I think the issue is more complex (as you've written about in past articles). These soybean and corn crops don't directly feed humans. Much of it goes to feeding livestock and for biofuel—a low-value use of the stuff because the EROI is just under 1.0. It's only economically feasible because of government subsidies. Rather than debating supply vs demand, we should scrutinize what that artificial demand is.
On a different note, there will always be humans who don't have enough food. We can argue that it's just a "distribution issue" or some other technological reason. But it comes down to ecological dynamics, or laws of nature. Modern man lives in a story that the world was made for humans, and that he can manipulate as much of nature to produce his food as he pleases. We take more and more land for industrial monocrops dependent on synthetic biocides and fertilizers. This increases the human population, which in turn requires more food (and energy, materials, land, water, etc.) in an endless feedback loop. Until we can change our view about our place in nature, we will always have BOTH apparent food overproduction and food scarcity. Understandably, many will not comprehend this argument without significant background information.
That is a really interesting question to consider what is "artificial" demand (which I take as any demand that wouldn't exist, but for Federal policies like the Renewable Fuel Standard). I'll have to look into studies done that estimate the additional bushels and acres required for any new biofuel policy.
On your second point, that it is an iron law of nature that "there will always be humans who don't have enough food" -- I simply don't agree with this. Not to get dark, but it wasn't long ago in the 1800s, that child mortality rates were so dramatic that 1 in 2 children would not make it to adulthood. Even as recent as 1950, that number was 1 in 4!
I am sure that many people in the late 1800s simply thought it was a "law of nature" that half of children would perish before their teens. I am grateful every single day that enough people did not accept that as a law of nature and made incremental progress (including addressing malnutrition) to get to where we are today that child mortality rates are more like 4 in 100 and in many places, 1 in 200 (and hopefully more progress can bring that even lower).
You may be heartened that the United Nations published an updated projection on population growth in 2024, with lower growth rates expected than the 2013 report. Global population is expected to reach a peak of ~10.3 billion people before 2100, and then gradually decline. So human population growth is not going to be exponential or even linear going forward, there is a maximum that will be reached (and relatively soon it appears!).
Hi Ariel, I agree with all of your points. Those points of declining child mortality are not rebuttals to my point, but a feature of it. It requires a lot of other background information that would be way too long for a comment or even a substack post. I'm working on a book for this reason. I fully acknowledge all of the wonderful things that human ingenuity has brought about in terms of improving human quality of life in the past few centuries. I've studied and written extensively on them. Reduction in disease, improvements in medicine, producing more food, indoor plumbing, and all the rest are marvelous! However, within this narrative of technological progress lies one big problem. The Hans Roslings, Steven Pinkers, and Matt Ridleys of the world are not necessarily incorrect—just incomplete. It is unlikely that the same system that is producing the metacrisis will solve it.
Thanks Derek! Yeah I have heard the distribution argument a lot, and there's probably some truth to it. However, when I was digging deeper into that original 2009 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report about feeding a growing global population, I thought it was really interesting that they don't mention distribution much at all. Instead, they emphasize production in developing countries where population growth is occurring and producing nutritious crops that humans consume (aka not field corn and soybeans, of which a very small portion is used to directly feed humans):
"The projections show that feeding a world population of 9.1 billion people in 2050 would require raising overall food production by some 70 percent between 2005/07 and 2050. Production in the developing countries would need to almost double. This implies significant increases in the production of several key commodities. Annual cereal production, for instance, would have to grow by almost one billion tonnes, meat production by over 200 million tonnes to a total of 470 million tonnes in 2050, 72 percent of which in the developing countries, up from the 58 percent today. Feeding the world population adequately would also mean producing the kinds of foods that are lacking to ensure nutrition security."
How that message above got reinterpreted to maximizing yield of two main crops seems like another fascinating rabbit hole!
