23. Eating Crickets

Also locusts, mealy bugs, and mopane worms (the larvae of a southern African moth) — among many others.  Humans have probably eaten bugs for as long as our species has existed — or even longer, since modern apes and other primates eat them with gusto, and primates may be descended from early insectivores.  The Bible names locusts as kosher for the ancient Israelites.  And in many parts of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania various insects are eagerly enjoyed to this day.

From the point of view of ending hunger, the eating of insects could be enormously important.  For one thing, there are an awful lot of them, and they breed fast and easily and copiously.  Also, they’re small, so they can be grown in relatively small spaces, making them great for urban agriculture as well as rural farms and hunting wild ones.  Nor is such confinement cruel to them as it is for larger creatures like fish, poultry, and mammals.  Furthermore, insects’ efficiency in turning feed into food is excellent:  as high as that of chickens and greater than fish.  They can be raised with very little water, far less than any other food animal.  And there are hundreds of insect species that are listed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization as edible — some for every part of the world.

Insects are also highly nutritious.  They are high enough in protein to serve as a substitute for other kinds of meat, including being high in lysine which makes them a good complement for grains.  They are also a good source of useful carbohydrate, unsaturated fats including valuable omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins including B-12, and many minerals including iron and calcium.

And as suggested above, people who do eat various kinds of insects find them delicious.

So what’s not to love? — Besides the ick factor for those of use who were not introduced to these delicacies as children…

Europeans and non-indigenous people of North America have no cultural history of eating insects, and unfortunately most of us (including this writer, sorry) are therefore grossed out by the idea.  Several start-up enterprises here are therefore planning to grind crickets into flour which can be used as an ingredient in, for example, energy bars:  you could then eat them without thinking about what’s in the food.  You also may or may not want to reflect on the fact that the USDA permits a certain amount of insect parts in canned and processed foods, which means that pretty much all of us have already eaten insect bits without knowing it — and it hasn’t hurt us a bit.

Still, for many of us there’s a pretty big ick factor.

This should not discourage us from trying to get over it, or at least to consider overlooking the advent of insect flour as a non-obvious ingredient in processed foods.  And it certainly should not stop efforts to encourage the scaling up of the growing and eating of insects in parts of the world where this is enjoyed, and where hunger is a real problem.  For though until now most insect-eating has involved catching them in the wild or very small-scale endeavors, the farming of many kinds of insects is looking to be very feasible indeed.  So as the world’s population becomes increasingly urban, it would be easy enough for urban insect-growers to do much towards feeding people a locally-grown nutritious meat-like food that they already like and would choose as a preference.

If one is already a vegetarian, one can point out that insects are animals, and that one does not eat them for that reason (it’s too much to hope that people will become vegetarian solely in order to avoid eating bugs).  For everyone else, edible insects can be a real part of the solution to world hunger, and should not be overlooked.

Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley

22. What Should US Corn Cropland Do?

A chart I found on the internet showed US “Corn Usage by Segment” for 2015.  If I’m reading it right, only 30.3% of US corn for that year because fuel ethanol;  12.5% was exported (some of this for animal feed);  3.5% became high fructose corn syrup and another 2.2% became other “sweeteners;”  1.5% was listed as “cereal/ other” i.e. corn eaten by people as corn;  and a whopping 47.1% (plus some of the exports) was fed to livestock.

This is not how to feed the world.

I discussed the problem of corn ethanol in my last post.  There is a great deal of data these days to indicate that sugar of any kind is neither healthful nor nutritious.  And while I addressed the concerns with using human-edible crops for animal feed in posts 6 and 7, a few of these points bear a quick revisit.

For one thing — and most to the point when discussing world hunger — livestock is incredibly inefficient in turning feed into food.  After all, some of what any animal eats is simply excreted (a dairy cow that produces 11 gallons of milk per day, for example, also produces some 80 pounds of manure).  Some food is burned for energy;  some becomes fur, feathers,  bones,  teeth/beaks, hoofs, hide, and discarded internal organs.  Crickets,  chickens, and fish turn a full 25% of what they’re fed into food humans can eat, but they are the most efficient.  For pigs, sheep, and cows it takes about 8 to 20 pounds of feed for the animal to produce one pound of food for people.  From the perspective of ending hunger, feeding animals many pounds of grain and soybeans to produce each pound of human food instead of feeding all those many pounds of grains and beans directly to the hungry is simply not excusable.

