Eat local - starve a peasant.
This got me thinking about food politics again.
I'm going to do a big post on this fairly soon, and this is just a sketch. I'd be interested in people's views. And if anyone has a subscription to the economist, this is a good primer.
-----
In many ways Environmentalism and International Development are conflicting, if not totally incompatible agendas. Which is ironic, given that they tend to both be pushed by the same people, simultaneously.
[ ] Local food restricts developing countries’ access to world markets – thereby stunting their economic grown;
[ ] Organic and GM-free foods encourage biodiversity, but can’t possibly produce the yields needed to avert famines in the developing world;
[ ] So called ‘Fairtrade’ locks third world producers into inefficient, commodity-crop farming when they should be diversifying – thereby ensuring they will never earn more than just-above-poverty wages.
These agendas are both essentially bourgeois. It’s alright for us in the west because we are rich and developed enough to be able to make these food choices without risk, but to enforce them on the developing world is a death sentence – economically, developmentally, and (in many cases) physically.
Sadly, many on the left don’t actually want the third world to develop. They’d rather keep them in a mythical, agrarian ‘golden age’ and have this patronising view of people there as ‘noble savages’ – victims who need to be ‘saved’ from globalisation and the west.
They can’t accept the unpalatable truth that what people in the developing world REALLY want is to be go-getting, middle-class capitalists like the rest of us.
Comments?
I agree with you. It's always funny to watch lefties in the Muswell Hill Sainsbury's work themselves up over whether to buy Organic or 'Fairtrade' fruit 'n' veg. No doubt little Emma is one of those people. Anyway, I'm missing your posts on her! I've written a few articles but I can't compete with you; you're a wonderful writer - really like your style.
Thanks Justin, that's nice of you, and I'm enjoying your blog too.
I'm normally quite a restrained and considered writer. It takes something pretty special (like Emma) to bring me our in a fit of swearing.
But as you asked so nicely, I'll see if I can rile myself up and do another one!
;-)
Oh dear, hope I don't stunt your love-in boys :
[1] If its developing nations economic growth you are concerned about, you'll be lobbying for an end to subsidies of developed nations farmers then, wouldn't you??
[2] There is more than enough food produced by the world, far more than enough to feed everyone in the world. Famine in Africa and elsewhere is not because of lack of food. Growing more food in places where there is already enough will never feed the hungry of Africa.
[3] On the contrary, Fairtrade works to 'unlock' the markets for the commodities that the developing world is best at growing. Its a nonsense that sugar beet is grown in Europe & the US, and they are because we pay to subsidize the practice.
All good right wing principles, applied appropriately, rather than dogmatically. Not everyone that shops at Sainsbury's is a pinko, just perhaps better economic minds than you two luvies.
Pip pip
Paul
Paul, how do you know that Farhenheit's a "he"? I don't!
Thanks Paul, new readers are always welcome. If you’d felt brave enough to leave a blog link, you might even have gained some new fans yourself ;-)
Ahem, anyway, on to your points.
[1] Yes, I am actually.
[2] No one’s suggesting growing more food where there is already plenty – that was kinda the point. We in the west can afford to dabble in such luxuries as organic food, because it isn’t a risk for us and our population is relatively stable (possibly declining).
But in the developing world the position is very different. Populations are growing rapidly, and becoming urbanised; topsoil and aquifiers are being depleted; emerging middle classes in the 2nd world (China, India, et al) are moving towards a more meat-based diet, the production of which is hoovering up vast quantities of excess grain from the world markets. If the developing world is to feed itself the only answer is via massively increased yields, and that means GM.
The point I was making was less about economics than about hypocrisy. Those who are simultaneously pro-organic, anti-GM, and want to save the poor ickle Africans, are at best hypocritical and a worst a danger to those they seek to help.
[3] How patronising of you to assume that all the developing world is good for is commodity-crop farming. This kind of attitude will hold their development back more than anything else.
Example like Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, etc. show that, with the right reforms, spectacular rates of growth and highly sophisticated economies can develop in a matter of a few decades.
The reason commodity prices are so low is overproduction (and, yes, I take your point about subsidies). ‘FairTrade’ encourages producers into already over-served markets, depressing prices further for their non-FairTrade competitors, and keeping farmers from expanding in more lucrative directions.
Why would you want to ‘unlock’ a market like that?
Toodeloo!
Hi “Fahrenheit”
Thanks – I’m trying to feel welcome . . . but truly don't worry about me being "brave" - this is just one blog among millions and leaving a simple message hoping to instigate just a little informed debate doesn't seem courageous to me; although I grant you may think of it as such.
Ahh, a blog of my own ? I don't have one myself, do you think I should have ? There's already a whole world of blogs to explore where slack & parochial views are aired (& often confirmed by their readership). It sometimes seems like some sort of love-in.
To the business at hand :
[1] SO looking forward to hearing more about your advocacy in this area - or perhaps actions taken.
This is only a blog, so don't take this as some sort of challenge - I'm just intrigued as to what course you may have actually chosen to take to resist the market-distortion of developed nation subsidies . . . ?
[2] What I was advocating was growing food in the right places, where people are, using the ingenuity of the local population.
Growing, urbanising populations have happened before, and growing middle classes is the often stated aim of positive economic growth, and their choice to eat meat is just that, their choice.
I assume you're not suggesting any intervention in these areas, even if we're only talking about those darn badly managed economies of developing nations.
I did realise that you weren't making an economic point, but consider doing just that, in the interests of keeping your comments consistent. Those people that think making a particular purchase choice makes a difference is just one of many market choices made ever day. Let the market decide.
That’s the strength of market decision-making, isn’t it ? You call is hypocritical, they may not, but the market will provide the answer.
Fairtrade revenues flowing to producers is undoubtedly a good thing for those producers, providing them with cash, dignity, and the prospect of bettering themselves. It also allows them to make their own decisions about what is good for them. If these are some sort of elite, then would you advocate keeping them from their nice little earner ?
Finally, if commodity prices are low because of overproduction, why advocate "massively increase yields" ??
[3] Sorry mate, but where do you see anything from me about the only course for developing economies lying with commodity crop farming ? Perhaps you don’t realise that Fairtrade (one word) concerns commodities at the moment. Do drag yourself away from point-scoring, or you're just another blogger :-}
You go on to mention Singapore (that small island state and port), Japan (the recipient of massive funding of industrialisation after WWII) and Taiwan (laying just off the biggest developing market in the world, with similarly massive support from western capital & industrialists). As examples of successful models, do you think they provide some indication of what these poor developing nations need to do to smarten up to become economic tigers ? From my perspective, I see few economic or even social parallels between Singapore and (say) Gambia ??
If Fairtrade encourages producers into already over-served markets, then they will surely soon stop, as their activities will surely become un-economic. We simply let the market decide (& let those producers make their own decisions about what markets to pursue).
If those damn Fairtrade producers are simply exploiting simple western consumers, who believe their funds are flowing to poor farmers, that's the market working, isn't it ?
Meanwhile, those same people, or their smarter neighbours, might spot those 'more lucrative markets' you mention. All good.
Perhaps we should get together and look to fund the start-up finance of these people . . . ?
Pip pip
Paul
What a shame - the silence is deafening . . .
Post a Comment