Great, thought provoking read. I've lived in the "grain belt" most of my life and grew up in a small farming community. I've always wondered, particularly the last few years, why farmers continue to plant more corn and soybeans when there's more global competition than ever, weather patterns are as unpredictable as ever, and input costs have skyrocketed. If the sector wasn't the most subsidized in the country (fossil fuel related may be first, which is whole other conversation) there's no way you'd keep doing it the same way and growing the same things. In my career, Diversify and Differentiate have always been mantras to growth and success. As you mentioned, by definition, "commodities" do not lend themselves to differentiation. I was told early in my career, if you do the same thing and offer the same product as your competition, "all you are is corn." Meaning, if you're a commodity and all you can do is compete on price, so you better be able to grow, and to Derek's comment below, you better be able to distribute cheaper and more efficiently than the other guy/country. Diversify. Differentiate. Distribute. What does that mean exactly? I'm not sure...but it's food for thought. :)
I may need to get a shirt printed with "All you are is corn"! What a great concept and phrase.
It is telling to me that many farmers have already begun diversifying their household income through off-farm jobs (70-80% of farm household income is from off-farm sources according to USDA and Farm Bureau). So this diversification shows up, just maybe not through the windshield driving through the countryside.
I do wonder if we are about to see the pendulum swing towards more diversification and differentiation at a crop level, beyond just at an income-stream level. As you know there are many challenges to this with agronomic, operational, market access, and even emotional considerations, but it sure seems like a moment when change is possible!
Another huge barrier to diversity, besides it possibly being woke, is the just massive infrastructure built around corn and beans. From drying and storage systems, specialized transport, combines, planters, and crucially an easy and available market for any surplus you can’t store immediately at harvest. All of this infrastructure is paid for by debt based on land values that are wildly inflated by the subsidies on insurance and ethanol production among others. Ethanol that actually produces more greenhouse gases than it mitigates🙄. There’s just no real way out, they’re leveraged on the land value and it’s corn and beans or quit. Or as you mentioned, get another job on the side for most of your income.
I always learn something from your articles and this one is no exception! And it gets me thinking.
I’ve spent a lot of time sitting with the idea that “farmers farm what they get paid for,” and therefore don’t wake up deciding to overproduce. They plant what the system de-risks. My work with startup consumer brands in the premium/natural space has shown me how new foods can become trends and eventually influence upstream supply — what was once novel (pea protein) or waste (whey) can become a demand signal.
But I’ve always struggled with the reality that the acreage map of America is far less a reflection of consumer preference and far more a reflection of policy design. Whether the future mission of agriculture leans more toward ethical or ecological outcomes, policy has been the single greatest force shaping what we plant and produce.
When farmers rely on their representatives in D.C. to bring the “pork,” what they’re really asking for is risk management — insurance programs, revenue floors, energy policy, disaster relief, trade protection. Those structures stabilize acreage and dampen the natural market corrections that would otherwise shift planting decisions more dramatically year to year.
So when we talk about “overproduction,” I’m not sure it’s accurate to frame it as a farmer behavior problem or even a simple demand mismatch. It feels more like an incentive design outcome. Supply gets de-risked first, and then the system innovates to absorb it — through feed, fuel, exports, and new product categories.
Which raises the bigger question for me: is agriculture responding primarily to demand pull, or to policy-engineered supply push? Because the answer shapes how we interpret everything from surplus to sustainability.
Thank you Jennifer! "They plant what the system de-risks." Yes times 1000!
While Federal policy does a lot to incentivize supply through crop insurance, commodity programs, and direct payments, Federal policy also puts a heavy thumb on the demand side through the Renewable Fuel Standard, Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs, and USDA trade missions. It's hard to untangle the two, but I think the outcome is the same, which you sum up really well, it all serves to "dampen the natural market corrections that would otherwise shift planting decisions more dramatically year to year."
You know as well as I that farmers are very good at cost/benefit calculations. So beyond the policy incentives built for the 1930s, it seems like agronomic, operational, economical, emotional constraints pile on top to make it hard to immediately respond to market price signals.
The reality is that the US Taxpayer has been subsidizing and bailing out farmers for overproducing for decades every time the price goes below cost of production the farmers get more checks in the mail they have also received checks when prices are high. Socialize the losses and privatize the profits it is a heads they win tails you lose for the American Farmers and a lose lose for the taxpayers. Yet most of them are supposed to be financial conservative Republicans that can not stop asking for more money.
I think the issue is more complex (as you've written about in past articles). These soybean and corn crops don't directly feed humans. Much of it goes to feeding livestock and for biofuel—a low-value use of the stuff because the EROI is just under 1.0. It's only economically feasible because of government subsidies. Rather than debating supply vs demand, we should scrutinize what that artificial demand is.
