1,149,000), followed by Uganda (210,000) and Ethiopia (204,000).

Consumer demand for organic products is also increasing across the globe. Global retail sales of organic food and drink surpassed 100 billion US dollars for the first time in 2018, up from 97 billion US dollars in 2017. The countries with the largest organic markets were the United States with 40.6 billion euros, followed by Germany (10.9 billion euros) and France (9.1 billion euros). The highest growth rate was achieved in France, where the organic market grew by more than 15%, whereas the highest market share of organic products was found in Denmark with 11.5% of the total food market. According to FiBL and IFOAM, the publication not only shows that 2018 was another record year for global organic agriculture. It also highlights the contribution of organic agriculture to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. “Given that organic agriculture touches on almost all of the goals, this book (...) also highlights the contribution of organic agriculture to tackling climate change, ensuring food and nutrition security, halting biodiversity loss, and promoting sustainable consumption, to name a few,” Professor Urs Niggli, Director of FiBL, and IFOAM Executive Director Louise Luttikholt wrote in the foreword to the report. (ab)

Climate change will have substantial socioeconomic impacts across the globe and poorer countries and regions will be more at risk, according to a study released by the McKinsey Global Institute. “Food production could be disrupted as drought conditions, extreme temperatures, or floods affect land and crops,” the consulting firm warns. The authors focus on understanding the nature and extent of physical risk from a changing climate over the next one to three decades, using a higher-emission scenario which predicts that global average temperatures will reach just over 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050. “Climate change is already having substantial physical impacts at a local level,” the report says, and these impacts are likely to grow, intensify, and multiply. Since the 1880s, the average global temperature has risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius – with significant regional variations. This brings higher probabilities of extreme temperatures and an intensification of hazards. A changing climate in the next decade, and probably beyond, means the number and size of regions affected by substantial physical impacts will continue to grow.

McKinsey says climate change will have direct effects on five socioeconomic systems: livability and workability, food systems, physical assets, infrastructure services, and natural capital. With respect to livability and workability, for example, a warming climate means that hazards like heat stress could affect the ability of people to work outdoors or, in extreme cases, could put human lives at risk. Physical assets like buildings could be damaged or destroyed by extreme precipitation, tidal flooding, forest fires, and other hazards. The authors project that “socioeconomic impacts of climate change will likely be nonlinear as system thresholds are breached and have knock-on effects”. In India, for example, under a business-as-usual scenario, 160 to 200 million people could live in regions with an average 5% annual probability of experiencing a heat wave that exceeds the survivability threshold for a healthy human being. Ocean warming could reduce fish catches, affecting the livelihoods of 650 million to 800 million people worldwide who rely on fishing revenue.

The risk-assessment finds that all 105 countries examined are expected to experience an increase in at least one major type of impact on their stock of human, physical, and natural capital by 2030. “Intensifying climate hazards could put millions of lives at risk, as well as trillions of dollars of economic activity and physical capital, and the world’s stock of natural capital. The intensification of climate hazards across regions will bring areas hitherto unexposed to impacts into new risk territory,” the consultants warn. By 2050, under the high-emission scenario, the number of people living in areas with a non-zero chance of lethal heat waves would rise from zero today to between 700 million and 1.2 billion. In addition, the average share of annual outdoor working hours lost due to extreme heat and humidity in exposed regions globally would increase from 10% today to 15 to 20%. According to the report, “food systems are projected to see an increase in global agricultural yield volatility that skews toward worse outcomes”. McKinsey projects the probability of a 10% drop in wheat, corn, soybean and rice yields in any given year will rise from 6% to 18% in 2050. These trends are not uniform across countries and some countries could see improved agricultural yields. The average breadbasket region of Europe and Russia is expected to experience a 4% increase in average yields by 2050.

Within regions, the poorest countries are the most vulnerable to climate events, says McKinsey. “Poorer regions often have climates that are closer to physical thresholds. They rely more on outdoor work and natural capital and have less financial means to adapt quickly.” When looking at the share of effective annual outdoor working hours lost to extreme heat and humidity, the top quartile of countries (based on GDP per capita) have an average increase in risk by 2050 of approximately 1 to 3 percentage points, whereas the bottom quartile faces an average increase in risk of about 5 to 10 percentage points. In poorer countries, McKinsey estimates that the chance of a greater than 15% yield shock once in the next ten years could rise from 10% today to 18% in 2030, while the chance of a greater than 10% yield shock could rise from 46 to 69%. Thanks to currently high cereal stocks, the world would not run out of food. “However, historical precedent suggests that prices could spike by 100% or more in the short term, in the event of a greater than 15% decline in global supply that reduces stocks,” they write. This would particularly hurt the poorest communities, including the 750 million people living below the international poverty line. (ab)