Launch of the New Vision For Agriculture

Watch live streaming video from worldeconomicforum01 at livestream.com

I posed yet another question at the World Economic Forum via Livestream to the panel comprising of the Tanzanian President and some company representatives who are launching an initiative to help agriculture in the East African nation. The question, and the subsequent answers from the panel, can be found in 24:20 onwards.

Admittedly it was a blunt question put forward, but I asked it in order to ensure that the foreign companies who invested in African nations (Tanzania in this case) do not attempt to dominate any food surplus in lieu of their charitable efforts towards development. The market should dictate prices, and I believe that priority should be given to aid neighboring countries who are still working out their own development plans. This was also asked in view the the global food crisis plaguing the region today.

Food doesn’t cause crises, governments do

Reuters: Food don't cause crises, governments do

It will be interesting to watch food prices next year. Although fluctuations will still be determined largely by crises such as natural disasters, another potential cause of trouble will most certainly come from speculation fears of major food producers. John Foley is correct to point out that the governments of India, China and the United States will have a major influence.

From a national perspective, most of their market policies have been intuitive and internally interest-driven, although it would be more correct to classify them as "top-down crisis management reactions". Political stability is still the strongest prediction factor as to how strongly implementations are applied and closely adhered to, but it also reveals the direction that governments take when exerting control over food prices.

As a commercialized necessity, governments are least likely to compromise on food prices. After all, their political interests depends very much on voter support, especially in democracies such as the United States and India. Any demonstration of the lack of ability to respond to food crises such as famine can cause parties to lose their popularity (and consequently power). On the other end, incorrect speculations lead to tremendous wastage of both food and energy supplies.

From a global perspective, producers who do not have strong governments and policies in place to manage food price fluctuations are subjected to market demands. The volatility of these markets mean that local small-scale producers who engage in charitable or altruistic efforts are displaced from the market inevitably, and pressures the rest of them to divert whatever profit they have into market expansion through land acquisition and political advantages instead of environmental conscious measures and technology. This only encourages the already terrible political infighting within the political systems of these smaller producers, and may even breed other political groups aimed at grabbing power via unconventional means.

This brings up a very difficult problem to solve. With the current political structures in place, any international organization's attempts to manage food price controls will only be met with resistance and/or noncooperation. Like the present climate change situation, rich countries will also fight hard to have their way, even if it is clear that they will suffer less on all key life indicators. However, it would be ideal to create a measuring tool that primarily analyzes the negative effects to each country in the event of price fluctuations, and that projects a clear picture with recommended measures to take for each governments. Whether or not governments take up the recommendations is a secondary issue, what's more important is that such key statistics should be created, easy to understand, and made accessible for big picture policy making. The presence and emphasis of such information is key to the mentalities of future generations who will eventually take over the reins of their own national economies.

Food Production and the Development Issue

Climate threats to the food system: floods in Pakistan have destroyed millions of hectares of farmland. Photo courtesy of Getty images.

The Financial Times Special Report: World Food (PDF)

The Financial Times has just published a special report on the recent hike in food prices around the world and the devastating effects especially on poorer countries. According to the article, the good news is that "while the number of people who will suffer chronic hunger this year has fallen slightly (by 98m) to 925m in 2009, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), that still means a child dies every six seconds as a result of hunger-related problems".

Within the report, the article "Idea of self-help starts to gain momentum" by Harvey Morris relates the problem to the decline in public investment on agricultural research during periods of food surpluses, which was redirected to processing and other technologies geared to consumers in the rich "north". Simply put, during periods of drought and famine in food production countries, Europe and the United States began investing heavily in research to increase supply, and the beneficiaries were mainly third world countries. During periods of high production, these very investments were channeled back to their homelands to reap investment surpluses from local consumers who were willing to spend more on food variety and quality.

A strand of sociological thought e.g. World Systems Theory condemns the idea of development as necessary, arguing that when the rich "north" provides aid to the poor "south" in terms of research investments, infrastructure, capital and advice, the main intention is to plug the beneficiary country into the world economy. When this happens, the receiving country's farms and ranches are turned into production sources that feed not just the locals, but whose surpluses can be exported back to the rich "north", pushing food prices down. In turn, the rich "north" sells advanced equipment and manufactured products back to this poor countries in the name of development, adding on to their already high level of dependency. When periods of drought and famine strike, the rich "north" then offers to pay more for food (by a little bit only, really), and the poorer nations have little choice but to sell because firstly they risk angering the richer nations who are still controlling investment flow, and secondly they need the money to import food to feed their own population.

