trading profit for food

According to a recent article in The New York Times, grain prices, especially wheat, are rising sharply, ostensibly as global demand grows ("A Global Need for Grain That Farms Can’t Fill," March 9, 2008). The Times largely paints a picture in which developing third-world economies are driving increasing demand for greater food production, exacerbated by global consumers acquiring a taste for Western goods like bread. And yet, like so much media coverage, the article invokes some problematic assumptions about food production and population growth, and conveniently minimizes the role of neoliberal economic policies in cultivating monoculture cash crop farming and the global food commodity market, and in encouraging reliance on chemical pesticides and fertilizers over longterm sustainable methods.

A choice quote from the article illustrates the implicit view that the "third world" is out of control, with explosions in population size threatening the supposedly stable use of resources attributed to those in the industrialized world: "[i[n recent years, the world’s developing countries have been growing about 7 percent a year, an unusually rapid rate by historical standards." Interestingly, though, a world population chart by percentage according to continent shows that current population distribution is returning to roughly mirror the distribution prior to the Industrial Revolution -- except, unsurprisingly, in the Americas. Political economist Amartya Sen has suggested that the growth rate in places like Asia and Africa is in fact quite similar to that in Europe following the Industrial Revolution, rather than some out-of-control imbalance.

The articles goes on to quote an agricultural consultant as saying "'Everyone wants to eat like an American on this globe... But if they do, we’re going to need another two or three globes to grow it all.'” Unquestionably, global industrialization is going to require increased food production, but perhaps how Americans eat is also part of the problem.

Lastly, the article completely overlooks the possible negative effects of the so-called "Green Revolution," in which conventional agriculture was brought to developing countries to boost yield and focus on growing certain energy-rich crops, noting only that "[e]xpenses for the diesel fuel used to run tractors and combines and for the fertilizer essential to modern agriculture have soared." But ultimately, relying on chemical fertilizers depletes soil, and pesticides both harm local ecological systems, and appear to reduce plants' own capacities for fighting insects (a number of studies over the past few years have shown that organic produce tends to have higher levels of antioxidants, as reported in New Scientist and on OrganicConsumers.org).

All of which leads me to wonder if it wouldn't be better to promote diversified, decentralized, and sustainable food production methods in the developing world, to meet world food demands without relying on economically and ecologically vulnerable cash crops. By ramping up grain production in the US, we reinforce global trade networks in which staple crops are grown in industrialized nations and exported to poorer ones, while local economies in the developing world remain dependent on luxury cash crops (like coffee, sugar, cotton and bananas) sold to first-world consumers, despite falling profits and high financial risk. Perhaps we should focus instead on developing agricultural self-sufficiency and diversity to address these issues, rather than exacerbate the global trade which capitalizes on profit rather than sustainability -- and possibly prevent repeating the environmental and nutritional disaster wrought by the industrialization of agriculture.

death by sensationalism: revisiting perceptions of vegan diets

a few weeks ago, a friend of mine linked to an article about a vegan couple charged with the murder of their infant son, Crown Shakur. i spent some time reading the news coverage of this story, and the entire case struck me as deeply strange. the couple's son died of extreme malnourishment, and was severely emaciated by the time he was brought to the hospital. the parents do appear to have been vegans, and to have fed their baby apple juice and soy milk.

however, this story has been taken up in the media (and by many people) to illustrate the dangers of radical lifestyles gone wrong, proof that some vegans are so blinded by their slavish commitment to forgoing animal products that they might endanger or even kill their own children.

while i'm not surprised to see the story interpreted this way, i think it suggests more about popular views of veganism (and similarly politicized diets) -- supposedly practiced by people whose good sense is easily overwhelmed by their radical convictions. last week's Op-Ed in the Times just reinforced this line of reasoning. Nina Planck, in "Death by Veganism," argues that the Shakur case should "prompt frank discussion about nutrition," and as a former vegan herself, came to the enlightened conclusion that "a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible." she then makes a currently popular move, referencing "indigenous cuisines" to support her views. never mind that there are societies that consume no dairy, and very little meat (many parts of east Asia come to mind, and it should always be remembered that meat is often expensive and considered a luxury, while our neolithic ancestors most likely ate a lot of roots, nuts, and other gathered foods, only occasionally supplemented by meat). moreover, "traditional" diets cannot necessarily be considered a fail-safe guide to healthy eating. of course, Planck's argument that animals provide the best quality of protein leaves out the most pertinent fact -- human meat offers the most easily digestible protein of all!

cannibalism aside, i don't disagree that meatless diets require more attention to certain nutritional issues (though conversely, one might point out that the Standard American Diet doesn't include sufficient vitamins, minerals, and fiber, or fruits and vegetables). in a consumer society saturated with cheap food products, eating healthy already requires careful attention to labels and meals, whether it's avoiding transfat and high fructose corn syrup, or including enough whole grains and vegetables, and attending to organic and sustainable modes of food production.

but ultimately, this discussion is irrelevant to the death of Crown Shakur. back to the actual news coverage, it appears that the infant died because he was not fed enough of anything -- according not to the defense, but to the prosecutors. Shakur's parents were not convicted of killing their child by veganism, but by severe malnourishment. nothing about this case suggests that vegan diets themselves be scrutinized for dietary insufficiency -- in fact, the American Dietary Association endorses vegan and vegetarian diets, saying "[w]ell-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence." of course, it may be more challenging to plan a healthy vegan diet for small children, but any more so than trying to address the issue of childhood obesity? sensationalism aside, thoughtful veganism still appears to be a far healthier choice than the diets most Americans consume -- and feed to their children.