Talk:Food security/Archive 2

Useful link proposed[edit]

The following link was proposed for addition to the article, but the article has a comment that tries to discourage the addition of any further links because the existing list is already long. I think this is a good site to add:

"Crop Wild Relatives and Climate Change". Global Crop Diversity Trust. Retrieved 22 August 2013.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed project[edit]

I am a student from Rice University in Houston, Tx, and I am thinking of extensively editing this page as part of a class project. Though the page is quite long, many sections lack adequate referencing. However, I have seen talk on this page that discourages the addition of any more references. I would like to remove some references that are not necessary (such as when one sentence has multiple references). If anyone has suggestions of improvements they would like to see, let me know. I would love to see this page taken up to a "Good article" rating. Khatchell (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision Proposal[edit]

As part of a class assignment, I have decided to revise this page with the hope of bringing it to a "Good article" rating. Now that I have completed a good amount of research on the topic, I would like to begin making improvements to the article. First of all, I would like to address the concerns raised by the banners at the top of the page: the long introduction, lack of citations, and outdated information. In order to do this, I will be introducing new information, relocating information and restructuring parts of the article.

Most importantly, I am proposing to change the definition of food security to one that is more descriptive and widely accepted. The current definition only mentions "availability" of and "access" to food. This is the definition I am proposing, from the World Food Summit in 1996. FAO. November 13, 1996. World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome. http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."

I will also be adding new sections on "Availability", "Access", "Stability", and "Utilization". These topics are cited by numerous sources as being instrumental in understanding food security. I would also like to add a brief section about the "right to adequate food", which the UN supports: United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 1999 The right to adequate food. General Comment 12. Geneva. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9

The rest of my work will involve reorganizing information in the article. I would like to create the headings "Causes of food insecurity" and "Effects of food insecurity". This will make it easier for readers to access this information. I would also like to create the heading "Effort to increase food security", which will incorporate information from the sections "Economic approaches" as well as other sections. I feel that the section "Gender and food security" takes up too large a proportion of the article, though it is undoubtedly an important issue. I would like to condense the section and remove uncited information. I would like to discuss the deletion some parts of the article. For example, I feel that the information under "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities" has no place in this article. The "Role of the World Bank" section may also need to be removed. In general, I am not sure how to approach the sections of the article that are not cited. Some of the information seems to be opinion, but I would appreciate advice before I remove material. I would like to know the opinions of other editors about these deletions. In general, I will be attempting to reconnect broken links, as well as correcting mistakes in linking to other articles (how often to make words a link, etc). I have seen comments on the talk page that suggest limiting the addition of new sources. However, I feel that this article is missing key information. Please let me know any thoughts before I begin. Khatchell (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page certainly needs work. If you can start off rather slowly, limiting each change to a particular section of the page or a particular topic, that will make it easier for us overworked wikipedians to follow along and see what we think of your approach. You might also want to think in terms or splitting out some material to make a new page, if removing the excess seems too harsh. There is so much material that could be added somewhere, such as the troubles in Colombia that are discussed here, but it will require a lot of contributors to get good polished coverage of agriculture and food issues into wikipedia, so I hope that you won't exhaust yourself with this massive task. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your willingness to advise on this page. I am the course professor - please let me know if you have any concerns as Khatchell works on the page.DStrassmann (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hei everyone! We are a group of 4 students who were planning to edit the Gender and Food Security sections of this article, but saw that there already exists a revision project on this page. Khatchell would it be okay if we take over the Gender section? CaroEhr (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khatchell and all. I agree with Sminthopsis, this article is really in bad shape. I don't remember ever reading a worse lead section. I agree with Khatchell in that a total revision is needed. IMO this is going to be a HUGE project, plus, in my experience a rewrite is even more difficult than starting out from scratch. I look forward to offering feedback as Khatchell begins his/her editing. I can suggest a few copy editors that may be willing to help polish the article once the major work is done (if they are needed). Good luck! Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khatchell, Sminthopsis and all, I am one of the members of the group CaroEhr mentioned. As we are planning to review the section of "gender and food security" sub-section, in parallel to existing plans to shorten the current sub-section, we plan to make it as a separate page with a hyperlink in the existing food security article with a short summary. We would love to hear your comments.BurcuMentes (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I wasn't planning on tackling the "Gender and food security" section beyond condensing it, so your work would really help. Feel free to take over that section. I agree that a new page for that information is necessary to decrease the length of this page. I have begun rearranging some of the content in the article, since I keep finding sections with incorrect headings, etc. I feel comfortable researching and adding new content, but I would appreciate help determining what sections need to be expanded and what new sections need to be added. I would appreciate comments on the section "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities" at the end of the article. I do not feel that the information and quote are important for the article. I would like to delete it, but Sminthopsis84 disagrees. Any opinions? Khatchell (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please let us know here when "Gender and food security" becomes a real page rather than a redirect, so we can watch its progress. (All new pages run some risk of being treated as not sufficiently notable for wikipedia.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. In parallel to World Food Summit's definition, we are planning to focus on food access, availability, food use and stability dimensions. In the existing article, we realized an excessive focus on “availability” - women as food producers- and other elements seems to be quite under-developed. We will let you know when we make it a real page. Please feel free to convey your comments in the meantime.BurcuMentes (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A great start would be for you to identify and list the sources you intend to use here. Good articles start with good sources. Also, taking any article to WP:GA status is a hefty task; I recommend making a single section of this article GA worthy as a reasonable goal for a group of students, especially if this group is feeling ambitious and wanting to start a new subarticle also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue Rasberry and dear wikipedians, we are creating a new page "Gender and Food Security" today. We will provide a small summary in the main "food security" page. You can see our references and the content in the new page. We will be glad to hear your proposals, recommendations and amendments. BurcuMentes (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedians, adding to the comment of BurcuMentes, we would like to inform you that we are editing the paragraph under "Gender and Food Security" and rearranging the contents under the new article. We are preparing the contents of availability, access, utilization, and stability, corresponding to the food security article. Thank you very much.Seul0417 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities[edit]

