Below is just part of an article with a perspective which is markedly different from the one we are fed repetitively in 'the west', the 'developed world' - so much so that most people don't even notice how they are being manipulated by the clever, oh-so-sincere-sounding PR machine. The whole article is recommended.)
The
State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014 report depicts a one-sided
picture of a malnourished ‘developing’ world, leaving out gross
nutritional problems and hunger in ‘developed’ countries. Worse, this
report advocates neo-liberal solutions that serve the interests of
agri-business rather than critical small-holder farmers.
In its State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014 report (SOFI 2014),
which has just been released, the 'world' according to the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) excludes North America,
Europe (not just western Europe but the entire 28-country Eurozone), and
countries that are members of the OECD (the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, 34 countries).
So, at the outset, we learn from the FAO
that when it says 'world' together with 'food insecurity', it means the
world minus all these countries. We must ask the first question to the
three who have together signed the foreword - Jos矇 Graziano da Silva
(director-general of the FAO), Kanayo F. Nwanze (President of the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD) and Ertharin
Cousin (executive director of the World Food Programme, WFP). Why is the
FAO's 'world' the so-called 'low income' and 'developing' countries of
Asia, Africa and South America? Is the FAO together with IFAD and WFP
claiming that food insecurity exists only here and not in the European
Union, in the USA and in the richer countries of the OECD? And if so,
what value at all does such a document have?
The 'State of Food Insecurity in the World' series is one of the FAO
flagship publications. This year's edition is the 15th in a series which
began in 1999, and which the FAO has described as raising "awareness
about global hunger issues, discusses underlying causes of hunger and
malnutrition and monitors progress towards hunger reduction targets
established at the 1996 World Food Summit and the Millennium Summit".
[Much edited out here for reasons of space]
The 'State of Food Insecurity in the World' must be seen for what it is -
a blunt weapon in the hands of the multinational food and agri-business
consortia whose products are responsible for globally widespread
mis-nourishment, for deforestation, for the deliberate dismantling of
public sector and socially vital food procurement and distribution
programmes, for the grabbing of land, for the globally widespread alteration of diets
and the disastrous shrinking of grain and vegetal biodiversity in
diets. And because this latest trick by an FAO – which now seems
inseparably wedded to the balance-sheets of the food and agri-business
multinationals - is a cudgel and not an uplifting essay, the 2014 edition includes seven
case studies not one of which is from the European Union or North
America.
They are instead from Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, Indonesia, Madagascar,
Malawi and Yemen and chosen for they "highlight some of the ways that
countries tackle hunger and how external events may influence their
capacity to deliver on achieving food security and nutrition
objectives". Yet we know that in the USA
just over one in six persons survives under an official poverty line,
one in five of American households with children is food insecure and
more than one in four black American households is food insecure.
Consider: "In 2013, households that had higher rates of food insecurity
than the national average included households with children (20%),
especially households with children headed by single women (34%) or
single men (23%), Black non-Hispanic households (26%) and Hispanic
households (24%)." This is what Feeding America, a hunger relief charity
has said, quite starkly. We know also that Britain, the seventh richest
country in the world, is deeply unequal, with Oxfam and Church Action
on Poverty reporting
that "millions of families across the UK are living below the
breadline", with Oxfam having estimated that the number of free meals
given to people in food poverty in 2013-14 by the three main food aid
providers went up by 54% compared with 2012-13.
Nor is Germany, the so-called economic motor of Europe, different. The
book 'Who owns Germany? The real power holders and the fairy tale of
national wealth' (by Jens Berger, a fifth edition of which has been
published this year) shows that the upper tenth of 1% of German
households has about as much money as the bottom 85%, that the wealth of
the 80,000 richest Germans is 16 times greater than the wealth of the
poorest 40 million, and that the lowest 20% of Germany's population have
no assets at all.
The factors that singly and together contribute to deep and lasting food
insecurity are clear to see in the 'developed' world, and the
populations (households and families) thus affected are in numbers very
much larger than the countries singled out in SOFI 2014 with case
studies: Bolivia has 11.02 million in 2014, Haiti 10.60 million,
Madagascar 24.23 million, Malawi 17.30 million, Yemen 25.53 million. The
USA has 50 million under its official poverty line, a number greater
than the populations of all these countries, but SOFI 2014 ignores their
hunger and their mis-nourishment and their undernourishment.
