Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Stats News

The World is Producing More Food Crops Than Ever Before (vox.com) 101

Posted by msmash from the feeding-eight-billion dept.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization projects record production of global cereal crops in the 2025-26 farming season. The forecast covers wheat, corn and rice, and comes as the global stocks-to-use ratio stands around 30.6% -- the world is producing nearly a third more of these foundational crops than it currently uses.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in August that American farmers would harvest a record corn crop at record yield per acre. The FAO Food Price Index has risen slightly this year but remains nearly 20% below its peak during the early months of the war in Ukraine. Average calories available per person worldwide have climbed from roughly 2,100 to 2,200 kilocalories daily in the early nineteen-sixties to just under 3,000 kilocalories daily by 2022. Cereal yields have roughly tripled since 1961. Yet the World Bank estimates around 2.6 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet, and current famines in Gaza and Sudan stem from political failures rather than crop failures.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World is Producing More Food Crops Than Ever Before More

The World is Producing More Food Crops Than Ever Before

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah but we weren't hungry children (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @01:52PM (#65724658)
    Because it makes us feel better to think that somebody out there is hungry and has it worse than we do.

    When asked we will say hunger builds character even though we know from science that it does not.

    We've been able to feed everyone on the planet since the seventies. Just like homelessness hunger and starvation are choices we as a species make and impose on each other.

    The Christians are the ones I find noticeable. Some of the American evangelicals will say that because they believe in Jesus they are saved and they don't need to do good works. Belief is all they need.

    But if you're ignoring jesus's command to care for the less fortunate can you really say you believe in him? And then if you don't believe in him you're not saved.

    Jesus explicitly called this out in the bible. People who would make a show of publicly visible religious displays versus actually following God.

    • I'm calling ICE (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

      This guy isn't fully on board with capitalism!

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Jesus explicitly called this out in the bible. People who would make a show of publicly visible religious displays versus actually following God.

      Well, most people are fucking dumb. And the evangelicals are a lot worse than the average.

    • I am sorry you have met pseudochristians the way you have. As I live in the Bible Belt I know exactly ZERO Christians who believe like that.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        As I live in the Bible Belt I know exactly ZERO Christians who believe like that.

        You must not hang out with many people or with a leftist crowd then because the bible belt routinely votes against the type of government that helps the less fortunate. They certainly arent walking their Jesus talk if they're voting for an administration that wants to cut back on food aid to the poor both here in the US and abroad.

        • Re:Yeah but we weren't hungry children (Score:5, Informative)

          by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @03:39PM (#65725048) Homepage Journal

          Let's face it, many evangelical Christians have voted for an administration that would instantly deport Jesus to El Salvador if he appeared today.

        • They don't want the government to help people. They want the church to help. Then they can help who they want, how they want and nothing else.
        • It isn't a very Christian to force other people to pay to the poor via taxes, is it? I believe in retribution via taxes, but I can't see it as a Christian value. But Jesus talked something about being rich and a camel and the eye of a needle... The needle needs to be very big for many Christians.

          • Re: Yeah but we weren't hungry children (Score:4, Informative)

            by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @06:41PM (#65725430)

            I think you're conflating modern American conservative values with Christianity. Jesus in fact instructed his followers to pay their taxes https://www.theologyofwork.org... [theologyofwork.org]? . He was also all about wealth redistribution from the haves to have nots.

            That is to say the Jesus of the bible, I'm not trying to weigh in one way or the other on whether he was real

          • Fun fact - a significant part of the German welfare system was designed by the conservative party back in the day specifically because of their Christian values. Of course, nowadays the very same party wants to dismantle it although they still call themselves "Christian Democratic Union".

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              It's crazy to me how so many modern Christians essentially sideline Jesus with his lessons in compassion for the "other" and helping the less fortunate and focus on the judgmental, selfish stuff in the bible. Isn't Jesus supposed to be the most important part?

    • The Christians are the ones I find noticeable.

      Of all the religions in the world you find Christians as "noticeable"? Um, okay, I guess you need to get out more.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        The Christians are the ones I find noticeable.

        Of all the religions in the world you find Christians as "noticeable"? Um, okay, I guess you need to get out more.

