Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Rich Countries Once Used Gunboats to Seize Food. Now They Use Trade Deals

The world's hungriest are the losers as an old colonialism returns to govern relations between wealthy and poor nations

by George Monbiot

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines that sucked the guts out of India in the 1870s. The hunger began when a drought, caused by El Niño, killed the crops on the Deccan plateau. As starvation bit, the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. While Lytton lived in imperial splendour and commissioned, among other extravagances, "the most colossal and expensive meal in world history", between 12 million and 29 million people died. Only Stalin manufactured a comparable hunger.

Now a new Lord Lytton is seeking to engineer another brutal food grab. As Tony Blair's favoured courtier, Peter Mandelson often created the impression that he would do anything to please his master. Today he is the European trade commissioner. From his sumptuous offices in Brussels and Strasbourg, he hopes to impose a treaty that will permit Europe to snatch food from the mouths of some of the world's poorest people.

Seventy per cent of the protein eaten by the people of Senegal comes from fish. Traditionally cheaper than other animal products, it sustains a population that ranks close to the bottom of the human development index. One in six of the working population is employed in the fishing industry; about two-thirds of these workers are women. Over the past three decades, their means of subsistence has started to collapse as other nations have plundered Senegal's stocks.

The EU has two big fish problems. One is that, partly as a result of its failure to manage them properly, its own fisheries can no longer meet European demand. The other is that its governments won't confront their fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats. The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to west Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal's marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country's waters fell from 95,000 tonnes to 45,000 tonnes. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997.

More...

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Darfur Withers as Sudan Sells a Food Bonanza


posted by Dustin

An excellent article that to me implies that petrodollar recycling is having an impact on the development of agriculture, and consequently famine, in Sudan. Wheat to Saudi Arabia? Vine ripened tomatoes for the Jordanian Army? Time to rethink the food aid/export earnings paradigm.

from nyt...
August 10, 2008
The Food Chain

ED DAMER, Sudan — Even as it receives a billion pounds of free food from international donors, Sudan is growing and selling vast quantities of its own crops to other countries, capitalizing on high global food prices at a time when millions of people in its war-riddled region of Darfur barely have enough to eat.

read more...

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Supermarket Chains Narrow Their Sights

Important questions about scale...

By MARIAN BURROS, NYT

ONE of the biggest brand names in food this summer doesn’t carry a trademark. It’s the word “local,” which has entered the language as a powerful symbol of high quality and goodness.

Supermarkets are beginning to catch on that stocking corn and tomatoes grown nearby is not enough for customers. Now they are competing with farm stands and farmers’ markets for a wider variety of fresh fruits and vegetables.

It’s been a boon for local farmers. Ten years ago local produce was devalued at the wholesale Hunts Point market, said Lyle Wells, whose family has been farming on Long Island since 1660. “Now you can’t get enough of the stuff.”

Last month Wal-Mart announced that it plans to spend $400 million this year on locally grown produce, making it the largest player in that market.

full article in nyt...


Monday, July 21, 2008

Africa’s Women Last and Least in Food Crisis


Africa’s Women Last and Least in Food Crisis
by Kevin Sullivan

0720 04 1OUAGADOUGOU, Burkina Faso -
After she woke in the dark to sweep city streets, after she walked an
hour to buy less than $2 worth of food, after she cooked for two hours
in the searing noon heat, Fanta Lingani served her family’s only meal
of the day.

First she set out a bowl of corn mush, seasoned with tree leaves,
dried fish and wood ashes, for the 11 smallest children, who tore into
it with bare hands.

Then she set out a bowl for her husband. Then two bowls for a dozen
older children. Then finally, after everyone else had finished, a bowl
for herself. She always eats last.

A year ago, before food prices nearly doubled, Lingani would have
had three meals a day of meat, rice and vegetables. Now two mouthfuls
of bland mush would have to do her until tomorrow.

Rubbing her red-rimmed eyes, chewing lightly on a twig she picked
off the ground, Lingani gave the last of her food to the children.

“I’m not hungry,” she said.

Mealtime conspires against women
In poor West African nations such as Burkina Faso, mealtime conspires
against women. They grow the food, fetch the water, shop at the market
and cook the meals. But when it comes time to eat, men and children eat
first, and women eat last and least.

Soaring prices for food and fuel have pushed more than 130 million
poor people across vast swaths of Africa, Asia and Latin America deeper
into poverty in the past year, according to the U.N. World Food
Program. But while millions of men and children are also hungrier,
women are the hungriest and skinniest. Aid workers call malnutrition
among women one of the most notable hidden consequences of the food
crisis.

“It’s a cultural thing,” said Hervé Kone, director of a group that
promotes development, social justice and human rights in Burkina Faso.
“When the kids are hungry, they go to their mother, not their father.
And when there is less food, women are the first to eat less.”