If that is not enough, there are other problems with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations/CAFOs, i.e., factory farms that use all that feed.  When animals are treated as production units and crowded by the thousands into buildings, they are so stressed and miserable that they are prone to mass die-offs from disease, so continual antibiotics are needed to keep them alive (and putting on weight as fast as possible) — creating antibiotic-resistant disease organisms.  In such conditions the amount of manure they produce can equal that of a small city per CAFO, but inadequate regulation leads chronically to water and air pollution.  That many animals drink vast quantities of water, which removes water from streams and groundwater and can cause environmental damage and shortages of water for other uses (like drinking, bathing, laundry, and irrigating crops for human consumption).  And the industrial-agriculture model that produces the feed has serious environmental problems (as noted in post 19).

Beyond question, factory farms based on subsidies for growing the feed are the pre-eminent way to produce lots of cheap meat, eggs, and dairy.  And cheap animal foods are in high demand.  But producing cheap animal foods in this way directly and seriously impedes ending hunger.

So what should US corn cropland be doing?  How about growing corn and other grains and beans and vegetables for people to eat?

There are two interlocking keys to transforming the current situation into this better one.  One is for people to switch their dietary expectations from high to low consumption of animal foods.  (Vegans and low-dairy vegetarians  are exemplary, but moving to plant-based diets which just use small amounts of animal food would do for most.)  A serious drop in demand for animal foods would leave room for sustainable and appropriate pasturing of livestock but could eliminate CAFOs.  The other key is to adjust farm policies and subsidies so that farmers who now grow commodity corn for feed and ethanol could instead make a living growing corn for eating as corn, while adding the growing of other grains and vegetables that people would eat.  Farmers basically want to make a living growing food.  If government policies provide different ways of doing this — as long as the making-a-living thing is guaranteed — it should not be unacceptable, even if it does mean making some changes.

This brings us to the realm of national politics and policies.  The first step in working towards policies that are better at ending hunger than what we’re doing now is to start the discussion of their necessity.

Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley

21. The Problems With Corn Ethanol

Approximately 1% (one percent!) of the corn grown in the US becomes food for people.  The rest becomes cattle feed, “food supplements” (which I’m guessing means high fructose corn syrup — not what I exactly think of as a “supplement”), and a full 40%  of it becomes corn ethanol which is added to gasoline and burned in our automobiles.

If corn ethanol actually fought pollution and gave us energy independence while still allowing all to be fed, this would arguably be justifiable.  But in fact, none of these conditions prevail.

It is indeed established that ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline, so auto exhaust from gas blended with ethanol produces significantly less greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions than pure gasoline.  However, when one looks at the fossil-fuel energy used to refine the corn into ethanol, the complete “lifecycle” pollution caused by having this fuel makes ethanol’s total GHG pollution as close to even with pure gasoline as makes no significant difference.

There are also other ecological problems associated with commodity corn-growing.  Congress passed the ethanol mandate in 2005 and strengthened it in 2007.  A Scientific American article in Feb. 2013 noted that between 2006 and 2011, this resulted in 530,000 acres of marginal, highly-erosive land being converted from edge-of-field prairie into growing corn for ethanol.  This greatly increased soil erosion, and erosion-caused run-off of poisonous farm chemicals into surface water, contaminating waterways all the way downstream until it ultimately increased the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.  It also greatly reduced habitat for butterflies and pollinators:  genetically modified ethanol corn is a major contributor to the current precipitous decline of monarch butterflies and indispensable bees as well as other beneficial insects, songbirds, and so on.

Growing corn for ethanol, in short, is not good for climate control while being really bad for the environment in various other ways.

Nor does corn ethanol contribute to energy independence.  The amount of fuel needed for the US fleet of internal-combustion-engine cars is so great that even 40% of our corn farmland contributes only a few percent of it, and this is effectively negated by the additional fossil fuel we import to refine the corn into ethanol plus the fact that ethanol-blended gas gets lower mileage than gasoline alone.