Khatchell (talk) asks above for opinions on whether to delete the section "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities", so I'll set that off in the usual wikipedia talk-page style as a new section laid out as for voting.

Oppose - I see it as very appropriate where it now is in the section on "Risks to food security", along with intellectual property rights and those other risks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only do I oppose, if anything it should be expanded. If I may get on a soapbox for a moment, this is just one more example of the way that wealthy nations manage to point to all they are doing for world hunger while their true motivation has been their own self-interests. I have found this to be true again and again when I look into what the wealthy claim to be be efforts to assist the poor nations. The disaster that NAFTA corn has brought to Mexican farmers and the failure of the billions in aid that was promised to help the poor of Haiti come to mind. Furthermore, it should never be assumed that world organizations are not influenced by politics either. It is well-known that to this day the UN refuses to accept the fact that they are responsible for the Haiti cholera epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that the section is poorly titled, and it only presents one viewpoint. The wording is too casual. In order to merit a place in this article, it should be expanded to include multiple viewpoints and edited to improve clarity. Khatchell (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that! I did not mean to say that it should exist as is, but considering that the entire article is being worked on, I assumed that it would be improved. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that expansion sounds good. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This material should not be included without more explication of the issues and viewpoints, of which there are many. DStrassmann (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khatchell's statement was, " I feel that the information under "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities" has no place in this article." I thought that I made it clear that I do not believe that it should be excluded, but that it definitely should be expanded on and included. I Oppose any line of thought that suggests that it has no place in this article. I Support the suggestion that it needs some work. Since Khatchell was asking for feedback, I felt I was giving feedback on improving the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, we don't usually delete material that could use work, since it can act as an important place-holder for future work on the encyclopedia and as an hint to readers of what else they might like to investigate. It can be easier to fix poor text than to start again from scratch. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently expert on the topic to comment, but I'll just note that I agree that we should not delete sections just because they are weak, unless they are factually wrong. Improving an article doesn't have to mean fixing everything wrong with it. FYI, I am one of the online ambassadors for the course Khatchell and her fellow students are on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic approaches[edit]