On a different note, there will always be humans who don't have enough food. We can argue that it's just a "distribution issue" or some other technological reason. But it comes down to ecological dynamics, or laws of nature. Modern man lives in a story that the world was made for humans, and that he can manipulate as much of nature to produce his food as he pleases. We take more and more land for industrial monocrops dependent on synthetic biocides and fertilizers. This increases the human population, which in turn requires more food (and energy, materials, land, water, etc.) in an endless feedback loop. Until we can change our view about our place in nature, we will always have BOTH apparent food overproduction and food scarcity. Understandably, many will not comprehend this argument without significant background information.
That is a really interesting question to consider what is "artificial" demand (which I take as any demand that wouldn't exist, but for Federal policies like the Renewable Fuel Standard). I'll have to look into studies done that estimate the additional bushels and acres required for any new biofuel policy.
On your second point, that it is an iron law of nature that "there will always be humans who don't have enough food" -- I simply don't agree with this. Not to get dark, but it wasn't long ago in the 1800s, that child mortality rates were so dramatic that 1 in 2 children would not make it to adulthood. Even as recent as 1950, that number was 1 in 4!
I am sure that many people in the late 1800s simply thought it was a "law of nature" that half of children would perish before their teens. I am grateful every single day that enough people did not accept that as a law of nature and made incremental progress (including addressing malnutrition) to get to where we are today that child mortality rates are more like 4 in 100 and in many places, 1 in 200 (and hopefully more progress can bring that even lower).
You may be heartened that the United Nations published an updated projection on population growth in 2024, with lower growth rates expected than the 2013 report. Global population is expected to reach a peak of ~10.3 billion people before 2100, and then gradually decline. So human population growth is not going to be exponential or even linear going forward, there is a maximum that will be reached (and relatively soon it appears!).
Hi Ariel, I agree with all of your points. Those points of declining child mortality are not rebuttals to my point, but a feature of it. It requires a lot of other background information that would be way too long for a comment or even a substack post. I'm working on a book for this reason. I fully acknowledge all of the wonderful things that human ingenuity has brought about in terms of improving human quality of life in the past few centuries. I've studied and written extensively on them. Reduction in disease, improvements in medicine, producing more food, indoor plumbing, and all the rest are marvelous! However, within this narrative of technological progress lies one big problem. The Hans Roslings, Steven Pinkers, and Matt Ridleys of the world are not necessarily incorrect—just incomplete. It is unlikely that the same system that is producing the metacrisis will solve it.
Thanks Tanner! I am looking forward to reading more of your work and understanding your thesis a little better!
Excellent article! I've always thought that "feeding people" is more of a distribution issue than a production one.
Thanks Derek! Yeah I have heard the distribution argument a lot, and there's probably some truth to it. However, when I was digging deeper into that original 2009 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report about feeding a growing global population, I thought it was really interesting that they don't mention distribution much at all. Instead, they emphasize production in developing countries where population growth is occurring and producing nutritious crops that humans consume (aka not field corn and soybeans, of which a very small portion is used to directly feed humans):
"The projections show that feeding a world population of 9.1 billion people in 2050 would require raising overall food production by some 70 percent between 2005/07 and 2050. Production in the developing countries would need to almost double. This implies significant increases in the production of several key commodities. Annual cereal production, for instance, would have to grow by almost one billion tonnes, meat production by over 200 million tonnes to a total of 470 million tonnes in 2050, 72 percent of which in the developing countries, up from the 58 percent today. Feeding the world population adequately would also mean producing the kinds of foods that are lacking to ensure nutrition security."
How that message above got reinterpreted to maximizing yield of two main crops seems like another fascinating rabbit hole!
Great, thought provoking read. I've lived in the "grain belt" most of my life and grew up in a small farming community. I've always wondered, particularly the last few years, why farmers continue to plant more corn and soybeans when there's more global competition than ever, weather patterns are as unpredictable as ever, and input costs have skyrocketed. If the sector wasn't the most subsidized in the country (fossil fuel related may be first, which is whole other conversation) there's no way you'd keep doing it the same way and growing the same things. In my career, Diversify and Differentiate have always been mantras to growth and success. As you mentioned, by definition, "commodities" do not lend themselves to differentiation. I was told early in my career, if you do the same thing and offer the same product as your competition, "all you are is corn." Meaning, if you're a commodity and all you can do is compete on price, so you better be able to grow, and to Derek's comment below, you better be able to distribute cheaper and more efficiently than the other guy/country. Diversify. Differentiate. Distribute. What does that mean exactly? I'm not sure...but it's food for thought. :)
I may need to get a shirt printed with "All you are is corn"! What a great concept and phrase.