It must be noted that the problem here is corn ethanol, not ethanol per se.  In tropical Brazil, for example, ethanol is produced from sugar cane stalks, which have a higher sugar content than corn kernels, and whose sugar is easier to extract — and the bagasse that remains is then burned to produce electricity;  this is arguably a benign and useful scheme.  Also, there are efforts to derive ethanol from the cellulose of the native perennial prairie plant switchgrass, the growing of which would conserve water and sequester carbon and minimize pollution, or to get it from the cellulose of corn stalks instead of corn kernels as is done now.  But despite considerable efforts, no researchers have yet developed a technology to economically extract ethanol from cellulose.  Our corn ethanol comes from the kernels, and represents land that could have fed people instead.

In a world in which about one-eighth of humanity is occasionally or chronically hungry, it is simply unacceptable to divert farmland that could feed people into growing fuel that neither decreases pollution nor decreases the use of fossil fuel, but in fact, due to the economics of farm subsidies, actually increases the price of the corn that is available for the poor to eat.  I did note one ethanol-subsidy-apologist essay which opined that since so small a percentage of our corn crop becomes food, its price can’t make much difference — but this  completely misses the point that a much bigger percentage of our corn crop ought to become food.

I would not have a problem with mixing gasoline with ethanol derived from cellulose, so long as doing so did not take over cropland that could grow food (using corn stalk cellulose after the kernels fed people would be great).  But for feeding the world, the US corn ethanol mandate which uses corn kernels has got to go.  Iowa farmers need and deserve ways to make a living without the ethanol mandate — but this should spur politicians to correct what the government subsidizes, not blindly reinforce a problematic status quo.

Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley

20. Food Waste Again

Before I go on to consider ethanol and other field agriculture issues, I take the occasion to revisit the problem of food waste, since two different publications I read brought it up in the last couple of weeks: tasteforlife, a health food store freebie magazine;  and Green American, the publication of a group, Green America, that I belong to.

Both articles reminded readers of the scope of the problem of food waste, calculated as about 30-40% of the food we grow.  The Green American article pointed out that, in addition to the hunger this could alleviate, “the greenhouse gas effects of growing, transporting, cooling, cooking, and letting that food go to landfill and rot are equivalent to 39-million cars’ worth annually.”  The tasteforlife article similarly noted that 95% of wasted food goes to landfills where it rots and releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane.  Both articles gave tips for things people can do to reduce the amount of food waste each of us is responsible for.

General strategies start with planning one’s meals and weekly menu, beginning with checking on what ingredients one already has on hand that need to be eaten soon, and including planning for how and when to use up leftovers.  Then make a shopping list based on the plan, and stick to it.  (It helps to shop when you’re not hungry.)  Another general strategy is to store food properly, so that it lasts long enough for you to get to it.  (Graphics for where in the fridge to put different items can found at ivaluefood.com/resources/food storage/  The Green American article also added many tips from Waste-Free Kitchen Handbook, a new book by Dana Gunders (Chronicle Books, 2016) involving using produce that’s starting to look less than fresh.  For example, vegetables like carrots, celery, broccoli, and greens that are starting to look wilty can often be revived and made crisp again just by soaking in ice water for little while.  Another tip is to realize that sprouting onions and garlic are still perfectly good.  If tomatoes have a crack or soft spot, just cut out the bad spot and eat the rest (but do it as soon as the problem starts or the bad spot will spread and ruin the tomato in a couple of days).  A brown spot in an avocado or gaucamole can similarly be cut away and the rest is still good to eat;  the same holds for citrus fruits with a soft spot on the peel.  Soft/ spotty/ brown bananas are of course great for baking.  If a few berries or grapes or salad greens in a bag start getting fuzzy, be quick to remove just the bad ones and eat up the rest.  And Waste-Free Kitchen Handbook also has tips for reviving and/or using pantry items that go past their prime.