If SOFI 2014 is a slim pamphlet (but weighty in the cunning hands of
food free-marketeers) the methodologies it relies on are portrayed as
being broad and deep. "All available data on each dimension of food
security have been compiled and on changes in these dimensions over time
analysed," the report has said. Our final question therefore is: why
has the claimed reduction in the number of undernourished not been
balanced by the carefully documented growth in the number of obese and
overweight populations in the world?
For all the saddening reasons pertaining to the rise in the number of
poor households in the 'developed' countries, the incidence of obesity
in their populations is directly attributable to the inability of those
households to buy healthy food and subsist on a nutritious diet that is
locally produced. Instead, what passes for social security - whose
provision is considered a mandatory enabling provision elsewhere by the
FAO - in the USA, Britain and a number of countries in Europe will allow
households to purchase only the cereal-heavy, calorie-dense and fully
processed products that the chemical food industry supplies.
[more edited out for space]
The FAO has evolved a definition for food security that must reasonably
include every ill effect of mismanaged and misdirected nutrition, but
the State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014 reports one side and not
the other. The mismanagement of nutrition - referenced often in FAO
statements that bemoan undernourishment while enough per capita food
supplies exist - is called hunger and the FAO labours to connect this
with 'access'. The misdirection of nutrition
- as primary crop staples are industrially re-converted into low-cost
formulations such as the ready-to-eat noodles and 'enriched' biscuits
that are the mania amongst the labour in Asia and Africa, for that is
all they can afford - just as often is seen in overweight working age
populations, fed every day on cheap cereals reconstituted with palm oil,
sugars and spiced flavourings.
The health effects of both food insecurities, especially for low-income
households, demand a response from country governments that goes far
beyond the industry-friendly prescriptions of the FAO, IFAD and WFP,
biased as they now visibly are towards the finance-and-technology suite
of 'solutions' so readily provided by the welter of international
foundations and their transnational food industry funders. For national
and sub-national governments which take seriously their responsibilities
towards cultivators and food consumers, the State of Food Insecurity
reports may be treated as advertisements for food globalisation, full of
false promise and dubious claims.
Rahul Goswami from here
Showing posts with label FAO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAO. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2014
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Socialism can feed the world, capitalism cannot
Millions of men women and children people in the world live in conditions of absolute poverty. The problem is not one of over-population which is a diversionary tactic to blame the people rather than acknowledge the real culprit - the capitalist system. The earth could sustain a far higher population than already exists, but only if land were cultivated in order to produce food that is needed rather than what is profitable.
The world already produces more than twice the number of calories that the human population requires. Per head of the world’s population, more food is available than ever before in the history of the world. Of that, some one third of the food produced is wasted. Reducing food waste could save more the equivalent of 65 million hectares of agricultural land use by 2030.
The causes of famine have little to do with a shortage of food. It is poverty, not lack of food in the market, that drives hunger and nutritional deficiency. Millions of people simply cannot afford to buy the food that they need, which would still be the case if supply increased. World hunger is not due to the impossibility of producing more food, but due to the Governments and multinational companies that control food production and distribution.
But that does not mean humanity can simply rely on food output growing sufficiently over future decades. Climate change, environmental degradation, growing immunity of pests to chemical attack and microbes to antibiotics, plus capitalism’s constant wars and civil wars may combine to recreate global insufficiency. We are reluctant to accept the argument that the battle to feed all of humanity is over. We need increased scientific research to production but it needs to look at what is really needed to increase output in each ecological niche and study possible unintended effects of new methods, and which rigorously tests things before they are put to use.
The struggle to rid the world of famine starts with understanding capitalism and working for its abolition – not holding the begging bowl and pleas for pity and charity.
Humans live in the realm of nature, we are constantly surrounded by it and interact with it, constantly aware of the influence of nature in the the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. Mankind is not only a dweller in nature, we also transform it. From the very beginning of our existence, and with increasing intensity human society has adapted nature and made all kinds of incursions into it. Humanity converts nature into wealth. This process has frequently ended in tragedy. Forests were destroyed as the area of arable land was increased. What started as a means of survival now damages the biosphere on an increasing scale and is affecting us all. The ecological crisis is of global proportions. Activities which violate the harmony laws of nature now threaten to bring disaster and this disaster may turn out to be catastrophic if not apocalyptic.