It is telling to me that many farmers have already begun diversifying their household income through off-farm jobs (70-80% of farm household income is from off-farm sources according to USDA and Farm Bureau). So this diversification shows up, just maybe not through the windshield driving through the countryside.
I do wonder if we are about to see the pendulum swing towards more diversification and differentiation at a crop level, beyond just at an income-stream level. As you know there are many challenges to this with agronomic, operational, market access, and even emotional considerations, but it sure seems like a moment when change is possible!
Another huge barrier to diversity, besides it possibly being woke, is the just massive infrastructure built around corn and beans. From drying and storage systems, specialized transport, combines, planters, and crucially an easy and available market for any surplus you can’t store immediately at harvest. All of this infrastructure is paid for by debt based on land values that are wildly inflated by the subsidies on insurance and ethanol production among others. Ethanol that actually produces more greenhouse gases than it mitigates🙄. There’s just no real way out, they’re leveraged on the land value and it’s corn and beans or quit. Or as you mentioned, get another job on the side for most of your income.
I always learn something from your articles and this one is no exception! And it gets me thinking.
I’ve spent a lot of time sitting with the idea that “farmers farm what they get paid for,” and therefore don’t wake up deciding to overproduce. They plant what the system de-risks. My work with startup consumer brands in the premium/natural space has shown me how new foods can become trends and eventually influence upstream supply — what was once novel (pea protein) or waste (whey) can become a demand signal.
But I’ve always struggled with the reality that the acreage map of America is far less a reflection of consumer preference and far more a reflection of policy design. Whether the future mission of agriculture leans more toward ethical or ecological outcomes, policy has been the single greatest force shaping what we plant and produce.
When farmers rely on their representatives in D.C. to bring the “pork,” what they’re really asking for is risk management — insurance programs, revenue floors, energy policy, disaster relief, trade protection. Those structures stabilize acreage and dampen the natural market corrections that would otherwise shift planting decisions more dramatically year to year.
So when we talk about “overproduction,” I’m not sure it’s accurate to frame it as a farmer behavior problem or even a simple demand mismatch. It feels more like an incentive design outcome. Supply gets de-risked first, and then the system innovates to absorb it — through feed, fuel, exports, and new product categories.
Which raises the bigger question for me: is agriculture responding primarily to demand pull, or to policy-engineered supply push? Because the answer shapes how we interpret everything from surplus to sustainability.
Great job on this Ariel!
Thank you Jennifer! "They plant what the system de-risks." Yes times 1000!
While Federal policy does a lot to incentivize supply through crop insurance, commodity programs, and direct payments, Federal policy also puts a heavy thumb on the demand side through the Renewable Fuel Standard, Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs, and USDA trade missions. It's hard to untangle the two, but I think the outcome is the same, which you sum up really well, it all serves to "dampen the natural market corrections that would otherwise shift planting decisions more dramatically year to year."
You know as well as I that farmers are very good at cost/benefit calculations. So beyond the policy incentives built for the 1930s, it seems like agronomic, operational, economical, emotional constraints pile on top to make it hard to immediately respond to market price signals.
"yieldsmaxxing"
This phrase may be my greatest contribution as a writer, so am very pleased you called it out
Great article Ariel!!
Well Done !
loved this <3 every Friday I interview a farm tending to land and animals - I’d love if you stopped by and had a read!
The reality is that the US Taxpayer has been subsidizing and bailing out farmers for overproducing for decades every time the price goes below cost of production the farmers get more checks in the mail they have also received checks when prices are high. Socialize the losses and privatize the profits it is a heads they win tails you lose for the American Farmers and a lose lose for the taxpayers. Yet most of them are supposed to be financial conservative Republicans that can not stop asking for more money.
The Enduring Fantasy of Feeding the World > https://spectrejournal.com/the-enduring-fantasy-of-feeding-the-world/