Immediately, food prices increase tenfold in these poor countries while only increasing by a few cents in the rich "north". A drought in Russia that forces the government to restrict food exports and increase imports causes famine in Malawi (even if there were no droughts there!) Emergency aid from NGOs is quickly flown in to feed the poor, and if food prices continue to maintain at the same level (or worse still, increase) past a critical point, a significant and increasing portion of the populations sinks into chronic hunger, leading to higher government expenditure needed to handle riots, health care and crime.

Besides having a centralized global food coordination system, rich nations need to be run by benevolent governments who are able to convince its population to make sacrifices for the sake of those starving in poorer countries. Despite the positives of capitalism, there is an incredible wastage of food everyday which, if managed properly, can be used to feed hungry mouths on the other side of the globe. Immense obstacles ranging from racism, consumer rights and a basic lack of empathy have dominated political mindsets, pressuring parties to prioritize local preferences over moral stands when it comes to such issues. Unless these are overcome, education and awareness creation have not achieved their goals.

It then leaves the decisions to two groups of people, consumers/voters and for-profits/states in rich countries to do something about it. It would be terrible if it takes a world war to provide a global experience of poverty and hunger, and in so doing, traumatize people all over the world to come to the conclusion of a need to purposefully make sacrifices for their neighbors and brothers of mankind. States and international organizations must do something, but so does each and everyone of us, starting with our very basic choices.

Food.

Food Inc.

Food Inc. (The Movie, approx. 1.5hrs)

Warning: A real eye-opener, but definitely not for the faint-hearted.

Essentially, this movie encapsulates what sociologists would call the "McDonaldization" of food. There is a moral price to pay for "consumer choice" and efficiency on numerous levels from basic food and health to corporate monopolization and global poverty and hunger. What people need to know is not simply where and how their food comes about, but that their demands for "choice" and "variety" have negative resonating impacts on areas as far as the other side of the globe.


The irony of consumer capitalism is that while some people in the world can choose to eat whatever they want to eat, there are others who are unable to have a decent meal, much less ponder between choices. Peaks and troughs in food prices are caused by fluctuating demands in the taste of consumers from the former group, but this has the consequence of affecting imports and exports from the latter countries. The difference of a few cents in the price of 1 kilogram of tomatoes can lead to the loss of livelihood for thousands of farmers, and if severe enough, political and social unrest that only gets 30 seconds of airtime on the 6pm news broadcast.


Although many activists (at least those deemed to be in the right-state of mind) are working very hard to promote organic food or "food with a conscience" in an effort to redeploy consumer choice as a weapon against multinational food corporations, one must understand that unless such efforts are also aimed at narrowing the inequality gap, these movements only have the effect of reproducing and enlarging a cultural divide based on food choices. After all, the consumers purchasing genetically-enhance produce are not from the upper-class who have the additional purchase-power to buy their "integrity" or "moral conscience". It is the lower classes who, in an attempt to save money for other basic necessities, are forced to prioritize cost savings and pick the unhealthier but cheaper alternatives for their family members. If it is truly like they say, that our choices are like votes, then this is little difference from countries like Rwanda and Congo where AK-47s are used at the election polls.


Going to Congress is unlikely to bring about big changes, given that both Republican and Democratic parties and senators are largely funded by these corporations. To be fair, they are indeed facing more short-term pressing issues at home such as high retrenchment rates and revamping their collapsing health-care system. No president can afford to stay in office very long if they are unable to project a positive future for the very citizens who have voted them into office.


With such a background in mind, is there really no hope for the fight against world poverty and hunger? Would it be possible to avert such crises with the establishment of a global food coordinating center with the information and political leverage to dictate production and supply based on knowledge of geographical seasons, transport capacity and unique cultural circumstances? Social scientists and historians may be quick to point to the collapse of Communist Russia and China as evidence that central coordination cannot supersede the power of capitalist markets. But lest we discard the idea too quickly, let us not forget if we continue to ignore this impending disaster, the rise of the proletariat might come bearing national flags.

Ensuring the Future of Food