A recent study by the aid group Catholic Relief Services found that
many people in Burkina Faso are now spending 75 percent or more of
their income on food, leaving little for other basic needs.

Pregnant women and young mothers are forgoing medical care. More
women are turning to prostitution to pay for food. And more families
are pulling children — especially girls — out of school, unable to
afford fees and clothes.

But perhaps the most pervasive effect of the growing global crisis
is the ache in the stomachs of millions of poor women such as Fanta
Lingani.

Sweeping for pennies
Lingani, who sleeps on a concrete floor, began one recent day at 4 a.m.
and dressed quietly in the dark. All around her, children slept on the
cracked floor under a tin roof, common conditions in a country that
ranks 176th out of 177 on the U.N. Human Development Index.

A year ago, Lingani might have started a small fire to boil herself a cup of weak coffee. But even that is now too expensive.

Such sacrifices led to food riots in February in Ouagadougou, the
capital, and towns across the country. Hundreds of people were arrested
after they set fires and smashed government buildings to protest rising
prices. But for Lingani, the struggle is quieter, and harder by the
day, and it starts before the sun comes up.

Lingani, who said she is about 50, walked across the dirt courtyard
past the two-room hut where her husband was sleeping in his own double
bed, with a thick mattress. The dirt street outside was muddy and
steamy from an overnight rain shower.

After a half-hour walk on the black-dark streets, she reported for
work and pulled on the long green smock of the Green Brigade, a city
program that pays poor women the equivalent of about $1.20 a day to
sweep streets two mornings a week.

Lingani picked up a pair of small straw brooms and pushed a
wheelbarrow onto a wide, deserted avenue. In the orange haze of
streetlights, she bent over at the waist, so far that her bottom was
higher than her head, and started pushing red dust into little piles.

The “shssssh shssssh” of her sweeping was the only sound, except for
the crowing of a few roosters and occasional laughter from men at an
all-night bar down the road.

She worked a section of road about 150 yards long, while a dozen
others in the all-female brigade swept along. A tanker truck sped down
the street, kicking up a cloud of dust into her face and blowing away
her little piles. She coughed, pulled her pink head scarf across her
face and swept the same dust all over again.

Lingani swept until the sun came up, pushing her piles onto a small
metal dish, then dumping them into a wheelbarrow and finally into a
pothole on an unpaved side street.

By 7 a.m., she’d finished her section. But she had to wait an hour
for a male supervisor to show up and check her work. In two weeks, she
would get her monthly pay of less than $10.

‘The job of women’
Lingani walked a half hour back to her house, where her huge family was
starting to stir. She took off her smock and picked up a green plastic
basket about the size of a shoebox.

Market time. She and one of her two “co-wives,” Asseta Zagre, do the
shopping on alternate days. Their husband’s other wife, the senior of
the three, is nearly blind and can’t do chores anymore.

Polygamy is common in much of Africa. In this household, the
patriarch is Hamado Zorome, 68, a retired police officer whose pension
is the family’s main income — but he doesn’t tell his wives how much he
gets.

The pension of a mid-level civil servant is probably modest in
Burkina Faso, where the United Nations says nearly 72 percent of the
country’s 15 million people live on less than $2 a day.

Zorome also collects a “tip” of 60 cents from each of his two
working wives when they get their monthly pay, which he uses to buy the
kola nuts he likes to chew.

Lingani and Zagre, who also sweeps streets, said Zorome doles out
small amounts of money for them to buy staples such as cornmeal. But
the bulk of the family’s meals are paid for out of the wives’ sweeping
wages.

As she prepared to leave for the market, Lingani kept bending over
and rubbing her ankles and feet. She said they hurt from sweeping for
so long. She has never weighed herself, but she said she can feel a
significant loss in her weight and strength in the past year.

Last month’s sweeping money was already gone. So she went to her
husband, who handed her about $2.50 for groceries. He told her to spend
no more than about 75 cents and save the rest for another day.

“Women are born with this job” of feeding the family, Lingani said,
as she walked around puddles and past goats tied to trees. “The man has
to have his share. And we have to make sure the kids have their share.
So we eat less.”

Lingani said none of the older boys in the family has a steady job,
since work is hard to come by in this poor city. So, she said, the boys
mostly spend their days doing odd jobs or playing soccer. What little
money they earn they tend to spend on food and beer for themselves.

“A man can never sit at home. They are always out somewhere,” Lingani said. “They don’t do anything. They don’t help.”

Lingani walked past small stands where women were selling fruit or
water, assisted by small girls. A few men sold bags or charcoal, but
most were sitting in the shade and talking.

“Men and women should fight together for the children,” Lingani
said. “But if the men won’t do that, the women have to fight alone.”