        To be fair, I've never had someone outside a "Christian" sect show up unannounced at my front door peddling their religious bullshit.

      • The other religions tend to keep their heads down a little here. We have Christian nationalists in charge right now so those other religions while they will go about their business and try to get converts and tiths they usually aren't quite as politically involved here as the Christians

        The scientologists would like to be but they've been dropping off the map as their members fade away. There is also the Moonies but I think they compete a little too strongly with Christian extremist evangelism here so th

        • The other religions tend to keep their heads down a little here.

          Where is "here"? You claim to be American but are you living in America? Can you give a region at least on where you live? I've been intentionally vague on where I live for a number of reasons so I won't ask any more of you. I live in the Midwest USA where the local population is largely German and Irish, Lutheran and Catholic, but still plenty of diversity in demographics in the larger cities.

          We have Christian nationalists in charge right now so those other religions while they will go about their business and try to get converts and tiths they usually aren't quite as politically involved here as the Christians

          Christian nationalists? In the USA? That's like an Anglican thing, right? You know, Church of England? We d

          • Proof, otherwise it's heresy and tossing a label on someone.
            WTF are "moonies"? Pagans?
            Oh, and I live in the Frozen North (TM) where we have to catch the words spoken in a skillet and fry them on an open fire on the frozen lake to hear them.

    • As a Christian, you are absolutely right.

      But if you're ignoring Jesus's command to care for the less fortunate can you really say you believe in him? And then if you don't believe in him you're not saved.

      Maybe you are more Christian than you realized. And maybe those you are referring to, aren't as Christian as they say they are.

    • It has long been proven that all religions are untrue, and Christianity is no exception.

      It gets better. In the last 10-20 years, Richard Carrier and others have proven that Christianity is a deliberately constructed lie.

      So saying what Jesus said or would have done or would have suffered is just silliness, and shows the claimant to be a fool.

  • On one hand, no one should go hungry. Especially children. On the other hand you don’t want to create a dependency and make it easier for people to have more children than they can afford. Contrary to the narratives in much of the developed world. There is no population crisis on the global scale. The world population keeps going up. It is on only in most of the developed world where populations are shrinking. Globally, the societies with the most have the least children and the societies with the le

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The way to keep the population under control is education, not limiting people's ability to care for their children.

      All the panic about 11 billion people by 2100 isn't really a big deal because it's mostly down to people living longer, and we have the ability to feed that many in a sustainable way already. The problems are all political.

    • Re:Hunger and population. (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @02:18PM (#65724758) Homepage Journal

      The behavioral model you have isn't supported by data. When you raise the standard of living and food security of population, the fertility rate goes down. When you have nothing, children are economic assets whose labor can support the family. It's not a great option, but some people live in conditions where there are no good options.

      • Except that the only point I actually agued was "There is no population [collapse] crisis on the global scale."

        It was merely preceded by desired outcomes. And in fact I explicitly relayed, "Globally, the societies with the most have the least children and the societies with the least have the most children." Your stated premised is proved out. As a society becomes one of plenty, that society trends towards less children per adult. I did not actually advocate any position beyond that there is no populat

    • Globally, the societies with the most have the least children and the societies with the least have the most children. This is the inverse for pretty much all animals on this planet.

      In societies with a safe energy supply for having machines do the heavy and dangerous work there's not the same kind of need for many children to work for survival, and fewer children are likely to be lost to disease, injury, animals, or crime. The survival of the family depends on quality of the children than quantity. With fewer children each child gets more attention for education, as well as other things but education is very important, to lead to future success.

      Musk has what? 11.

      When at the extremes of wealth like Mus

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      So the faster we help them develop, the slower the world population climbs.

    • It’s like all of you only read the first sentence before commenting and scoring. Geez.

  • John Steinbeck (Score:4, Interesting)

    by phsonnek ( 1582785 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @02:01PM (#65724692)
    The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth. There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.” John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

    • Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire.

      That makes me think of all the land set aside to make ethanol for fuel. That's a waste of food to me.