A different strategy mentioned in both articles involves seeking, buying, and eating so-called “ugly produce” — that is, fruits and vegetables that are oddly shaped, dented, even spotted.  I saw a report in Prevention magazine last year which suggested that produce that looks imperfect because the plant was fighting off a pest or disease may actually be more nutritious than better-looking items.  A campaign to convince groceries to sell ugly produce is being led by Jordan Figuereido;  his website is uglyfruitandveg.org  Figuereido’s efforts have already persuaded Whole Foods and Walmart to start testing the selling of some “ugly” produce:  if you shop at such a store, buy that stuff!  You can also sign his campaign’s petition to Target at change.org/TargetGetUgly

On a different level, the Green American article mentioned efforts to rescue food that is nearing the freshness/ “sell by” date after which grocery stores won’t well it even though it is still perfectly edible.  And these efforts are popping up all over.  The Seattle Times reported that 150 such groups are currently operating in the US, and include groups like Project Angel Foods in Chittendon, VT and Dare to Care Food Bank in Louisville, KY as well as stores like Boston’s Daily Table and Kentucky’s B and E Salvage Grocery.  A Dec. 28 FoodTank listing of food-issue groups to watch included such food rescuers as Amp Your Good  and Ample Harvest in New Jersey, Food Rescue in Indiana, 412 Food Rescue in Allegheny County, PA, Cupia in San Francisco, Food Cowboy in Bethesda, MD, LA Kitchen, and Moisson Montreal. Anyone interested in this effort can support or volunteer with whichever of these groups is in your neighborhood.

And Chellie Pingrie, originator of the US Congress’ Food Recovery Act (HR4184) is still in Congress.  Ask your Congresscritters to co-sponsor this bill.

Such a huge amount of food is lost before being eaten that if we could even cut food waste in half, it would be a huge step towards solving hunger.  This is something everyone can work on.  And every one of us really should.


Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley

19. Models For Field Agriculture

For ending hunger, field agriculture must not be neglected — regarding which there are two vastly different models.  The pluses and minuses of each must be considered.

In the developed world/ global north, the Enlightenment’s scientific method and the Industrial Revolution combined to produce a form of agriculture that relies on machinery for plowing, sowing, reaping, and irrigation, on manufactured fertilizers and hybrid seeds, and since about 1950 on chemical pesticides and herbicides.  The push for genetically modified seeds and the use of such innovations as self-driving tractors, condition-monitoring drones, and smartphone-c0ntrolled irrigation are all just logical next steps for this model.  These techniques were adopted enthusiastically in the global north not least because they were a very good fit with the economic philosophies of capitalism and mercantilism  that dominate these geographical areas.  And without question, industrial agriculture has vastly increased yields (at least in the short term).  Indeed, the shunting of much of U.S. corn production to ethanol and high fructose corn syrup arose when U.S. corn harvests at one point in time were too great to profitably sell for food.

So industrial agriculture’s big plus is its high yields — and that is not negligible.  Nonetheless, it also has a few big problems.  The high cost of the machinery, hybrid seeds, and chemicals is one.  Another is the way the chemicals pollute water, which kills fish and frogs and creates ocean dead zones, while they also kill pollinators and beneficial insects and the birds that depend on the insects:  the threat of mass extinction in the biosphere we ultimately depend on is also not negligible on general principles, besides that destroying pollinators will surely decrease food production.  Industrial agriculture is also highly erosive, further undermining its sustainability.  And in many areas it is dependent on unsustainable levels of irrigation, drawing on groundwater and surface water faster than it can be replenished.  The huge wheat harvests on North America’s High Plains, for example, depend on persistent overuse of the Oglalla Aquifer, which keeps drawing it down further — and once it’s gone, there won’t be any wheat harvests there.  California, Russia’s Aral Sea, and India’s Punjab region are a few other places where this last phenomenon is occurring.

The Punjab situation brings up yet another problem with industrial agriculture:  it has not transferred  well to the global south.  We know this because that transfer is exactly what the Green Revolution tried to do, and while the Green Revolution boosted yields wildly in the beginning, it then foundered badly.  Free seeds and fertilizer were offered for the first few years to get developing world farmers started, but once these incentives were withdrawn most peasants farmers could not afford expensive hybrid seeds and chemicals, yet they had by then lost their locally-adapted heirloom seed varieties and been taught to plant pest-attracting monocultures.  The hybrid seeds did not perform well without the chemicals and irrigation that were simply unaffordable to many in the developing world, leaving them mired in debt and with farms that were often less productive than before the Green Revolution started.  Nor had the temporarily increased yields actually relieved hunger, since the population had grown in lockstep with the temporarily higher harvests.  The promise of industrial agriculture’s Green Revolution has thus fizzled thoroughly in the global south.