Zorome, Lingani’s husband, said that men don’t help with shopping
and cooking because “that is the job of women.” Like many men
interviewed here, he said African culture clearly defines roles for
men, who work outside the house, and women, who manage children and
meals.

He said that men are willing to work but that jobs are scarce. He
would prefer it if his wives didn’t have to sweep streets, but “life is
much more expensive now.”

“Last year, we could eat well, but now, forget it,” he said. “My
sons don’t work, so it’s up to me to feed 25 people. That’s why the
women sweep. We don’t have anything, so they have to work. That’s life.”

Ugly math
On her way to the market, Lingani explained the ugly math: A year ago,
she could feed her entire family a nutritious meal of meat and
vegetables and peanut sauce for about 75 cents. But now the family gets
much lower-quality food for twice the price.

She said the cost of six pounds of cornmeal has risen from 75 cents
to $1.50. A kilogram — 2.2 pounds — of rice cost 60 cents last year and
costs a little more than $1 now. Other basics such as salt and cooking
oil have also doubled in price.

Fuel costs have more than doubled for trucks that haul food to landlocked Burkina Faso, helping keep food prices high.

Beef or goat meat is now so expensive — about $1.20 for a tiny
portion — that the family has given up meat completely, eating cheap
dried fish instead. Rather than seasoning their sauces with vegetables
and peanuts, they now use the tough leaves of baobab trees, the gnarly
giants that flourish here in the dry lands south of the Sahara.

To soften the sour taste of the leaves, Lingani mixes in potash, a
paste made by boiling down water strained through ashes from wood fires.

“In the past, our money would last the whole month. We might even
have some left over,” Lingani said. “But now as soon as it arrives, we
spend it.”

Dinner happens only if there is a bit of food left over from lunch. Even then, she said, there is rarely enough left for women.

“When the children ask for food, we have to give it to them,” she said. “We’re mothers.”

Never enough
“Are you sure you don’t want more?” the vegetable vendor asked Lingani. “Is that enough for your family?”

Lingani, standing in a crowded neighborhood market, had just asked the woman for 30 cents worth of baobab leaves.

“No, it’s fine,” Lingani said, handing over a few coins.

The vendor shrugged and stashed the coins under a burlap sack of
tomatoes covered with a beard of small flies. She handed Lingani back
some change, which she counted carefully.

At the next stall, Lingani bought four small onions. As she turned
to leave, the seller tossed in a fifth with an understanding smile.
Lingani caught her eye and thanked her.

Moving through the churning mass of people, Lingani bought a bag of
dried fish, a small plastic bag of salt, two small cubes of beef
bouillon and a bag of potash, the paste made from ashes.

In 10 minutes, her shopping was done. She had spent double her budget of 75 cents.

After the half-hour walk home, with the temperature already above
90, Lingani and Zagre started plucking the baobab she bought at the
market, saving the leaves and throwing away the thick stems.

For an hour, the two women methodically pounded the rough leaves in
a wooden bowl, then dumped them into a pot boiling over a wood fire.
Then Lingani added the dried fish and some of the ash flavoring.

“Of course we would prefer something else,” she said. “But it’s the
cheapest thing we can buy, and we can afford enough to feed everybody.”

Two hours after she started cooking, Lingani scooped out six bowls
of flavorless food. The first was for Zorome, delivered to his hut. He
ate it alone, then said he felt as though he needed a nap.

Others were set aside to be shared by the children.

The last bowl, slightly larger than Zorome’s, was to be shared by 10
people: Lingani, Zagre and eight small grandchildren. Lingani took two
bites before letting five hungry toddlers finish her food.

Near the front gate, half a dozen of the children sat in a circle,
playing a game. They had built a play fire out of pieces of bark. On
top of it they had placed a little plastic cup, overflowing with street
garbage: onion skins and bits of rotting leaves.

They were pretending to cook.

“We’re cooking rice with meat!” said a beaming Ousmane, 6, the head chef.

His father, Zorome, watched the game and laughed. He was asked if he
would eat again today. Yes, he said, Lingani would make him a little
rice or porridge for dinner that night.

Nearby, his daughters and granddaughters heard him and exploded.
“What are you talking about?” they said. “Why are you saying that? We
have no food.”

Zorome smiled sadly and admitted his lie.

“When we have food one day, we have to tighten our belt the next,”
he said. “But it is very hard for a man to admit when things are not
good.”

Lingani was still sitting next to her empty food bowl. She had
stopped the children from finishing one last lump of corn mush, about
the size of her fist.

“The small children will be crying in a couple of hours, so we have
to save it,” she said. Her voice was small and soft, and she didn’t
look up from the red dirt. She said she felt “very sad.”

“I’m thinking too much,” she said.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Ending the ethanol gold rush and beginning the biofuels deathwatch

The market says corn ethanol is no good, so it must be so.