The "Economic approaches" section of this article has no citations, and I am not sure that there is a specific "Westernized" view that deserves mentioning. I'm also not sure if the "Food sovereignty" and "Food justice" approaches are prominent. I know that the current section is in bad shape, but I have not researched economic approaches so I am not sure of what notable approaches there are. If anyone has any knowledge of the most prominent economic approaches to food security, this information would be very useful. Khatchell (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with your view on the "Westernized" view and believe that it should just be deleted. However, IMO Food sovereignty is one of, or perhaps even the major, contributor to world food insecurity, and there are plenty of sources that support this point of view. The Food justice section could go as it fits very well into the Food sovereignty section. Since this article is too long per WP suggested length, it could have a summary here with a link to the main article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, do you think the food sovereignty view leads to food security, or food insecurity? And you support deleting the "Food justice" section, or combining the information in the food sovereignty section? I am going to delete the "Westernized view" and I don't think this will lessen the quality of the article in any way. I agree that a summary would be perfect, perhaps I can work on that next. Khatchell (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the section up to where it seemed to fit rather than give it its own heading at the bottom. It's not that I feel that it is unimportant--in my view it is of major importance in that it contrasts the general views that more massive farms using GM seed, more globalization, etc., will ease world hunger. Around the world small farmers have moved into cities and they are now eating imported foods that they once grew on their own small farms. The last few years one is seeing encouraging changes in South America. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of modernisation is an increase in productivity, hence a decrease in the number of people actually growing food. I'm surprised to see that framed as a bad thing. bobrayner (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food wastage; social crises

Pakistan has the sixth largest population in the world and is facing serious issues of food insecurity and malnutrition. 36 million tons of food is wasted in Pakistan. According to the Global Hunger Index, “Pakistan ranks as a country with serious hunger level”. Food waste is common in marriage ceremonies and in university cafes and hostels. As a Muslim country, we are facing quite extreme crises regarding production, handling, distribution and consumption of food in Pakistan. According to the reports, the amount of food waste produced globally every year is more than enough to feed all the hungry people around the world. Food insecurity is one of the main reasons that cause the violent conflict between the people. The statistics report that in major hotels in Islamabad 870kg of food is wasted every day. Food waste has deep impact on natural resources because it takes more than 3,500 liters to produce the healthy food. The production of food involves agriculture cultivation, fuel, electricity, transportation and labor work, and when food is wasted all these resources eventually go waste too. The lack of food leads to social disruptions and political instability. We all have seen this in most of the cities in Pakistan when the lack of sugar and flour took place, which caused the huge disruption and disorder in our social and political system. Same is the case with the food wastage. Food wastage increases the methane emission which contributes to climate change to a larger extent. Due to a grave vulnerable condition of climate, we will see 50% of reduction of crops and yields in Pakistan by 2030. In most of the countries we see that hungry people search for food even from the waste dumps and it’s because of our indifference. The amount of food waste in our educational institutions and hostels are more than enough to feed hundreds and thousands of people in the capital city of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAsimSiddiqi (talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are not looking at the entire picture. The thousands of people that are pushed off of the small farms are then unemployed. Many of them move to the cities resulting in high rates of crime, lack of housing, tax burdens, etc. Or they move to other countries looking for work, such as we have here in the US, where they work for what ever they can get, which is not much because they are at the mercy of corporate power without governmental support. This is just barely touching the surface of the problems that our present farming practices have caused, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone about what I consider to be quite obvious, anymore than they could convince me of otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that people still believe in the luddite fallacy. If you'd like a "bigger picture", try plotting human development indices against agricultural productivity, per country; or plot them over time, if you'd rather the big picture was historical. Personally, I'm happy with a fulfilling high-tech job, modern public services, and disposable income; you're probably not toiling in the fields trying to raise just enough food to feed your household. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That type of development and food security are at odds for several reasons. One is that children grow up not knowing how to produce food, which makes them vulnerable. Trying to raise just enough food to feed your family is just one possible scenario. Ravishing the land to permit highly mechanized, high input (of fertilizer and pesticide) farming does not lead to food security except in the short term. "The luddite fallacy" is rather provocative language that I hope you will rethink. High-tech jobs, modern services, disposable income, and fulfilling jobs in primary production of high quality food are perfectly compatible. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequiteurs are no more helpful than the luddite fallacy. So what if many children don't learn how to operate a combine harvester? They don't have to, because we have modern agriculture with higher productivity. Most children won't learn how to make antibiotics or computers either; it doesn't make them vulnerable, because specialisation is quite normal in modern society (and is a prerequisite for it, in fact). bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review[edit]

