by: Courtney Coleman
The issue with world hunger today is more of a distributive problem than a constraint on the amount of available food. Recently there was a world summit on food security where the Chinese Vice Premier laid out a four-point plan on how to address these issues.
His four points were investing more in agriculture to make it self sufficient, developed countries cutting subsidies and opening markets, creating a world food security safeguard, and global efforts to ensure balanced growth.
I feel these are all valid points, especially the overall stress that this needs to be a global effort. Investing in developed countries to help boost their self-sufficiency is important to help them become more economically stable. It's important for developed counties however to keep in mind the problems in our own system, such as reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, to try to help build more sustainable agriculture elsewhere. Getting rid of subsidies would help show the true value of artificially low priced crops. This combined with removing trade barriers could help developed countries compete in the world market. A food safeguard system would help with the distribution of food to countries when they are in need. If there is a global effort pushing towards all these things, I would also propose that there needs to be global standards for treatment of workers and the environmental to keep countries in check and at the same playing level. This plan definitely has good points, the most important point, making this a global effort, becomes the biggest issue. It is nearly impossible to get all countries to agree to and uphold these standards and efforts.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8981865.htm
29 comments:
There are countries and areas of countries that are becoming less and less viable for farmland through desertification, people should not pump money to develop farms in an area which was really just not meant to be inhabited. Another point is that this entire concept hurts us in the long run, it is time and money that could be spent on combating the destruction of our planet, and the more people we have on our planet, a number that will increase with the food problem solved, the worse our planet becomes.
I think the issue is outside the agricultural system and subsidies but rather poverty. This change will need to take place on the governmental level if we want to see a change in world hunger and distribution of wealth.
We also must keep in consideration the Food vs. Fuel debate. Some of these countries have invested in alternative fuel methods that are taking away from arable land. Less and less land is becoming usable for growing crops sustainably. I agree that this is a change that needs to happen at an individual governmental level, and that it has a lot to do with poverty. But, it is also largely about food production dynamics and regulations.
Recently, in an Environmental Ethics class, I read "Hope's Edge" by F.M. Lappe (author of "Diet For a Small Planet") and her daughter Anna. In the book, they emphasize that to achieve global food security we must start looking at food as a right rather than a commodity. I strongly agree with this idea that until we recognize that all humans are entitled to food regardless of economic status, that we will not solve the global hunger issue. They also discuss the affect of global wealth inequalities on this. We must understand that if we do not feed those who cannot afford food, then others will purchase the surplus of food not being fed to hungry people and use it for other things (e.g. ethanol from corn in the Midwest). Those of us who hold the wealth in the world are going to have to take one for the team, otherwise hunger will prevail across the world.
Viability and investment seem to be the key points to developing under producing farmland in developing nations. Should funds be dumped into diing farmland or should the residents be encouraged to move to 'greener pastures' (pun intended?), and said funds be spent to facilitate thier move and stabilze thier new home?
I think that trade barriers are a huge part of the problem. Oranges should not be produced in Upstate NY, we should leave food to grow where it can thrive and not protect ridiculous American industries with trade barriers. This would help countries gain food at cheaper prices without having to produce crops that can't sustainably be grown there.
The goals outlined are very important and I believe that in the future we need to adopt similar policies. The most important aspect, I believe, is that of developed nations and protectionist policies. If we removed subsidies, then developing nations could compete in a global market. This would allow for subsistence crops like food can be grown and locally consumed instead of relying on cash crops and imports.
Nick, I am just wondering how it could become a right and not a commodity. Would the government control all food production? Would there be now market for food, but just have it rationed? How would preferences be expressed? I think it would be hard to make it a right after it being a form of trade for sooo many years.
The biggest problem with hunger is not production. It is distribution. Poverty factors into this a great deal, due to the fact that many people who do not receive enough food are also economically hindered in such a way that they are unable to access the plentiful bounties of food produced by developed countries. Even with the conversion of corn into ethanol, the United States still produces a surplus of food that goes to waste every year (meaning nobody is buying it for other uses). Though food prices have risen in the U.S. and other countries with the use of corn-based ethanol, prices have had little to do with increased hunger and starvation. If countries worked in such a way that they were able to sufficiently distribute food to populations needing it most, there would be a drastic decline in the levels of global hunger. However, trade barriers, among other things (such as uncooperative/suppressive governments, poor infrastructure, and, technological disparities, just to name a few things) prevent efficient distribution from ever taking place. Yet, despite global starvation, I am with James O'Connor on the population problem. As gross as it is to say this, there are far too many people on the planet, and I'm not sure solving the food crisis will make anything better, but will instead exacerbate current environmental degradation, in both the short and long run.
I agree that the change will have to come from the government. Poverty is probably the number one reason for starvation and if we don't look to solve that then nothing is going to change as more and more land gets dried and becomes impossible to farm on due to the effects of climate change.
I was curious if the Chinese Vice Premier made any reference to his own country's agricultural problems, but all I saw mentioned in the China Daily article was vague and idealistic goals. James mentioned desertification, which is a problem of mass proportions in China due to unsustainable agricultural practices in arid northern lands. When the Vice Premier mentions investing more in agriculture, would that mean pumping more money (meaning water) into these areas being consumed by desert sands? I think Jon was right when he said that the problem is distribution, not production. Instead of advancing agricultural techniques, we need to invest in better communication and distribution efforts, and get farmers the hell out of areas that shouldn't be farmed to begin with. I watched a fascinating program last night on the Science channel about the dizzying rate of desertification in China (called something like the Blowing Winds of China?), and it is appalling what is happening up there. It's the U.S.'s Dust Bowl all over again, but on a grander scale. They know why it is happening but seem powerless to affect any change.