      What makes this less disturbing to me is thinking that if there is anything that would disturb our access to food, such as a large war, then we could close the ethanol plants and eat the corn instead. The USA exports plenty of gasoline so if trade is cut off then so would the exports of gasoline which leaves room for not burning corn for fuel. I don't know how the gasoline exports compare to ethanol burne

      • That makes me think of all the land set aside to make ethanol for fuel. That's a waste of food to me.

        Alternatively, it's bioengineering. Instead of fabricating solar panels out of silicon to generate electricity to synthesize chemical fuels, we harness biological processes. I recall reading a sequel to E.T. where the aliens of E.T.'s species used entirely biological technology for everything, including constructing and powering their spaceships. The book was probably utter nonsense, I was very young when I read it, but the idea of engineering biological systems isn't absurd.

        When you think of nanotechnology

        • Instead of fabricating solar panels out of silicon to generate electricity to synthesize chemical fuels, we harness biological processes.

          Do you have any idea how far we are from having biological processes exceed what we can get from silicon? This is a place to start: http://www.withouthotair.com/c... [withouthotair.com]

          I'll have people point to the age of this paper as reason to dismiss it but if there's been some leap in efficiency of biomass energy then it's been kept pretty quiet. If we can get 2 W/m2 of energy growing crops then that's pretty good for biomass fuels. For comparison we could get more like 20 to 25 W/m2 using silicon. With better technolo

      • Well, genetically engineered corn isn't a huge food product... it's engineered to make more high fructose corn syrup, grow faster, be more resistant to disease.
        Take a look through your canned stuff (Manwich, ramen, beef stew, whatever)... how much has proper sugar in it versus high fructose? Extra credit for stating what of each mentions that it contains a genetically modified ingredient.
        That's the way of the future... enjoy!

        • how much has proper sugar in it versus high fructose

          Sugar cane is a type of grass. Corn is a type of grass. What is "proper sugar" other than the desiccated remains of juice squeezed out of grass? What is high fructose corn syrup other than the not quite completely desiccated remains of juice squeezed out of grass?

          Sure, the sugar juice maybe squeezed out of the stalks while the corn juice is squeezed out of the seeds, but in either case you're squeezing juice out of a particular species of plant in the general family of grasses and removing as much water as

        • How else do we get energy from any plant but by extracting the sugars the plant produces?

          There's been experiments to extract energy from the starch and cellulose in plants which can improve the energy extraction but that has nothing to do with the engineering of the biological processes but engineering of chemical and mechanical processes. We've been hybridizing corn for ages to maximize for sugar output and we are still a long way away from getting more energy from plants than we could get from sunlight b

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        The part you're missing is that gasoline that is exported is made from imported oil. Trade stops, no more oil imports to refine into gasoline in a certain part of the country, namely the mid-west. Eventually, I guess pipelines can be constructed, which takes time and steel that is no longer being imported.

  • ...that there's a LOT of minerals and other nutrients in food, only a fraction of which are produced from chemicals in fertilisers, O2, and CO2. If you produce too much with too little consideration of the impact on the soil, you can produce marvellous dust bowls but eventually that's ALL you will produce.

    • ...that there's a LOT of minerals and other nutrients in food, only a fraction of which are produced from chemicals in fertilisers, O2, and CO2. If you produce too much with too little consideration of the impact on the soil, you can produce marvellous dust bowls but eventually that's ALL you will produce.

      I can assure you that the professional farmers in the USA are abundantly aware of this. While growing up on the family farm the education level of the typical farmer may have been high school but there were all kinds of government programs to educate the farmers on how to control for erosion and keep the land productive.

      One example would be that the government would survey the land and make note of slopes and such where there could be heavy erosion. Then the government would pay the farmers to plant gras

  • The problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @02:19PM (#65724764)
    The problem is not a lack of food; it is a lack of distribution. Some countries, notably the US, produce far more food than the population requires, while others starve. Poverty is an issue, but there is also the simple inability to move the food from where it is grown to where the hungry people are. Food is bulky and much of it does not keep well. The average number of calories per is of no value to those on the wrong side of the distribution curve. You cannot eat an average.
    • We export twenty percent of our food grown. The number was LESS than I expected, I thought we exported more. But yes, I agree with you.

