Yet another example of the UN attempting to exert control over sovereign governments and their economic development in order to accumulate vast amounts of money for themselves under the guise of 'justice for the poor'. Remember Bob Browns 'One World Government'? This is another step on the road to form one.

Beware its NOT about 'food security' or 'food justice for the poor'. It IS though, about banning technologies which are useful for increasing food production under the guise of protecting the planet.

It wants to ban:

“any technologies that might imply a serious risk for the environment or human society, including in particular synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy and nanotechnology”

The very technologies which are being used to increase food production.

Also developed nations would be required to donate 0.7% of their GDP every year to the UN ie about $2000 per family per year simply to the coffers of the UN. They are getting some of the Carbon Tax money, now this is their next big money play.

The faceless men of the UN, who are so inadequate at dealing even with predictable famines and disease epidemics, are trying to impose their Green Dream which be ultimately a nightmare for the rest of us.

They are an unelected organisation which seeks to promote a far Left agenda, Global Warming now this simply to accumulate power and money for their insiders.

Without measures to control population growth such as access to contraceptives and information on their use, education for women and access to abortion attempts for sustainability will fail. Such measures are necessary.

Atman. Could not agree more, the very tools available to increase food production quality and volume are 'banned' by this crowd.
David. F. I agree on the measures you suggest, but would also suggest the most effective method for stabilizing a population is lifting the impoverished from their current position. Observations would indicate that as a population increases in wealth, the birth rate drops correspondingly.
Food security would not be a problem in most third world countries if governance did NOT include dictatorships and corruption which interrupts food distribution networks.

The sensible comment by devid f on population was refreshing after the ludicrously paranoid comment of Atman.

Food security must be discussed in the context of population growth, land availability and energy supplies, particularly oil. As oil becomes increasingly more expensive, it will be more and more difficult to provide food for seven billion, let along nine or ten billion. It is critical that population is stabilised as soon as possible so we can avoid outright starvation. More food will have to be grown in cities and diminishing oil supplies directed towards farmers and those transporting food.

popnperish

Both prompete and Atman made valuable contributions, although you seem to think they are contradictory.

Indeed, Atman is correct in that this UN lunatic is trying to tell us that black is white and that really the green approach to intensifying agricultural productivity will work. Does that mean he doesn't want farmers to use the new generation of pesticides, or genetically-engeered crops? But why bother with any of this? Why not simply persuade certain governments to drop market and price controls, and to stop robbing their citizens. Far that matter why not persuade those governments to provide sufficiently stable conditions, including basic law and order? They will be surprised by the increase in productivity, and never mind bather about the green approach.

Err.. popnperish have you read the document or a review of it? No. Obviously not. You have a child's notion of the UN as being full of benign 'do gooders'. Have you read their 'Agenda 21'? The UN is populated by people seeking inordinate influence over our lives by using environmentalism and feelgood concepts such 'economic justice' as a lever to control land usage, food production, energy supply and wealth redistribution.

They have already succeeded as they will get money from our carbon tax, have controlled fishing around the world and want to limit crop production because of supposed 'environmental concerns'. Yet these people are not elected by anybody. Is this OK by you?

It pays to do some research, even by reading the documents you blindly support.