Overall I believe the most recent set of additions to this page by User:Khatchell, have gone a long way towards improving the overall quality of this page. Coverage of the 4 pillars of food security enhances the content of the page by providing a framework for examining the issue. All of the writing is well cited, suggesting a strong academic basis for the writing, and is well written. My only question would be: Is the multimedia content (images/videos) on this page excessive? I found that the sheer number somewhat distracted from the content of the page, slightly decreasing readability. Clearly, a fairly simple thing to consider and work on. Well done! Jpoles1 (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I planned to bring this up as well. I was thinking to remove the barley and the storage tanks photos. As for the others, I don't find them excessive--but I tend to like a lot of photos, etc. I plan to change the large greenhouse one I added as I later found a better one. I'll make those changes now and see what others think. Yes, good work Khatchell! Gandydancer (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see that the lead still needs work. Also, the article is quite long if Khatchell wants to try for a GA. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Jpoles1, User:Khatchell has done a great job of improving this article. I think the citing makes the additions very credible, and overall it was fairly easy to read. There were a couple of sections where the wording or sentence structure could be a little clearer, but overall it was a informative and straightforward read. One thing that you could consider adding that may make the contribution better is a map showing the rates of undernourishment for each country. Great job! Momo137 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments! I agree that the article had a few too many images, and I will not look to add any more. I will work on the wording in a few of the sections I added, and then I will probably edit a few more sections. I agree that the lead section is still too long, so I will work on making it an introduction/summary of the article. I may also work on editing the sections that should be summaries, starting with the economic approaches section. Let me know if there are any topics I should consider! Perhaps this article will be ready for a GA nomination soon. Khatchell (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GE crops[edit]

What do you all think of removing the first mention of GE crops: Biotechnology for smallholders in the (sub)tropics? GE crops is again brought up and any info from this section could be included in the later section. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support combining the relevant information into one section. The title of that section is too specific, anyways. Khatchell (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The agriculture-hunger-poverty nexus section[edit]

This section begins with a long copy vio. Here: [1] That's as far as I looked, but I'd guess that there is more copy vio.

Basically this long para goes on and on about the fact that poor people are stuck in poverty. It is not properly sourced and needs to be looked at, so rather than try to rework the copy vio I'll leave it for now.

BTW, I believe that the book I linked to provides some essential information re the importance of small local farms and gardens to decrease food insecurity. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Sections to SNAP Page[edit]

Seeking feedback on the following

New Sections[edit]

Eligibility[edit]

Applying for SNAP benefits[edit]

Subsections Under Impact[edit]

Food Security[edit]

Poverty[edit]

Diet Quality[edit]

Thank you, Kalyncweber (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program article? It certainly needs tidying up. bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-section on fertiliser?[edit]

I am surprised to see so little about fertiliseeeer in this article. Surely fertiliser is a bit component of agricultural productivity and food security. I think there should be a sub-section on fertiliser which could then link to the main article on fertiliser. Connected to the fertiliser issue is the issue of phosphorus being a limited resource which will go up in price. Here we could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus EvM-Susana (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this article was recently blanked[edit]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: In your last revison of this page, a part of the lead section was accidentally removed. Can you repair this part of the article? Jarble (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a botch job, wasn't it? I'm looking into it. Thanks for calling to my attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now what do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global catastrophic risks[edit]

First I could not confirm a sentence was supported by its RS, and then Stonejm9 (talk · contribs) changed the ref to a 1993 paper, which I think also fails verification. Given what appears to be two unsuccessful attempts to provide needed references, I struck the new disputed text until this can be resolved. The struck text, with updated 1993 cite, is

A number of global catastrophic risks threaten food security. Earth has undergone dramatic temperature fluctuations in the past, with roughly 10°C regional changes in one decade.^[1]

Stonejm9, can you please point to the salient sentence or paragraph you are relying on? Also, this is just a single paper and from 1993 besides. If that is a robust finding, there must be additional sources to beef it up. Can you suggest any? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refs for this thread[edit]

References

^ Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) Members 1993 "Climate instability during the last interglacial period recorded in the GRIP ice core." Nature 364, 203–207.