It's interesting that this comes from the Chinese, considering Mao led 30 million people to starve to death just a few decades ago. Hopefully, they've learned from this. Their problem was they focused too much on manufacturing and industrial production, and as a result there was an agricultural shortage. Though you make it clear the problem here is not shortage, but rather distribution, I'd be willing to bet there are locations in the world that simply don't produce enough food to feed their populations. Distribution may be disrupted for whatever reasons. So what if we gave them our hybridized crops to increase production efficiency out there? Does anyone know is this has been done?
Distribution is a huge problem of the food industry- with people developing GMOs- like the Grapple... money is being spent in the wrong places! We should be worrying about feeding everyone we can not if an apple can taste like a grape! Food is a human right- everyone deserves this simple thing and I agree that the wealthier people should help those who cant afford to eat everyday.
One of the problems with hunger is that people in poorer countries are producing food that they can't necessarily eat. This is because of lack of variety etc. So ironically, people who grow food don't even have food to eat. A way to solve this could be less monoculture and more diverse farms.
Yes there needs to be a global effort to appease world hunger but the sincere desire to help will only come when it is totally appeased in the homeland. For example there are still 35.5 million people in the U.S. still facing the treat of hunger, in the richest country on earth. I think the real "global effort" needs to be money coming from the people that can really afford it, the lavishly rich if you will.
A few comments here point out that fixing the problem of world hunger is only going to increase harm to the environment by allowing for more people to survive. This seems incredibly cold to me.. The reason were all so obessesed with the environment is so humans civilization can survive as it does now. This planet WILL survive humans.
Agricultural subsides are a thing of that past that only help major businesses while neglecting the smaller businesses. They also have a negative economic effect because consumers aren't realizing the true cost of their goods/services generating an industry than benefits the producers. Food transportation to people who can't afford it seems like a bad idea, instead non-profits should focus on removing dependency and teaching those people agricultural techniques.
Agricultural subsidies in america make a large contribution to the food problems that have been occurring throughout the world. Riots happened in Mexico as the corn market was undercut due to american corn flooding the market. I also agree with a few of the comments regarding food for everyone. There is no reason that every human should not have access to food. It is pretty heartless to say that we should let people starve in order to preserve the planet.
We send a good portion of our grain resource to feed cattle.
We also grow corn and turn it into ethanol (combining both food and fuel markets, potentially screwing both up).
But honestly, how many of you are willing to stop eating meat? how many are willing to stop driving?
When it comes to hunger, I believe it is a global effort. The way China is setting up plans to not only combat this, but to encourage the distribution of knowledge is key. This could turn into an extremely widespread effort to make people and countries self-sufficient when it comes to providing food for their families and communities. This is a step in the right direction.
I agree that these policies are a great solution to this problem, the problem is implementation. Many of these countries that have an economy poor in food production are that way because of bad political leadership. Zimbabwe is a great example, what used to be a country that would export food to the entire region of Africa is now marred and starvation and famine. Generally, if you install a stable political system and the free-market economic system that follows, the demand for food will work itself out and these areas will be able to feed themselves again.
I think that one of the biggest problems facing world hunger is a infrastructure for these people to receive help. In many of the places, civil society can't organize a grass roots development, because they are dying of hunger. Creating infrastructure and distribution should be the main concern.
andrew sieving
I think an important point was made by developing countries considering the flaws in US agriculture when advancing their own agricultural sectors. It is interesting because many developing countries have problems with providing enough food for its inhabitants and do not even have access to pesticides and fertilizers. I do not find it too far-fetched though, to think that certain countries may get to the point of mass agricultural production, especially with the help of other countries.
I think that the issue is in our own nations farming policies and that we have such a surplus of food (corn) that we have to provide subsidies in order to help the farmers make money. It seems to be a self inflicted problem that could be possibly easily solved but not painfully solved. We spend ~$18 billion a year subsidizing crap corn because there is such a surplus it is not worth anything on its own. If the subsidies were taken away it would be rough at first but eventually the market could adjust. The reason that hungry people cant afford to buy it is that the price is held artificially high. So get rid of the subsidies, let the market stabilize, and distribute the food.
I feel like its hard to cut subsides to some of the poorest places on earth. It is not justifiable to tell other countries to produce more sustainably when 100's of years ago the United States was doing the same thing. I think we need to target poor communities in order to solve world hunger, not target agriculture.
I think you make some really good points here. This is a crisis and it needs to be dealt with now. I think it is also very important that everything be done more sustainably and efficiently.
ROBERT SEADER
I honestly believe alot of the help America gives in military operations etc. is overlooked. The United States is already engaged in helping other country's with hunger and I think pushing it might overstretch our abilities and have a negative reversal of fortune on us. While I agree poverty and hunger is a serious issue it is hard to say if America should extend itself any further than it already has and is capable of doing.
I agree with Courtney's points in this post. We do need to strive to not only feed our self, but the fellow citizens of the world as well. James O'Connor brought up interesting points. I agree that some areas should not be used for farmland, but how can you say that those people deserve to die because of that? There are plenty of things we can do to help countries in need. We could send supplies, educate them, and train them the ways of the modern world. We currently do have enough food in the world to feed everyone, we just can't get the food to everyone. So instead of just saying everyone who wasn't raised in a developed country deserves to die, we should think about helping people who are not as blessed as we are.
There is a lot to think about when it comes to this topic and it is a very sad issue.
Post a Comment