Industrial agriculture’s unsustainability  in the north and inapplicability to the south make it worth looking at the other agricultural model, which has come to be called agroecology.  First, it is important to state that agroecology is not a step backward to preindustrial subsistence.  What it does do is look at the productivity, stability, sustainability, and equitability of an agricultural system, considering these four properties as interconnected and all integral to each other and to a successful form of agriculture.  Agroecology is not averse to technology;  for example, I read this week of an initiative to bring drip irrigation to peasant farmers in Guatemala’s highlands who are suffering from a climate-change-induced decrease in rainfall.  But it does use technology selectively and includes organic practices.  It seeks to work in harmony with each ecosystem, and to grow food in ways that are both ecologically sustainable and enable locally indigenous people to hold and farm their traditional lands by combining useful modern technologies with the sophisticated practices that their ancestors had developed over centuries to grow enough food in accord with each area’s own climate and soil and biotic community.  Agroecology thus supports food sovereignty and justice as well as food production.  Its apparent drawback is that it does not get nearly as high a yield per acre of any particular crop as industrial agriculture does.  But it is crucial to note that because it uses companion planting and succession cropping, it often gets more tons of food per acre than industrial agriculture’s mono-crops.   And it does so in ways that conserve and enhance the soil, sequester huge amounts of carbon, preserve local cultures and communities, and can continue to do so indefinitely.

Agroecology is especially well suited to the global south where the capital needed for industrial agriculture is hard to come by.  But it is just as useful in the global north, where small farmers use organic and biodynamic and IPM practices and raise livestock on pasture and sell through farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture  and local co-ops and local restaurants.

Industrial agriculture’s high yields can be useful in solving the problem of world hunger, especially if they can be turned from growing commodities and livestock feed to growing food directly for people.  There is even such a thing as “industrial organic” production.  But for producing good food that people can grow themselves or otherwise access and afford, in ways that mitigate climate change and preserve pollinators and the rest of the biosphere, agroecology needs to become a whole lot more dominant — everywhere.

Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley

17. Hydroponics And/Versus Organic Agriculture

In the last few days, both newspapers I subscribe to (the New York Times and the Boston Globe) have featured articles on an issue now under contention with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB):  whether or not hydroponic food production should be labeled “organic.”

I’ve already mentioned hydroponics in a previous post (#11), and for feeding the world there are many good things about it.  Hydroponics can produce food in urban areas and industrialized sites, close to where people live and in addition to what farm fields grow.  It can be done without pesticides and herbicides and therefore produce food without toxic residues.  And it can be done with limited amounts of water, since it can continually recirculate the water it uses.  Its big potential negative is very high energy costs for lighting and climate control as well as pumping the water about.  And it also has costs for plant nutrients, both the big three (nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus) and all the micronutrient minerals that plants need to really thrive.

It is significant, in fact, that produce is only nutritious if the growing plants are given all the minerals that we need to get from them.  It’s also significant that nutritional science is not yet perfect.  When I began writing about food in the early 1990s, for example, we knew about beta-carotene, but no one had yet really heard about anthocyanins or zeaxanthins or sulfurofanes — the whole array of phytonutrients that we now know we need to get from produce.  What else might plants supply that we don’t even know about yet?  And how can hydroponic growers provide the inputs that plants need to make all nutrients, if we don’t yet know everything that plants should supply?

In-ground organic production, in contrast, relies on nature to pick up the slack in our knowledge-base, and supports nature in the process.  It adds organic matter to the soil — compost, manure, the “green manure” of dug-in plant material, such food waste as coffee grounds — and encourages the whole range of soil microorganisms and pollinators and beneficial insects (and thus also supports the birds and toads and so on that eat insects).  And at the same time that organic agriculture supports the whole biome, it sequesters huge amounts of carbon in the soil.  It does use more water than hydroponics and needs expanses of clean land.  And in any case, it is qualitatively different than hydroponic growing, and some of those differences form real advantages for both the nutritive value of produce and for life on Earth.