Too many See Also and External Links[edit]

I think there are far too many "see also" and external links here. This should be cut down to the really important ones. Terms that are in the main text do not need to be repeated under "see also". I am going to make a start to cut it down.EvM-Susana (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessari, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070611071544/http://www.energybulletin.net:80/281.html to http://www.energybulletin.net/281.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080824102712/http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200804/s2232076.htm?tab=asia to http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200804/s2232076.htm?tab=asia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Reig-Martinez's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Reig-Martinez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

NEW TEXT THAT COULD BE INTRODUCED IN THE 'HISTORY' SECTION, JUST BEFORE '2007-08 CRISIS', THUS ANSWERING THE REQUEST OF KEEPEING RECENT EVENTS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The risk of incurring in a situation of global food insecurity has been often linked to the potential emergence of an imbalance between food production and population. The modern concern with this topic has an honourable precedent in classical economic thought: Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). According to this great economist, temporary improvements in wellbeing set in motion a natural drive that pushes human populations to expand and overcome their means of subsistence, reaching eventually a new, - and lower - equilibrium level of income per capita due to the effect of a set of "natural brakes" (poverty, illness). The core of his argument tends to emphasize that any increase in income per head will be neutralized, sooner or later, by an increase in the number of inhabitants. Then, a larger number of mouths to feed will force a rise in food prices relative to workers’ wages and the average purchasing power will decline. In modern economic parlance, a rising food demand will meet the law of decreasing returns in farming ,- within a context of technological stagnation -, driving up unit production costs and the real price of food. An expansion of land area for cultivation will not solve the problem. For a time the standard of living will rise, inducing a rise and fertility and a fall in mortality and population growth would continue to devour the gains in wellbeing until the average wage fell to its original level. Malthusian pessimism underlies the assumption that a permanent change in the standard of living can arise only from restraint in fertility, or a worsening of mortality (more deaths at each wage level).
In moderns times, a higher life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, rising income per capita at constant prices, and greater availability of food per person, not only in developed but also in the developing countries, have witnessed that Malthusian "brakes" have not been able to act globally in the contemporary world, except in exceptional cases. Since the end of World War II population growth has occurred mainly as a result of falling mortality rates, while fertility rates have tended to decrease in most countries. And contrary to Malthus’ expectations, a rising income per capita has not given rise to larger families, but smaller ones.
Despite the current concentration of population growth in the developing economies, it cannot be said either that the world is witnessing a Third World’s version of Malthus prophecies. Aided by advances in farming technology and new crop varieties, food production per capita in most regions of the developing world has grown even faster than in highly industrialized countries. Countries like India or China, which used to be put as an example of a demographic bomb, have seen agricultural output per capita to rise to a level that corresponded in 2007 to respectively 139% and 279% of the 1970 level.
Unfortunately not all regions of the developing world have shown a progress in the domestic availability of food similar to that recorded in East Asia or even in South Asia. Decreasing per capita food production in sub-Saharan Africa has been a serious concern for many years, given the inadequacy of the average levels of caloric intake in this area, and reflected the economic stagnation, civil wars and political chaos that has plagued the region in the last half century.
Still a very large number of people in the world face the problem of hunger and in many countries child mortality rates reflect a poor diet. However, now it is commonly accepted that this situation is more a consequence of the unequal distribution of worldwide purchasing power than of the inadequacy of global food production. It is a manifestation of poverty that prevents people’s demand for food to show up as a solvent demand in the market, generating an appropriate supply response, either domestically or through the purchase of imported food.
The vast majority of hungry people live currently in developing countries. Two-thirds live in seven countries: Bangladesh, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia and Pakistan. According to estimates of FAO (2010), 578 million of the total numbers of undernourished people lived in the Asia-Pacific region, 239 million in sub-Saharan Africa, 53 million in Latin America and the Caribbean, 37 million in North Africa and the Near East, and 19 million in developed countries. Undernourishment is understood as a situation where energy intake received by a person lies below the minimum food energy which is necessary for performing light activities and maintaining a minimum acceptable weight according to height. Sex, age, and geographic location contribute to establish different minimum requirements. The two basic goals that the international community has set in relation to undernutrition were established by the World Food Summit of 1996 as the first Millennium Development Goals, and consisted in halving the numbers of undernourished between 1990-92 and 2015. At present, the highest proportion of undernourished people on the total population is reached in the African continent, with 30%.
Predictions as to the availability of food per capita over the coming decades revolve around certain assumptions about the trends in population and income per capita, and about the ability of agricultural supply to react positively to a growing demand. It can be said that, in terms of demographics, the main challenges are concentrated in the next half century, during which world population may increase by 3.000 million people, or almost 50% compared to the present. It is worth noting, however, that the world population, while still recording large global increases, has entered into a clear process of decelerating growth, not only in countries with high income levels but also in developing countries. Predictably, the population of developed countries will decrease by 2050 by 2 per cent, while the population living in developing countries will have increased by 64 per cent, with the fastest increase corresponding to Africa. The total world population could then reach around 9.000 million.
Population growth is the main determinant of rising food needs, and in this sense it makes demand for food fairly predictable. The uncertainty is greater concerning the projections of agricultural production growth, but there are grounds for cautious optimism. In the last fifty years, increases in production per capita have been remarkable, and for example, in the case of cereals, the global per capita availability has increased by an average annual rate of 0.5 per 100. Since this increase in production has taken place in a context of reduction in real prices of cereals and other foods, this represents a considerable achievement, because not only the availability but also access to food has been increased, reducing the proportion of undernourished in developing countries.
The expansion of grain production, as well as roots and tubers, - which make up the second group of crops in the overall direct contribution to caloric intake - has been produced primarily by increased yields per unit area, while the extension of cultivated area did not change so much. Since the trend of yields in metric tons per hectare has a linear character, yields’ growth rates are declining. This should not represent, in theory, a global problem as long as the slowdown in population growth continues, and in any case a rise in yields above the recent historical trend would be possible if adequate financial incentives were in place – like sustained price increases -. In these circumstances the increase in average production per unit area would mainly occur through the reduction of the wide gap between maximum potential yields and those actually obtained in all those lands that meet the appropriate growing conditions.
See: Reig, E (2011) "Food security in African and Arab countries: a review of the topic and some suggestions for building composite indicators with Principal Components Analysis" Working Paper in FP7 project "Sustainable agri-food systems and rural development in the Mediterranean Partner Countries" (SUSTAINMED, European Commission ,Grant agreement no.: 245233)