      • And not an insignificant part of it are exports to the EU by the way - almonds from California for example.

    • Re:The problem (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @06:17PM (#65725374) Homepage

      Lack of distribution isn't a problem of not having the *means* to distribute, but rather, an inability to overcome *barrier* to distribution. Barriers such as politics and political corruption. Name any country that has widespread starvation, and you will also see corruption and war.

      • It is in fact an issue of not having the means. If you live in the US for EU, you generally have no idea how poor the infrastructure is in many countries. Even if you could get the food to the general area, there is no way to distribute it. Even getting the food to the general area can be an issue. The weight and volume of the food for a large number of people is tremendous. Even if the shipping were available there is often a lack of port facilities to unload and transport to move the food from the do

        • And WHY is the infrastructure so poor in such countries? The exact same root cause as for the hunger itself: political conflict and corruption.

          Fix the conflict and corruption, and you'll soon see the infrastructure coming into place, and fewer people dealing with hunger.

          There is no exception I have seen to this. Any place with a stable government with low corruption, WILL thrive. And that applies to infrastructure and to people's individual welfare.

          • True to an extent, but some places are inherently poorer than others. Corruption and unstable governments (which are usually connected) always make a bad situation worse. Unfortunately, corrupt and incompetent government seems to be the default situation throughout history. Even the world's wealthiest countries, like China and the US, struggle with inadequate infrastructure, it is many times worse elsewhere.

            • I don't buy that argument for a minute. Name one place that is "inherently poor" but does not have a corrupt or unstable government. I don't think you can.

              Some countries like China can overcome the disadvantages of corruption or instability, and become relatively wealthy anyway. But "inherently poor"--no, I don't buy it. Every country started out "inherently" poor.

              • They become "wealthy" through the tech sectors... not because of millions of pounds of food.
                Inherently poor and corrupt government go hand in hand... Mexico, China, Russia.
                Just simply "fixing" the corrupt government doesn't solve the problem of homelessness... there's a fair percent of them that just spend every cent on booze or drugs... a lot of the rest just can't find a job that they can do.

                • I'm not sure what your point is, it seems you are agreeing with me, to an extent?

                  This thread and article aren't about homelessness, that is an entirely different problem. Homelessness exists in every country, corrupt or not. Much of homelessness stems from mental illness.

                  The topic at hand is the world's supply of food. My contention is that corruption and war are the two main causes of starvation / famine in the world. "Fixing" corruption does indeed "fix" famine and starvation.

                  Homeless people aren't starvi

              • Name me a place that does not have a corrupt or unstable government, never mind whether they are poor or not.

                • There is actually good research on this. Transparency International publishes a yearly map showing the relative amount of corruption in each country of the world. https://www.transparency.org/e... [transparency.org]

                  No, there is no country with zero corruption. But there are definitely nations with much less corruption than others.

    • You also have to consider how much food is not grown for human consumption e.g. animal feed, ethanol

    • It's all about capitalism... what good is a can of corned beef hash to someone with no source of heat or even a can opener? Maybe someone is allergic to HFCS or has celiac disease or something... do you still give them the loaf of bread or the can of Manwich? What are they gonna do with a head of lettuce that has one day left?
      We can sell either (that I listed) at the store... and, we'd rather sell it than give it away. We're all expected to be able to find and hold a job so we can 'contribute'.
      Distributi

      • You actual fucking retard. Shut up. How did you find this site?

        • I know... such a f***ing retard... hold on, gotta go check on the two custom computers (that I built) in the livingroom.
          How many transmissions have you torn apart and fully washed? How many non-profit science labs have you helped build? How many laptops did you build from parts in a week?
          How did I find the site? I've been reading the site since AOL 6 or 7 was the big thing, only set up an account a few years ago.
          Typically, the one calling someone else a retard is usually one themselves, not to mention th

          • Lmao jesus you just confessed to being an aol kiddie. This site is really going down the tubes wow.

            • There wasn't much choice in (roughly 1997)... computers were still in the 1/4 gig of RAM age (which was a lot), with processors not much better (our first computer was an IBM Aptiva 2153-E2N). Our area didn't get cable modem until about '99 or 2000.
              So, big deal I was an AOL kid... do the math, in roughly 1997, I would've been fourteen (maybe fifteen)... I'll be 43 in December.