Graphic: Estimated breakeven corn price for Iowa ethanol plants.


There was a very good story on NPR about ethanol and the significant drops in investment due too venture capital drying up, and how the credit crunch is making the construction of these plants hard to finance. Turns out that even corn ethanol is linked up with the banking crisis.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92559699

Also, check out Biofuels deathwatch... a fantastic resource from earth2tech.com
http://earth2tech.com/2008/01/09/earth2tech-maps-biofuels-deathwatch/

The costs of constructing those plants should be counted in the balance sheet against biofuels!

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Real Solutions to the Global Food Crisis




A Women’s Declaration to the G8: Support Real Solutions to the Global Food Crisis


by MADRE

To:


Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda (Japan)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Canada)
President Nicolas Sarkozy (France)
Chancellor Angela Merkel (Germany)
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (Italy)
President Dmitry Medvedev (Russia)
Prime Minister Gordon Brown (United Kingdom)
President George Bush (United States)

This year, the world’s eight richest governments (the G8) meet
against the backdrop of a global food crisis. With prices for all major
food commodities at a 50-year-high, world leaders are discussing
pervasive “food shortages” that threaten to destabilize dozens of
countries. But worsening hunger is the result of cost inflation, not
any absolute food shortage. In fact, the world produces more food than the global population can consume.

The root cause of the food crisis is not scarcity, but the failed
economic policies long championed by the G8, namely, trade
liberalization and industrial agriculture. These policies, which treat
food as a commodity rather than a human right, have induced chaotic
climate change, oil dependency, and the depletion of the Earth’s land
and water resources as well as today’s food crisis.

Yet, in the search for solutions, the G8 is considering expanded
support for the very measures that caused this web of problems. Calls
for more tariff reductions, biofuel plantations, genetically modified
crops, and wider use of petroleum-based fertilizers and chemical
pesticides are at the forefront of discussions in Japan.

These measures cannot resolve the global food crisis. They may, however, further boost this year’s record profits for agricultural corporations. There are viable solutions to the food
crisis, but they will not emerge from a narrow pursuit of the financial
interests of multinational corporations.

For nearly 30 years, the G8 has insisted that corporations replace
governments in shaping and implementing national agriculture policies
in the world’s poorest countries. This demand has not maximized
efficiency or reduced poverty, as promised. In fact, it has ushered in a sharp rise in hunger and malnutrition. As the World Bank itself acknowledged in its 2008 World Development Report, the private sector has failed as a substitute for government when it comes to agriculture.

In fact, corporations have no legal duty to reduce poverty or fight
world hunger. Governments, including the G8-and not the private
sector-are the ones mandated to resolve the global food crisis. The international human rights framework,
which governments are obligated to uphold, is the starting point for a
global New Deal on agriculture. In particular, the human rights of
small farmers-the majority of whom are women-and rural and Indigenous
Peoples must be protected in order to meet the twin challenges of
feeding people and protecting the planet.

As women’s human rights advocates working with communities on the
front-lines of the global food crisis, we call on the G8 to promote a
worldwide shift from industrial to sustainable agriculture and to enact
the economic policies needed to support this transition.

The Imperative of Sustainable Agriculture

In April 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAASTD) released an independent, four-year study
conducted by over 400 experts. The study was co-sponsored by the World
Bank and multiple agencies of the United Nations and endorsed by over
60 governments. It confirms that large-scale, chemical-intensive
agriculture is a major contributor to pollution, climate change,
deforestation, social inequity, and the destruction of diversity, both
biological and cultural. The study urges a fundamental overhaul of
agricultural policy towards sustainable farming, including small-scale
and organic agriculture.

The IAASTD report follows numerous other credible studies
demonstrating that small-holder organic farms can produce enough food
for the global population and avoid the environmental destruction
associated with industrial agriculture.

We emphasize that support for small farmers must include a focus on
women, who produce most of the world’s food. Indeed, in much of Africa,
where the food crisis is at its worst, women grow and process 80
percent of all food.

However, the capacity of these farmers is badly undermined by laws
and customs that discriminate against women. In many countries, women
who grow the food that sustains the majority of the population are not
even recognized as farmers. They are denied the right to own land and
excluded from government programs that facilitate access to credit,
seeds, tools, and training.

We call on the G8 to:

  • Recognize gender discrimination as a threat to global food security;
  • Uphold the rights of agricultural workers under the International Labor Organization’s Conventions;
  • Support national policies that provide small-scale farmers with
    access to land, seeds, water, credit and other inputs and that uphold
    the rights of farmers to make informed decisions about land use and
    food production.