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Reig-Martinez has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Ernest Reig, 2012. "Food security in African and Arab countries: a review of the topic and some suggestions for building composite indicators with Principal Components Analysis," Working Papers 1210, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pouliot's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Pouliot has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is briefly mentioned but another thing to consider is access to safe food. Food can be plentiful but not edible for a variety of reasons. I do not like this sentence: "However, respected scientists do question the safety of biotechnology as a panacea; agroecologists Miguel Altieri and Peter Rosset have enumerated ten reasons[91] why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty, reasons that include: ..." The wording suggests that this is a common opinion among scientists that biotechnology is unsafe. I would write: "However, there is no consensus on the safety of biotechnology and some scientists like agroecologists Miguel Altieri and Peter Rosset do not see biotechnology as a panacea [91]"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Pouliot has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Pouliot, Sebastien, 2011. "The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act and the Exemption for Small Firms," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103885, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Headey's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Headey has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The 2007-08 crisis contains no academic references - why report newspaper articles instead of careful academic studies? THere are many here: Headey and Fan (2008, 2010), Abbott et al, Mitchell at the World Bank.
There is also a literature on the impacts of the crisis, particularly papers by Maros IVanic and William Martin, and Derek Headey. They conclude that the short run impacts of higher food prices were probably adverse in aggregate, but that the long run benefits may have actually reduced poverty by increasing the demand for unskilled labor, and hence unskilled wages.
On measuremenet, the Gallup World POll has also started measuring food insecurity through a project called Voices of the Poor.
The section on availability should more explicitly mention trade (imports).
On "Access" some mention should be made of governance and conflict. It is not just poverty defined as income - many famines occur in conflict areas (e.g. Somalia). Of course, poor governance in general causes many problems: poor ability to store food and stabilize prices, poor monitoring of food insecurity, slow response, etc.
the section on stunting and chronic nutritional deficiencies should cite Black et al's article in the 2013 Lancet series on nutrition
Why separate challenges to achieving food security from risks? They seem the same.
The page is a little US-centric with a special section on food security in the US and USAID's feed the future. There are many such initiatives.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Headey has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Headey, Derek D. & Ecker, Olivier, 2012. "Improving the measurement of food security:," IFPRI discussion papers 1225, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704120613/http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/080902_water_shortages.htm to http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/080902_water_shortages.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for additional information regarding GM crops[edit]

Hi all, I have chosen to work on this article for a class assignment and would like to make some contributions regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, specifically their implication in rural areas. There is an existing subsection under “Risks to food security” about genetic engineering and the supposed loss of biodiversity, yet there is no section containing any counter arguments. I do understand this is a controversial topic and some of the implications are not even known yet, but I think it would be valuable to present both sides of the GM crop story to show how they could increase food security. I would also like to contribute a few more recent topics and examples to the risks section.