        • Oh... and, I'm so scared of insults online... I'm shaking in my office chair!
          And, marking me as a 'foe' isn't gonna shut me up, buddy.

          • if you werent upset you wouldnt bother trying to show me how cool and unbothered you are.

            • Yeah, but it's fun to stoke the flames until I can hear you screaming at your computer from 1,000 miles away (or however far). /sarcasm

              Nerds aren't exactly cool... but unbothered and calm, always.
              But, go ahead and think you know everything about everything, pal ;-)

      • It most certainly is not. Famine and food distribution has been an issue since before civilization. The only real change is that we no longer accept that periodic starvation is something that we can expect. We live in the first era of humanity, when we can assume that the food supply globally will exceed the demand. We are talking about the ability of people to obtain the basic calories that they need to survive, not their ability to obtain luxuries like a high meat diet or delivery pizza.

        • Assume is not the same as a guarantee.

          Of course, there shouldn't be homeless people starving under a bridge, and typically food shelves want to know what your address is... but, there's not many places that will pay everything to get you into an apartment.
          Let's say 341 million (that was 2024, might be more today, dunno): every single person will get 5 pounds of ground beef (1,705,000,000 pounds of ground beef), a gallon of milk, two loafs of bread (682 million loaves), some hamburger helpers and mac & c

  • While we might not see famines from political failures we could see people with rising food prices and farmers unable to pay their bills because of government policies.

    There's been a global trend to limit or ban artificial fertilizers because of concerns on CO2 and/or nitrogen compounds impacting air quality or something. I'm not clear on the issues but there's a lot of governments that don't like artificial fertilizers. Without adding nitrogen to the soil the yields on crops drops quickly, it doesn't fad

  • How much have U.S. farmers grown this year which will sit and rot because not a single bean has been purchased by China [kcur.org] due to tariffs?

    While growing food isn't the main issue, distribution is, how many tons of food goes to waste each year because of price supports or deliberate over production due to government programs?
    • That's fine, we need a bunch of animal feed to rebuild the beef herd. I dunno why they aren't just feeding it to cattle.

    • How much have U.S. farmers grown this year which will sit and rot because not a single bean has been purchased by China due to tariffs?

      I can recall as a kid seeing *HUGE* piles of corn all over the place because floods prevented barges from moving out the corn. A common practice I saw was to set up concrete barriers on an empty parking lot as a kind of quick-n-dirty corral then just pile in the dried corn. Some of the piles were large enough to hide a two story home inside. If they could then a sheet of plastic would be put over it to keep out rain and birds. No doubt some of the corn on the bottom would rot because it would take up so

  • To solve world hunger, deliver a gift of lead to every despot, war lord, and every other evil bastard in power who thinks it's a good idea to use starvation as a weapon, as a way to keep people in line, or to motivate people. That's the only way.
  • It's a good thing to have an overproduction of food. It means that, with the proper distribution channels, everyone can eat; and if there's a bad year or two, like a volcano spewing ashes in the upper atmosphere like happens every 200 years or so, we won't all starve.
    On the other hand having an overproduction means the prices fall down and farmers go broke. No easy way out...

  • Of course (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @04:53PM (#65725222)

    US farmers are currently stuck producing gigantic amounts of soybeans they can't sell to China. Because of the fallout from the Trump tariffs, China instead signed massive 20-year contracts with South American nations.
    Now, US farmers are forced to store their surplus beans, and the intended "bailout" money—funded by the very tariffs US citizens paid—is barely enough to cover storage costs.
    The bitter irony is that the US consumers who paid the tariff tax don't even get the soybeans!

  • lol (Score:1, Interesting)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

    and current famines in Gaza and Sudan stem from political failures rather than crop failures

    Yeah, it turns out that when you don't grow anything yourself, and then you kidnap, rape, and murder your neighbors, it becomes hard to get food.

    Also, when you put the people in charge who were responsible for all that, they seem to divert the food that is brought there for you away from you.

    But don't worry, useful idiots (as Lenin called them) will blame your neighbors ...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Close