The Imperative of Sustainable Economic Policies

A global New Deal on agriculture requires not only different modes
of farming, but a new policy environment for food production and
agricultural trade. National policies, including investment, funding,
and research, as well as international trade rules, must be redirected
in support of small farmers and sustainable agriculture. Towards that
end, the G8 should:

1. End Food Dependency

The G8, through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, has
required developing countries to reduce support to small farmers, cut
investment in food production, slash tariffs that protected domestic
agriculture, dismantle the marketing boards that once stabilized food
prices, and shift land use from food production to export agriculture.

Developing countries were forced to accept these demands as
conditions for loans needed to repay their debts to the financial
institutions, development banks, and governments of the North. Yet, it
is the G8 itself which is largely responsible for the debt crisis,
brought on by massive lending to illegitimate regimes and decades of
costly, ill-conceived development projects.

The economic policies demanded by the G8 have destroyed the
livelihoods of small farmers in the Global South, leaving millions of
people at the mercy of international commodity markets to be able to
buy food. The shift from food to cash crops has meant that women, who
are responsible for growing food, have lost access to valuable farm
land. As a result, rural families have lost a main source of food and
nutrition.

Economic policies driven by the G8 eventually transformed
food-producing countries in the Global South into net food importers.
In the 1960’s, developing countries enjoyed an agricultural trade
surplus of US $7 billion a year. Today, almost three out of four developing countries are net food importers, although they have the capacity to feed themselves.

We call on the G8 to:

  • Move beyond the partial commitment it made to debt cancellation at
    the 2005 G8 summit in Scotland and enact immediate and unconditional
    debt cancellation for all developing countries;
  • Allow governments to determine their own agricultural policies in consultation with citizens;
  • Institute international mechanisms for market stabilization that
    protect the livelihoods of farmers and guarantee affordable food for
    all people;
  • Endorse the call of Jacques Diouf, Secretary General of the United
    Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, for developing countries to
    be enabled to achieve food self-sufficiency.

2. Change Trade Rules

Trade rules demanded by the G8 and administered by the World Trade
Organization have bankrupted millions of farmers in poor countries,
undermined the role of women in agriculture, and contributed to the
current food crisis.

The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture forbids
governments in the Global South from providing farmers with subsidies
or low-cost seeds and other inputs. These farmers have been turned into
a “market” for international agribusiness companies selling seeds,
pesticides and fertilizers.

Women, who are traditionally responsible for conserving, exchanging,
and breeding agricultural seeds, are threatened by the WTO’s Trade
Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement. By granting patents to
corporations, the WTO transfers ownership of seeds-the basis of all
agriculture-from women farmers to multinational corporations.

The WTO has allowed wealthy countries to subsidize corporate farming
by $1 billion a day. The subsidies enable companies based in the Global
North to sell food internationally at a price below the cost of
production. Recently, British International Development Secretary
Douglas Alexander estimated that subsidies to Northern agribusiness
cost farmers in the Global South $100 billion a year in lost income because small farmers cannot compete with the subsidized cost of imported food.

We call on the G8 to:

  • Recognize that food is first and foremost a human right and only secondarily a tradable commodity;
  • Support a process for an international Convention to replace the
    WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture. Such a Convention must uphold the full
    range of human rights standards and should implement the concept of
    food sovereignty, whereby communities control their own food systems;
  • Respect the rights of small farmers to save and exchange seeds between communities and internationally;
  • Initiate a conversion of national agricultural subsidies from
    support for agribusiness to incentives for sustainable farming,
    including small-scale and organic farms.

These demands reflect the rights and priorities of the world’s food
producers, in particular, rural women, who are directly responsible for
feeding most of the world’s people.

Central to our policy proposals is the understanding that global
challenges regarding food, climate change and natural resource
depletion are interrelated and must be resolved together. Policies that
seek to solve one aspect of the problem by deepening another will only
worsen the crisis as a whole. We see this dynamic in the US and
European Union decision to subsidize the conversion of food crops into
biofuels: the move to address energy demands at the expense of food
needs has greatly exacerbated the current food crisis.

We urge the G8 to ground integrated solutions to the food crisis in
the framework of human rights. That framework, rather than further
pursuit of corporate profits, has the strongest potential to yield
policies that can resolve the global food crisis in tandem with the
other urgent issues of climate change and development being addressed
by the G8.

Sincerely,

Vivian Stromberg
MADRE
USA

Rose Cunningham
Wangki Tangni Women’s Center
Nicaragua

Adriana Gonzalez
LIMPAL
Colombia

Sandra Gonzalez Maldonado
Comité de Trabajadoras de la Maquila Bárcenas; Women Workers’ Committee
Guatemala

Anne Sosin
KOFAVIV - Komisyon Fanm Viktim pou Viktim; The Commission of Women Victims for Victims
Haiti

slave labor in the USA




Pennies a Bucket Don’t End Slavery for Florida Pickers



by Pierre Tristam


Reggie Brown was upset. As executive vice president of the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, he was before a U.S. Senate committee in April to dispute charges of slavery and human trafficking leveled at tomato growers by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, what Brown called “a purported labor organization.” There’s nothing “purported” about the South Florida-based organization (ciw-online.org) other than the status of its mostly Latino, Haitian, and Mayan Indian
membership of migrants. Their employers often don’t consider them quite human. More like purported human beings.