I am proposing to add a new subsection called “Genetically modified crops” under the “Approaches” header, following the subsection entitled “Improving agricultural productivity to benefit the rural poor.” In this section, I would include several positive aspects of using GM crops from recent sources. For example, a strain of rice has been modified to be resistant to blast, which is a common disease in rice crop (Shew, A. M., Nalley, L. L., Danforth, D. M., Dixon, B. L., Nayga, R. M., Delwaide, A., & Valent, B. (2015). Are all GMOs the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 14(1), 4-7. doi:10.1111/pbi.12442). Some other crops have been modified such that they produce higher yields per plant or that they require less land to be grown on, which is helpful in extreme climates with little arable land and also decreases deforestation (Makinde, D., Mumba, L., & Ambali, A. (2009). Status of Biotechnology in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 11(3), 1-10. Retrieved July 17, 2016). Others yet do not require the use of insecticides or fungicides, which actually has improved biodiversity (Gerasimova, K. (2015). Debates on Genetically Modified Crops in the Context of Sustainable Development. Sci Eng Ethics Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 525-547. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9656-y).

To the risks section, I propose to add more information about the likely lack of transferability of one type of GM crop from one region to another. In many cases, modified crops that have proven successful in Asia have failed in a region of Africa (Fischer, K. (2016). Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral—A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution. Science Direct, 45(6), 1185-1194. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.007). There is also a drastic lack of education given to governments, farmers, and the community about the science behind GM crops, as well as suitable growing practices. This has resulted in failure to properly grow crops as well as strong opposition to the unknown practices (Wedding, K., Tuttle, J. N., Applefield, A., Downie, R., & Tahir, F. (2013). Pathways to productivity: The role of GMOs for food security in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Retrieved July 10, 2016). Please let me know if you have any suggestions on the general organization of these sections within the article or anything related to the proposed content. Wasiuk.s (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food wastage; social crises

Pakistan has the sixth largest population in the world and is facing serious issues of food insecurity and malnutrition. 36 million tons of food is wasted in Pakistan. According to the Global Hunger Index, “Pakistan ranks as a country with serious hunger level”. Food waste is common in marriage ceremonies and in university cafes and hostels. As a Muslim country, we are facing quite extreme crises regarding production, handling, distribution and consumption of food in Pakistan. According to the reports, the amount of food waste produced globally every year is more than enough to feed all the hungry people around the world. Food insecurity is one of the main reasons that cause the violent conflict between the people. The statistics report that in major hotels in Islamabad 870kg of food is wasted every day. Food waste has deep impact on natural resources because it takes more than 3,500 liters to produce the healthy food. The production of food involves agriculture cultivation, fuel, electricity, transportation and labor work, and when food is wasted all these resources eventually go waste too. The lack of food leads to social disruptions and political instability. We all have seen this in most of the cities in Pakistan when the lack of sugar and flour took place, which caused the huge disruption and disorder in our social and political system. Same is the case with the food wastage. Food wastage increases the methane emission which contributes to climate change to a larger extent. Due to a grave vulnerable condition of climate, we will see 50% of reduction of crops and yields in Pakistan by 2030. In most of the countries we see that hungry people search for food even from the waste dumps and it’s because of our indifference. The amount of food waste in our educational institutions and hostels are more than enough to feed hundreds and thousands of people in the capital city of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAsimSiddiqi (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these proposed additions would benefit the existing article. Amyc29 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that adding more about genetically modified crops would be beneficial, I believe that there are some more examples that would exemplify the importance of GMO crops regarding food security, specifically golden rice and other vitamin-enriched crops.Reilly.mega (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After making more additions to the GM crop sections of this article, I decided instead to add an entirely new section entitled "Use of genetically modified (GM) crops" and merged the information from the previous "Risks - Hybridization, genetic engineering, and loss of biodiversity" and "Approaches - Genetically modified crops" sections. This allowed me to clearly present the pros and cons of using GM crops and organized it in such a way that it will be more valuable to the reader. Wasiuk.s (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Edits[edit]