My own take on the controversy is that both growing techniques are useful but that they are distinctly different, so the NOSB should create a label for hydroponics that blesses it with a similar-but-different logo than is used for organics.  For from the point of view of ending hunger, in-ground organic agriculture and para-organic hydroponic growing both are good, both together are needed, and both are part of the solution.  For both together increase the overall food supply more than either one alone.

Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley

16. Urban Possibilities: The Victory Garden Initiative of Milwaukee

In my last post about urban food forests I mentioned the contribution thereto of the Victory Garden Initiative of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  In fact, as far as I can tell, VGI is one of the most active groups out there working on urban food production — which is a major piece of the ending-hunger puzzle.  (If anyone reading this knows about other equally effective groups, please let me know so as to improve my information:  comment below or email me at chuckgyver@aceweb.com)

VGI got started after a brouhaha in 2008 or ’09 in Shorewood, Wisconsin, a bedroom-community suburb adjacent to Milwaukee, when a resident put a raised-bed vegetable garden on their “parkway”/”hellstrip”/ piece of grass between sidewalk and road that the municipality owns but the homeowner cares for.  Shorewood officials objected, while other residents supported the embattled homeowner.  (Full disclosure:  I lived in Shorewood at that time and was already growing food on the front garden of my backyard-deprived corner lot;  I naturally supported the gardener myself.)  It was another of the gardening homeowner’s defenders, however, Gretchen Meade, who got inspired to push the matter further and work towards helping residents across the greater Milwaukee area have gardens to grow food in.  Taking a hint from the victory gardens of World Wars I and II, she founded the Victory Garden Initiative in 2009.  Its motto:  “This is grassroots movement.  Move grass.  Grow food.”

VGI’s first action was the Victory Garden Blitz.  Donations of money and materials were secured and people were invited to sign up to have VGI build them a 4′ by 8′ raised bed instant garden filled with soil on Memorial Day.  Response was enthusiastic from both requesters and volunteers, and in a very few years the Blitz occupied all 3 days of Memorial Day weekend;  it has now grown to take most of the month of May to install all the raised beds requested and funded each year.  VGI’s next step has been to offer mentoring to other places to replicate the Blitz in their areas;  so far workshops have been held in Green Bay, Wisconsin and Berea, Kentucky.  If anyone reading this is interested, email blitzyourtown@victorygardeninitiative.org

Some people who want to garden just don’t have a sunny bit of land to do it in, though.  This is where community gardens are useful, and VGI has therefore also worked to get such gardening going.  A couple of dozen new community gardens now exist in the Milwaukee area as a result, but the jewel in this crown is an acre and a half of green space near one of the Milwaukee neighborhoods that most needs better access to good food.  Concordia Garden is both a community garden and also site of a youth program that partners with 3 nearby elementary schools.  In 2014 Concordia also started a program to train youths to harvest and sell organic produce from part of the garden at affordable prices at a garden Farm Stand that serves the neighborhood.  And a food forest at the site grows such plants as apples, pears, cherries, apricots, raspberries, currents, mulberries, quinces, and herbs. This food forest is available to the general public to harvest free of charge.

I’ve already reported on VGI’s Fruity Nutty Contest, begun in 2012.  VGI volunteers plant 20 to 30 trees for each winning group, including the fruit tree varieties used at Concordia and also blueberries, pawpaws, serviceberries, and hazelnuts;  some mentoring on the care of the plants is also provided. Food forests planted on private property are shared by the participating neighbors;  those on public property cane harvested by anyone.

Other services and activities offered by VGI include providing some training for Blitz garden recipients, internships and volunteer opportunities, a Food Leader Certificate training program, “Move Grass” classes on topics like aquaponics, aromatherapy, and food preservation, and dinners at local restaurants that feature local organic produce.  The group has guided its expansion by listening to what people in the community want;  its vision is that it “builds communities that grow their own food, creating a community-based, socially just environmentally nutritious food system for all.”

What especially impresses me about VGI is the wide and still-growing range of the group’s activities.  It creates beds for food-growing (3000 so far) and also food forests all over its metropolitan area, provides mentoring and classes and training in many aspects of food production and distribution, and works to create community through shared interest and effort around making there be more and better food for its city.

This is a really good model for what we need a whole lot more of in every city on Earth if we are to end hunger.

Louise “Gentle Bee” Quigley