We don’t need a new Green Revolution - We simply need a Socialist Revolution
Saturday, June 25, 2011
one less plague
The scourge of smallpox was made history. Now for the first time an animal disease has been eliminated from its natural setting because of human efforts – achieved under an international programme coordinated by FAO since 1994.
The highly infectious viral disease, rinderpest, does not directly affect humans, but it takes just a few days for a sick animal to die and it can wipe out whole herds. The last known outbreak occurred in Kenya in 2001. The lessons learned from the elimination of rinderpest, a deadly cattle plague that has threatened the livelihoods of herders and rural families for millennia, can be applied to tackling other major challenges.
Jacques Diouf, the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization described the eradication as a major success for humanity.
“Over the years I have frequently said that the world has the means necessary to eliminate hunger, malnutrition and extreme poverty,” said Mr. Diouf. “The total eradication of rinderpest – a disease that decimated cattle, buffalo and many other animal species, both domestic and wild – is proof of this today.”
SOYMB would agree that this achievment indicates the possiblities and benefits when we decide to tackle social problems but unfortunately we do not share the optimism that capitalism is a system capable of such co-operation and co-ordination (except on very rare occasions.) Nor are we the only ones.
Beyond their control
We read here of the well-meaning G20 plan, known as the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) . The G-20 believes volatility in agricultural commodities results from irresponsible speculation and a lack of information on global food stocks and the supply and demand of crops. The G20 is betting that collecting that information from nations as well as private companies - and making it public - will help foil speculators and calm markets. It requires the full cooperation of nations and corporations. Yet French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire admitted that China and India have resisted disclosing details about their food supplies, citing national security. The private corporations present an even bigger challenge. The G20 can't force them to disclose their data, and they may resist revealing sensitive information to competitors. This isn't the first time the G20 has tried to exert some control over an erratic and troublesome commodity market. Back in 2002 the G20 launched the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), an attempt to arrest volatility in the oil markets. Participants in the oil markets have been slow to cooperate, and a glance at any recent oil price chart will tell you that the oil markets are as volatile as ever. Similarly, the many pressures on agricultural commodities, most of which are beyond the G20's control, will keep the market volatile while pushing prices upward.
"Fixing the global food system and ending the food price crisis requires major surgery yet the G20 produced little more than a sticking plaster "Jean-CyrilDagorn, policy advisor for Oxfam's GROW campaign, said in a statement. "Crossing our fingers and hoping the crisis will go away is simply not good enough when millions of people are going hungry..."
The former UN secretary- general, Kofi Annan says "...If countries cannot come together successfully to deliver food security – this most basic of human needs – our hopes for wider international cooperation are doomed," He explained that "Africa is the continent which has perhaps the greatest opportunities to help find solutions to global food insecurity. Even within existing cultivated land, a doubling of cereal yields would turn Africa into a major food surplus region." He warned that the already shameful global record of the number of people living in hunger and poverty is likely to get worse instead of better.
The highly infectious viral disease, rinderpest, does not directly affect humans, but it takes just a few days for a sick animal to die and it can wipe out whole herds. The last known outbreak occurred in Kenya in 2001. The lessons learned from the elimination of rinderpest, a deadly cattle plague that has threatened the livelihoods of herders and rural families for millennia, can be applied to tackling other major challenges.
Jacques Diouf, the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization described the eradication as a major success for humanity.
“Over the years I have frequently said that the world has the means necessary to eliminate hunger, malnutrition and extreme poverty,” said Mr. Diouf. “The total eradication of rinderpest – a disease that decimated cattle, buffalo and many other animal species, both domestic and wild – is proof of this today.”
SOYMB would agree that this achievment indicates the possiblities and benefits when we decide to tackle social problems but unfortunately we do not share the optimism that capitalism is a system capable of such co-operation and co-ordination (except on very rare occasions.) Nor are we the only ones.