They pay them accordingly. Assuming the picker gets work during the
morning auction where growers pick their field hands for the day (the
same cattle-auction method showed on Edward Murrow’s “Harvest of Shame”
documentary 48 years ago), the picker, until recently, was making 45
cents per 32-lb bucket of tomatoes. The rate was little changed from
what it was 30 years ago. Taking inflation into account, the wage was
75 percent lower than in 1978. To make Florida’s minimum wage of $6.79
an hour, the picker would have had to pick and haul 15 32-lb buckets in
an hour, or 480 pounds. To make $50 for the day, he’d have to pick and
haul 111 buckets, or 3,550 pounds of tomatoes. That’s 1.77 tons.

It took two years and mediation by the Carter Center to convince
McDonald’s in 2007 to pay pickers 1 penny more per pound. It took
another year to convince Burger King to do the same (that agreement was
reached in late May), after Burger King had hired spies to infiltrate a
student organization backing the pickers. Burger King said the extra
penny will cost the company an extra $300,000 a year. One of the three
equity firms that control most of Burger King’s stock is Godlman Sachs
Capital Partners. That company’s CEO is Lloyd C. Blankfein. His total
compensation in 2007, according to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, was $70.3 million, or about $300,000 a day in a 235-day
work-year. In other words, giving the 10,000 tomato pickers in Florida
their first raise in 30 years works out to the equivalent of a single
day’s compensation for just one CEO in Burger King’s shareholder
food-chain. And they’re calling that a victory for the tomato pickers.
Don’t count on it.

Before the raise, the typical Florida tomato farmworker earned from
$10,000 to $12,500 a year, right around poverty-line territory, or what
Brown termed even then “competitive wages” in his Senate testimony. But
wait. The cost of the trip to and from work is deducted from the
picker’s paycheck. So is the cost of food and housing. Debts add up
quickly. Contractors love indebted workers. It indentures them. For
those undocumented workers who got to the United States by paying a
smuggling fee, they have that debt to pay off, too. “We used to own our
slaves,” one Florida farmer told Murrow in 1960. “Now we just rent
them.” Nothing has changed.

The raise may improve matters slightly. But not if the Florida
Tomato Growers Exchange, which controls 90 percent of the state’s
tomato picking market, has its way. McDonald’s buys barely 1.5 percent
of Florida’s tomato crop, Burger King a bit more. Brown in his Senate
testimony fretted about the legal problems of differentiating between
tomatoes picked for those companies and tomatoes picked for other
buyers: “The critical fact is that no one can identify which worker
should receive an additional payment, nor can the correct payment be
calculated.” Of course it can. The Growers Exchange can be the agent
that sets the higher 77 cent-per-bucket rate (let alone the more just
$1-a-bucket rate) regardless of who’s buying the product. But “given
the fact that the growers are not mandated to participate in the
extra-penny program,” Brown concluded, “and based on the facts as we
know them, it would not be rational, reasonable or in the best interest
of the growers to join the program.” Translation to pickers: Human
rights have nothing to do with the bottom line, so good luck getting
your higher wages.

Still, Reggie Brown was upset. “It is outrageous to have slavery
happening in Florida or in any other state. However, charges that
tomato growers have enslaved workers are false and defamatory,” he
said. “On numerous occasions, we have asked for any evidence that would
substantiate these allegations against growers of Florida tomatoes and
have received none.” He’s right about growers. But growers hire crew
chiefs and bosses to insulate themselves from lawbreaking beneath their
own nose. In two cases in 1999, 10 individuals in Florida were
sentenced to prison for enslaving farmworkers — including the
enslavement of women and girls in brothels. In August 2001, a Fort
Pierce crew leader was sentenced to four years in prison on enslavement
charges. Last year a farm labor boss in East Palatka got 30 years in
prison for scamming homeless people into working for him (with booze
and crack) and indebting them.

On Jan. 17, the Justice Department announced the indictment of six
Immokalee contractors: “According to the 17-count indictment, Cesar
Navarrete and Geovanni Navarrete beat, threatened, restrained and
locked workers in trucks to force them to work for them as agricultural
laborers. The defendants underpaid the workers and imposed escalating
debts on them, threatening physical harm if workers left their
employment before their debts had been repaid.” When it comes to
Florida’s farmworkers, you wouldn’t know that 2007 marked the 200th
anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. Raise or no raise.

