You are NOT on the DirtyGreek.Org homepage. Please CLICK HERE to go there.
Hypocrisy, vast cultural changes, and sheer incompetence are dominating factors in the history of the globalization of food. As one explores the readings, it appears that those in charge of the situation in the 19th, 20th, and now the 21st centuries are either uncaring, not cautious, or simply have no idea what they are doing. Perhaps, in each situation, a different combination of these is at work.
Examples of hypocrisy permeate the history of the agri-food industry’s rise to a global scale. The “green revolution” was to end hunger by creating a massive production increase that would allow everyone to be fed. Indeed, the green revolution has created a surplus of crops, and today every person on the planet could have thirty-five hundred calories a day just from the world’s grain supplies. There is enough food for approximately 4.3 pounds of general food per person per day: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans, and nuts, a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk, and eggs (Lappé 1999a: 10). However, there are still 800 million people suffering from hunger in the world (Lappé 1999a: 4). This is due, in large part, to a number of problems with the methods that were spawned from the green revolution and from a devastatingly backwards food aid system. Most countries with high percentages of hungry people still produce enough to feed everyone, yet many of these ‘hungry countries’ actually export quite a bit of their food (Lappé 1999a: 11).
While claiming that they have their citizens’ best interests at heart, nation-states often exhibit behavior that conflicts with that supposed benevolence. One example of this is in broiler production. The state subsidizes promotion of broiler exports and subsidizes promotion of the industry in other countries. However, broiler-processing plants have high environmental impact, and the industry is a major environmental polluter, so the state supposedly regulates and monitors the industry within the confines of environmental law (Hefferrnan 1994: 34-36). It is not difficult to see that there is a conflict of interest here; how can the state be thought of as partial to its citizens if it is, at the same time, doing business with and promoting an industry known to be a major polluter?
...
Certainly, the increase in store-bought bread is closely connected with the availability of jams made with sugar (Mintz 1997: 364-365). The increase in sugar production and use allowed the decline of home-prepared food, and the increase in the use of these new ingestibles, the growth of the factory system, and the increase in the use of processed food are all very closely linked. It is interesting to question which of these are causes and which are results, or if they all formed symbiotically. Did the spread of stimulants and cheap energy from sugar allow laborers to work longer hours? Did the increase in availability of processed foods create a demand that had to be supplied through industrialization?
...
Because these TNCs have multiple inputs and outputs spread throughout several countries, it is difficult to enforce regulations such as environmental protection and wage laws. “The TNCs have a more global vision of food-system coordination than any given nation-state,” and because of this, they are often more influential than those nation-states. What is being seen is a situation wherein nation-states are giving way under the power of these global giants (Heffernan 1994: 42). The nation-state can be expected to “decline, become somewhat irrelevant, but not disappear in the foreseeable future.” This will likely bring about the importance of more transnational state forms and regional and local political organization (Bonnano 1994: 3-4). Whether this is intentional or not, it is creating a system of power that is unprecedented in the history of the planet.
...
During the food crisis of the 1970s, a shift from surplus to scarcity caused grain prices to soar and threatened food shortages. Eventually, nation-states continued to support agriculture by purchasing commodities, so surpluses reappeared, causing people to start ignoring the fact that the system itself had serious problems that needed to be dealt with. “Disappearance of the symptom simply masked survival of the disorder” (Freedmann 1993: 32).
References Cited
Bonnano, Alessandro
1994 Introduction. From Columbus to Con Agra: the Globalization of Agriculture and
Food. University of Kansas Press. Lawrence, Kansas
Friedmann, Harriet
1993 The Political Economy of Food: a Global Crisis. New Left Review. Vol. 197 Pp. 29-
57
Gabaccia, Donna
1998 Food Fights and American Values from We are What We Eat: Ethnic food and the
Making of Americans. Pp. 122-148. Howard Press. Cambridge, Mass
1999 The Big Business of Eating. From We are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the
Making of Americans. Pp. 149-174. Howard Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Heffernan, William D. and Douglas H. Constance
1993 Chapter 1: Transnational Corporations and the Globalization of the Food System from
From Columbus to ConAgra: the Globalization of Agriculture and Food Pp. 29-51,
Alessandro Bonnano, et al., eds. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.
Lappé, Frances Moore, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza
1999 Beyond Guilt and Fear from The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World,
Douglas Boucher. Pp. 4-60. Food First Books. Oakland, CA.
Lappé, Frances Moore and Joseph Collins
1999 Why Can’t People Feed Themselves? from The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a
Bountiful World, Douglas Boucher. Pp. 61-70. Food First Books. Oakland, CA.
Mintz, Sidney W
1997 Time, sugar, and sweetness. From Food and Culture: A Reader, Carole
Counihan and Penny Van Esterik, eds. Pp. 357-369. N.Y. Routledge.
Read the full paper here.
|
Post To del.icio.us
