Australians are now complaining about the rising price of food, not that the shelves are empty.
The issue is price. Australians have been able to purchase cheap food for many years only because the farmers have been able to increase productivity. A cattleman today would need to sell three times as many cattle to buy a basic Holden car as he did in the 1950's. This cost increase applies to everything a farmer uses - machinery, fuel and labour.
Many Australian graziers and farmers can no longer afford to pay staff wages to work their properties, relying on their wives or children to assist them. In the 1940's rural people constituted 40% of the voting population. Due to the drift to the cities, today the rural vote only consists of 7% of the Australian population.

So what are the issues.
The farmer in Australia must receive a higher price for his food product.
The farmer in Australia must be able to access labour. Farmers growing vegetables and fruits often can't get labour, itinerant workers, at the time their crop ripens
Excess Australian food must be sold into other countries.
Most Australian country people are productive and efficient managers of their farms, but are price takers, not marketers.

Australia is capable of more than doubling production of foods, as are other countries like the USA. I believe that at this moment there is no shortage of food in the world, rather an inability of the poor to reach a source of food, purchase food or preserve the food they grow.
Rising incomes in China means that more grain will be diverted to protein production for those who can afford to eat meat.
Rising fuel prices in Australia will mean that more grain will be diverted to ethanol production for those who can afford to drive cars.

1. Pay farmers a realistic price for their produce, which will raise the living standards of rural families all over the world.
2. Enable the poorer countries to preserve their foods so they don't rot before reaching hungry mouths.
3. Arrange transportation of food

Rural Australia is experiencing a labour crisis. Around 100,000 jobs are waiting to be filled. The drought, and a booming mining industry have seen many farmers leave the land, and left many towns struggling to make do with what little skilled labour is left.
Link: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2006/s2206925.htm

With many Australian farmers forced to leave the land it is time to put more priority into Agribusiness. How can we change our agricultural practices if we do not have the labour to do the necessary work? If necessary we should encourage migrant workers

The National Farmers Federation is " calling on the Australian Government to adopt our Workforce from Abroad Employment Scheme and move quickly in addressing this clear and present need – in doing so, delivering benefits to regional Australia, employees and their countries, alike.”

Link: http://www.nff.org.au/read/2451018723.html

Mr. Cribb. You wouldn't happen to be an economist by any chance? I only ask because of the last few lines of your article which states....

"It is also an opportunity like none other for renewal of the natural world, for economic and rural growth, for the relief of human misery and for developing a sustainable basis for civilisation as a whole."

In particular, you mentioned "economic and rural growth" which is very economist biased.

The main consensus of your article is quite correct. Humanity is in big trouble, although we've brought it on ourselves by out breeding our planets ability to provide the necessary food and agriculture to fill 6.7 billion hungry bellies. 9 billion by 2050 if we keep heading down this path to oblivion.

Sorry if I'm wrong, but you sound like someone who believes that throwing more money at a problem can not only fix that problem, but provide a springboard for economic gain at the same time.

When will you people begin to discuss the real problem and that is, humanity can't continue to breed like maggots on a carcass, because eventually, all the meat will be gone and the maggots who are left will starve.

I might also add that the World Bank and it's ilk are one of the major causes of World wide hunger. Their model is also to breed in sufficient numbers to keep the economy ticking over in order to line their greedy pockets.

Time for a new way Mr. Cribb. We have to step off the gravy train of greed and settle into a more mundane and nature friendly way of living. We must legislate to prevent over population instead of offering ridiculous 'baby bonuses.' We have to work to end the slavery and addiction to material things of little real value. Then we might, just might have time to avert a tragedy. But we'd better hurry.
Aime.

The “…the cheap food many of us still enjoy…” is not regarded as being cheap by many consumers; the alarming increases in the price of food over the last decade in Australia have nothing to do with agriculture, or droughts, or climate change. They come as a direct result of the greed of the two major supermarket chains that get it both ways: cheaper (and unhealthy) processed food from China, plus deliberate increasing of margins.

And, it is not “modern civilisation” that is “unsustainable”; it is populations in Australia and the rest of the world that are unsustainable. There is not enough food because there are too many people. The Sahara Desert was once a wheat bowl; the rest of that continent, thanks to over-population and the stupidity of giving aid for more people to breed, will eventually be all desert. So will Australia, if we don’t concentrate on feeding ourselves and putting exports of surpluses way down the list. We have no obligation to feed the rest of the world. We must produce less –enough for ourselves – and rejuvenate the environment

In response to Mr Right Wing, Australia doesn't export food for humanitarian reasons, it exports it to support our rural industry and make useful foreign exchange for the nation.

Comments on population are correct, unless people are advocating limiting population by starving them out of existence. The debate has to be coupled to ethical policy responses.

The population debate is real enough, though also a smokescreen for many in the rich world who are harping on about the insatiable hoards only because resource scarcity is threatening our consumer way of life.

The average rate at which people consume resources (like oil and metals) and produce wastes (like plastics and greenhouse gases) is about 32 times higher in the Western world compared to the developed world. In other words, if everyone gobbled up resources like we do it would be as if the world population was now 72 billion people.

Please do talk about population, but please keep it in a rational context.

(For those who would like to explore this, go to http://www.thestoryofstuff - a real eye opener.)

BINGO ... the overwhelming problems facing humanity is more to do with (un)sustainable development, all else follows.

Problem is ... can we (from diverse cultures, political, economic, social and educational perspectives) work together to solve a threat that will affect us all?