I feel that this article would be best if it was made shorter, as the length of the document is a little daunting to the reader. While I understand that this is an important topic, it would be more accessible to readers if it is shortened and split into more numerous and smaller articles. One example of an article that could be written is the history of food security, overall, or even in a singular place. Additionally, if someone is interested in specifically how GMO crops affect food security, this could be its own article.Reilly.mega (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that each section of this article could be its own article, I am particularly interested in how gender and privilege relate to food security and would love to see that as its own article. I also do not know another area in which to state these copy editing comments, so I would advise that once genetically modified or GMO is identified as GM or GMO these acronyms should be used consistently. I also feel that it would be helpful to state more specific examples; rather than stating that multiple countries have a certain practice, state the specific countries and what they do. This would be easier if the articles are separated, so more details could be added.Reilly.mega (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that adding more about genetically modified crops would be beneficial, I believe that there are some more examples that would exemplify the importance of GMO crops regarding food security, specifically golden rice and other vitamin-enriched crops.Reilly.mega (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is water security part of food security?[edit]

Wondered about that as I'm not sure whether or not to add Category:Food security to Category:Water security.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104185458/http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsec/files/fsguide.pdf to http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsec/files/fsguide.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nutrition.highwire.org/content/136/5/1404S.short
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nutrition.highwire.org/content/136/5/1449S.short
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204092639/http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/summit/basic.html to http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/summit/basic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People of Color[edit]

I noticed in reading that the only time race was mentioned on this wiki topic was in the Children and Food Security section; however, the topic of food security is a very racial issue, especially in the US. People of color are disproportionately more food insecure than whites; this is something that should have been mentioned. There was a section on gender inequity in food security; that's critical and I'm glad it was posted. In order to have more equal representation of critical topics such as gender and race, I'm putting forward the consideration of including a section solely on race and food security. Spence Defense (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, I think it would be interesting to have section on food security specifically in the Central Valley of California, since it is a huge food producing area, but much of the population does not have good accessibility to healthy foods. These communities tend to be people of color as well, and especially Latino households. Here is a preliminary bibliography for some sources that could be helpful to this topic:

Minkoff-Zern, Laura-Anne. "Hunger Amidst Plenty: Farmworker Food Insecurity and Coping Strategies in California." Local Environment, vol. 19, no. 2, Feb. 2014, pp. 204-219. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.729568.

Kaiser, LL, et al. "Food Insecurity and Food Supplies in Latino Households with Young Children." Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, vol. 35, no. 3, May/Jun2003, pp. 148-153. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=106710206&site=eds-live.

Olson, Christine M., et al. "Factors Protecting against and Contributing to Food Insecurity among Rural Families." Family Economics & Nutrition Review, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan. 2004, pp. 12-20. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=14397393&site=eds-live. --Bumblebee024 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Race and Class in "Food security in the U.S."[edit]

Within the section of "Food security in the U.S.," there is little mention of the affects of food insecurity on communities of color other than a graphic and a very ambiguous section on undocumented immigrants. The graphic's mention of race is lost among the plethora of other subjects of food insecurity that are looked at. If the graphic currently shown is kept, there should be writing that explains what the visual is saying. However, it would be helpful to include other graphics that can either replace this one or be added to the page.

With this discussion on current food security issues in the U.S. comes the inherent connection to race and class. Linking wiki-pages like the one on food deserts, that gave an in-depth description on racism within food security, may be a helpful way to start this discussion. If challenges arise in finding more citable evidence in the ways race is related to food security, programs like Feeding America, which is recognized by the IRS, has specific pages talking about hunger within certain communities of color.

Having a subsection "Groups and Movements" would be helpful in explaining what is currently happening and what is being done about it. There are news articles that mention these groups like "Uprooting Racism in the Food System: African Americans Organize" on the Huffington Post. An example of a movement that should be mentioned in this section is Food Justice (although there is a separate section towards the end of the "Food Security" page that mentions the Food Justice movement, it would be helpful in this section). Bringing up topics such as food deserts and school lunches are helpful in discussing current issues related to food security.

Food Justice Movement[edit]

Please note that a main article for Food Justice Movement has recently been created. Currently it is lacking in many elements and it would be good for some information here to be transferred over. Marc Mywords (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Food security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atate27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hopeslee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2019 and 27 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jumana97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaisyM44.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) Members 1993 "Climate instability during the last interglacial period recorded in the GRIP ice core." Nature 364, 203–207.

[1]