Pierre Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com.

© 2008 The Daytona Beach News-Journal

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Another Inconvenient Truth: How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change

posted by Dustin

A report by Oxfam today argues that biofuel policies contribute to as much as 30% of the food price spike, an assertion that supports the number suggested by the International Monetary Fund.

Another Inconvenient Truth: How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change

Biofuels are presented in rich countries as a solution to two crises: the climate crisis and the oil crisis. But they may not be a solution to either, and instead are contributing to a third: the current food crisis. Meanwhile the danger is that they allow rich-country governments to avoid difficult but urgent decisions about how to reduce consumption of oil, while offering new avenues to continue expensive support to agriculture at the cost of taxpayers. In the meantime, the most serious costs of these policies – deepening poverty and hunger, environmental degradation, and accelerating climate change – are being 'dumped' on developing countries.

Also...

Biofuel farming accused of driving up food prices
Updated Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:26pm AEST
Oxfam says the competition between fuel and food is dragging more than 30 million people into poverty.

Oxfam says the competition between fuel and food is dragging more than 30 million people into poverty. (user submitted: Greg O'Brien)

Biofuels were supposed to make up a big part of the answer to two of the great challenges of our age: climate change and energy security.

To many governments grappling with soaring oil prices and growing fears about climate change, tailoring incentives to engineer a switch from oil-based fuels to those made from food seemed like a good idea.

But increasingly, there are fears that biofuels may be creating as many problems as they solve.

Oxfam says the renewable fuels are not as climate-friendly as first thought.

The international aid agency blames the biofuel policies of developed countries for a 30 per cent spike in food prices which are dragging more than 30 million extra people into poverty.

"As more science has come to light and as people have looked at this issue more carefully, I think our conclusion is that changing to biofuels in transport in countries like Australia, Europe, America is not good for the planet," says Oxfam Australia's Jeff Atkinson.

In its global report, Another Inconvenient Truth, Oxfam argues the benefits to the climate of using biofuels have been overstated.

It says many farmers have cleared further into forests and wetlands to accommodate the crops, and others have moved out of food production to make room for biofuel feedstock.

"Of course changing from petrol to biofuels in one's car is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but to look at the whole picture you have to look at how these biofuels are produced and where they are produced and many of them are produced in developing countries of course," Mr Atkinson said.

"But what's happening is that there is competition between fuel and food."

"Take the corn crop in the US for example, which would normally be grown for food, a lot of that is now being grown for fuel instead and factors like this of course are driving up food prices."

That rise is as much as 30 per cent, Oxfam says.

But Bob Gordon from Renewable Fuels Australia rejects the notion that biofuels are entirely responsible for the global food shortage.

"It is oil that is the primary driver and you'll find that the United States, you'll find that the European governments and everybody accepts that," Mr Gordon says.

"The issue with biofuels is that we have to play it carefully if we're going to use biofuels as a fuel alternative, and only one fuel alternative."

He says the current crop of biofuels is just the first step in the transition from an oil-based economy.

"Biofuels do require land use. We need to be careful about that," Mr Gordon says.

-Adapted from a report by Ashley Hall for AM

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Malthus Redux: Is Doomsday Upon Us, Again?

A very sophisticated interpretation of a complex problem. Or, is it simply the problem of US and EU subsidies?




Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
LAST RESORT Haitians searching for food or anything else at a dump. Rising food prices led to riots in April. Most Haitians earn less than $2 a day.

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: June 15, 2008

During the last American food-and-gas-price crisis, in the 1970s, one of my colleagues on the Berkeley student newspaper told me that he and his semi-communal housemates had taken a vote. They'd calculated they could afford meat or coffee. They chose coffee.

The decision was slightly less effete than it sounds now — the Starbucks clone wars were still some years off, so he was talking about choosing Yuban over ground chuck. But it nonetheless said something about us as spoiled Americans. Riots were relatively common in Berkeley in those days. But they were never about food. (That particular revolution was starting without us on Shattuck Avenue, where Chez Panisse had just opened.)

However, elsewhere on the globe, people were on the edge of starvation. Grain prices were soaring, rice stocks plummeting. In Ethiopia and Cambodia, people were well over the edge, and food riots helped lead to the downfall of Emperor Haile Selassie and the victory of the Khmer Rouge.

Now it's happening again. While Americans grumble about gasoline prices, food riots have seared Bangladesh, Egypt and African countries. In Haiti, they cost the prime minister his job. Rice-bowl countries like China, India and Indonesia have restricted exports and rice is shipped under armed guard.

And again, Thomas Malthus, a British economist and demographer at the turn of the 19th century, is being recalled to duty. His basic theory was that populations, which grow geometrically, will inevitably outpace food production, which grows arithmetically. Famine would result. The thought has underlain doomsday scenarios both real and imagined, from the Great Irish Famine of 1845 to the Population Bomb of 1968.

