Malthus may have been the first person to comment in the English language on the relationship between human population and food. His thought was that our ability to grow sufficient food would diminish as our population grew. This was taken up by Daniel Quinn in his book
Ismael. Quinn also spoke about this effect of increasing population in the first of two videos “Food Production and Population Growth,” available on YouTube.
Although Quinn was a proponent of population reduction, when the idea of using food reduction to slow population growth in Part 1, he was critical. He responded: “…we can’t ever think of having some global police force going around checking people’s barns and seeing how much hay they have and how much they’re growing in their fields….” (lightly edited).
The idea of population control by restricting access to food has been brought up more recently. Hopfenberg and Pimentel divide their paper “Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply” into eight sections.[1] Section six is titled: “The effects of halting increases in food production”. In this section they state:
“The impingement of the food and nutrient limitation, although subtle, will eventually serve to curb human reproduction. This may occur through social mechanisms, choice behavior or reproductive–biological mechanisms. In other words, halting increases in food production will halt the increases in population by means of a reduced birth rate.”
Hopfenberg and Pimentel go on to state:
“Thus, there appears to be two available systemic methods of population control.
One is to continue to fuel population growth through increased food production and allow biological mechanisms such as malnutrition and disease to limit the population by means of an increased death rate. The other is to cap the increases in food production and thereby halt the increases in population by means of a reduced birth rate. Instead of depending on malnutrition and disease to limit human numbers, a social mechanism in response to a stable food supply, might be for humans to limit their numbers democratically or consensually or to employ incentives.”
The idea of decreasing the supply of food in order to decrease human population was brought up more recently by Steven Earl Salmony:[2]
“This means consciously and humanely stabilizing, and then gradually reducing, global food production to a level that is sustainable for the planet, while simultaneously achieving a more equitable distribution of that food.”
I see several problems with this train of thought:
1. Political. For this to work, it would be necessary for every country in the world to be involved in a food abundance control system. It is doubtful that any country would cooperate with such a plan. For my own country, the United States of America, our current president has a BMI of over 28, which puts him in the overweight range. It is unlikely that his administration would consider a plan to control the free market of food supply. Without the cooperation of the US, such a plan is unlikely to work.
2. Ethical. It is not ethical for us in a rich country to suggest that all people have access to reduced, but equal, amounts of food.
3. Moral. It seems unfair that people with an abundant supply of food would dictate limiting food supply to those who have little. I would like to learn the BMI of the people suggesting this food reduction plan. Mine is 21.7 kg/m2.
4. Practical. This plan apparently requires even distribution of food. People have been trying to develop systems for this for decades with little success.
5. Physiological. Fertility decreases in both women and men with decreasing food supply; this is one reason that people who have inadequate food have fewer children. For women, the decrease in fertility starts at a BMI of about 18.5.[3] For men, the decrease in fertility starts a little heavier, with a BMI of about 20.[4] These BMIs do not cause absolute infertility, however; that might require significantly lower weights.
6. Hunger increases aggression: It has been found that hunger increases irritability and aggression. That may have been one of the causes of the genocide in Rwanda.[5]
7. War: One of the causes of armed conflict is unequal food supply. Since it would be impossible to decrease food supply equally all over the world, the proposed plan would be likely to increase the risk of armed conflict.
8. Population control: During the past century there have been several governmental efforts to control population growth; some have been successful, but all have been met with criticism. I expect that any attempt to control human population by manipulating food supply would also be met with criticism. When the locus of control is in the hands of the people themselves, programs are much more acceptable. Voluntary family planning has already been successful in slowing our growth. The challenge ahead is to reach people who do not have access to effective family planning.
Although it may seem appealing to slow (or even reverse) human population growth by restricting food intake, there are many obstacles to doing so. I agree with the goal, to slow and reverse our growth in human numbers. However, I strongly prefer the current method—with voluntary family planning. I consider lowering barriers to modern contraception access and to safe abortion care to be much more acceptable than trying to increase barriers to food. Globally, it is estimated that 966 million women and couples are using family planning currently. However, another 164 million women who wish to control their fertility are not using contraception.[6] Making family planning services more accessible to them would be a big step toward reversing human population growth.
References
[1] Hopfenberg, R. & Pimentel, D. (2001). Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 3 (1):1–15.
[2] Salmony, S.E. (2026). Food Supply, Population Growth, and Ecological Overshoot. Mother Pelican, February 2026.
[3] Boutaria, C., Pappas, P.D., Mintziori, G., Nigdelis, M.P., Athanasiadis, L., Goulis, D.G., Mantzoros, C.S. (2020). The effect of underweight on female and male reproduction. Metabolism Journal, Volume 107, 2020.
[4] Sermondade, N., Faure, C., Fezeu, L., Shayeb, A.G., Bonde, J.P., Jensen, T.K., Van Wely, M., Cao, J., Martini, A.C., Eskandar, M., Chavarro, J.E., Koloszar, S., Twigt, J.M., Ramlau-Hansen, C.H., Borges, Jr., E., Lotti, F., Steegers-Theunissen, R.P.M., Zorn, B., Polotsky, A.J., La Vignera, S., Eskenazi, B., Tremellen,K., Magnusdottir, E.V., Fejes, I., Hercherg, S., Lévy, R., Czernichow, S. (2013). BMI in relation to sperm count: an updated systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update, Volume 19, Issue 3, May/June 2013, pp. 221–23.
[5] Gasana, J. 2002. Remember Rwanda? World Watch Magazine, September/October pp. 24-33.
[6] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022). World Family Planning 2022: Meeting the changing needs for family planning: Contraceptive use by age and method.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Richard Grossman is a retired physician, an obstetrician-gynecologist who has been fortunate to live and work in the wonderful community of Durango, Colorado, for 40 years. He writes a monthly blog on issues of human population, available at Population Matters.
|
|Back to Title|
LINK TO THE CURRENT ISSUE
LINK TO THE HOME PAGE