But over the last 200 years, with the Industrial Revolution, the Transportation Revolution, the Green Revolution and the Biotech Revolution, Malthus has been largely discredited. The wrenching dislocations of the last few months do not change that, most experts say. But they do show the kinds of problems that can emerge.

The whole world has never come close to outpacing its ability to produce food. Right now, there is enough grain grown on earth to feed 10 billion vegetarians, said Joel E. Cohen, professor of populations at Rockefeller University and the author of "How Many People Can the Earth Support?" But much of it is being fed to cattle, the S.U.V.'s of the protein world, which are in turn guzzled by the world's wealthy.

Theoretically, there is enough acreage already planted to keep the planet fed forever, because 10 billion humans is roughly where the United Nations predicts that the world population will plateau in 2060. But success depends on portion control; in the late 1980s, Brown University's World Hunger Program calculated that the world then could sustain 5.5 billion vegetarians, 3.7 billion South Americans or 2.8 billion North Americans, who ate more animal protein than South Americans.

Even if fertility rates rose again, many agronomists think the world could easily support 20 billion to 30 billion people.

Anyone who has ever flown across the United States can see how that's possible: there's a lot of empty land down there. The world's entire population, with 1,000 square feet of living space each, could fit into Texas. Pile people atop each other like Manhattanites, and they get even more elbow room.

Water? When it hits $150 a barrel, it will be worth building pipes from the melting polar icecaps, or desalinating the sea as the Saudis do.

The same potential is even more obvious flying around the globe. The slums of Mumbai are vast; but so are the empty arable spaces of Rajasthan. Africa, a huge continent with a mere 944 million people on it, looks practically empty from above. South of the Sahara, the land is rich; south of the Zambezi, the climate is temperate. But it is farmed mostly by people using hoes.

As Harriet Friedmann, an expert on food systems at the University of Toronto, pointed out, Malthus was writing in a Britain that echoed the dichotomy between today's rich countries and the third world: an elite of huge landowners practicing "scientific farming" of wool and wheat who made fat profits; many subsistence farmers barely scratching out livings; migration by those farmers to London slums, followed by emigration. The main difference is that emigration then was to colonies where farmland was waiting, while now it is to richer countries where jobs are.

Malthus's world filled up, and its farmers, defying his predictions, became infinitely more productive. Admittedly, emptying acreage so it can be planted with genetically modified winter wheat and harvested by John Deere combines can be a brutal process, but it is solidly within the Western canon. My Scottish ancestors, for example, became urbanites thanks to the desire of English scientific farmers (for which read "landlords and bribers of clan chiefs") to graze more sheep in the highlands. Four generations later, I got to mull the coffee-meat dilemma while actually living on newsroom pizza.

So it ultimately worked out for one spoiled Scottish-American. But what about the 800 million people who are chronically hungry, even in riot-free years?

Dr. Friedmann argues that there is a Malthusian unsustainability to the way big agriculture is practiced, that it degrades genetic diversity and the environment so much that it will eventually reach a tipping point and hunger will spread.

Others vigorously disagree. In their view, the world is almost endlessly bountiful. If food became as pricey as oil, we would plow Africa, fish-farm the oceans and build hydroponic skyscraper vegetable gardens. But they see the underlying problem in terms more Marxian than Malthusian: the rich grab too much of everything, including biomass.

For the moment, simply ending subsidies to American and European farmers would let poor farmers compete, which besides feeding their families would push down American food prices and American taxes.

Tyler Cowen, a George Mason University economist, notes that global agriculture markets are notoriously unfree and foolishly managed. Rich countries subsidize farmers, but poor governments fix local grain prices or ban exports just when world prices rise — for example, less than 7 percent of the world's rice crosses borders. That discourages the millions of third world farmers who grow enough for themselves and a bit extra for sale from planting that bit extra.

Americans are attracted to Malthusian doom-saying, Dr. Cowen argues, "because it's a pre-emptive way to hedge your fear. Prepare yourself for the worst, and you feel safer than when you're optimistic."

Dr. Cohen, of Rockefeller University, sees it in more sinister terms: Americans like Malthus because he takes the blame off us. Malthus says the problem is too many poor people.

Or, to put it in the terms in which the current crisis is usually explained: too many hard-working Chinese and Indians who think they should be able to eat pizza, meat and coffee and aspire to a reservation at Chez Panisse. They get blamed for raising global prices so much that poor Africans and Asians can't afford porridge and rice. The truth is, the upward pressure was there before they added to it.

America has always been charitable, so the answer has never been, "Let them eat bean sprouts." But it has been, "Let them eat subsidized American corn shipped over in American ships." That may need to change.