Beyond their control
We read here of the well-meaning G20 plan, known as the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) . The G-20 believes volatility in agricultural commodities results from irresponsible speculation and a lack of information on global food stocks and the supply and demand of crops. The G20 is betting that collecting that information from nations as well as private companies - and making it public - will help foil speculators and calm markets. It requires the full cooperation of nations and corporations. Yet French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire admitted that China and India have resisted disclosing details about their food supplies, citing national security. The private corporations present an even bigger challenge. The G20 can't force them to disclose their data, and they may resist revealing sensitive information to competitors. This isn't the first time the G20 has tried to exert some control over an erratic and troublesome commodity market. Back in 2002 the G20 launched the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), an attempt to arrest volatility in the oil markets. Participants in the oil markets have been slow to cooperate, and a glance at any recent oil price chart will tell you that the oil markets are as volatile as ever. Similarly, the many pressures on agricultural commodities, most of which are beyond the G20's control, will keep the market volatile while pushing prices upward.
"Fixing the global food system and ending the food price crisis requires major surgery yet the G20 produced little more than a sticking plaster "Jean-CyrilDagorn, policy advisor for Oxfam's GROW campaign, said in a statement. "Crossing our fingers and hoping the crisis will go away is simply not good enough when millions of people are going hungry..."
The former UN secretary- general, Kofi Annan says "...If countries cannot come together successfully to deliver food security – this most basic of human needs – our hopes for wider international cooperation are doomed," He explained that "Africa is the continent which has perhaps the greatest opportunities to help find solutions to global food insecurity. Even within existing cultivated land, a doubling of cereal yields would turn Africa into a major food surplus region." He warned that the already shameful global record of the number of people living in hunger and poverty is likely to get worse instead of better.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
The grocery bill
World food prices hit a record in January. Up for the seventh month in a row, the Food and Agriculture Oganisation Food Price Index on Thursday touched its highest since records began in 1990, and topped the peak of 2008. Forecasts show no easing in grains prices in 2011.
The sugar and coffee exporting countries of Central America are dependent on corn and wheat imports, and poverty levels are among the highest in the Americas. In Honduras, 70 percent of the population is poor, and 40 percent of people in rural areas of Guatemala and Nicaragua live in abject poverty, according to the United Nations. Guatemala is Central America's largest economy but deep inequalities have left around 45 percent of the population chronically malnourished. It is the only country in Latin America where the proportion of undernourished people increased between 1990 and 2007, even before the 2008 price spikes.
Honduran farmers lost nearly half their red bean crop in 2010 after bouts of extreme weather. Prices of beans, a staple of the Honduran diet, nearly tripled in the second half of 2010 until price controls were imposed. Even now they are up 75 percent, and more in some areas of the country.
"Before I would buy five pounds of beans every 10 days. Now I can only afford half that," Amada Lopez said at a central market in Tegucigalpa. "If this situation lasts much longer, we will have to eat one less meal a day."
"We have created an environment that allows pure speculation," FAO Director General Jacques Diouf told Reuters "Buying on the future markets ... buying only the contract and reselling it at higher prices without even seeing the commodities, that is what is not right."
He said the global market for agricultural commodities was "neither free nor fair."
The U.N. World Food Programme's executive director Josette Sheeran said the world was now in an era where it had to be very serious about food supply. "If people don't have enough to eat they only have three options: they can revolt, they can migrate or they can die."
The sugar and coffee exporting countries of Central America are dependent on corn and wheat imports, and poverty levels are among the highest in the Americas. In Honduras, 70 percent of the population is poor, and 40 percent of people in rural areas of Guatemala and Nicaragua live in abject poverty, according to the United Nations. Guatemala is Central America's largest economy but deep inequalities have left around 45 percent of the population chronically malnourished. It is the only country in Latin America where the proportion of undernourished people increased between 1990 and 2007, even before the 2008 price spikes.
Honduran farmers lost nearly half their red bean crop in 2010 after bouts of extreme weather. Prices of beans, a staple of the Honduran diet, nearly tripled in the second half of 2010 until price controls were imposed. Even now they are up 75 percent, and more in some areas of the country.
"Before I would buy five pounds of beans every 10 days. Now I can only afford half that," Amada Lopez said at a central market in Tegucigalpa. "If this situation lasts much longer, we will have to eat one less meal a day."
"We have created an environment that allows pure speculation," FAO Director General Jacques Diouf told Reuters "Buying on the future markets ... buying only the contract and reselling it at higher prices without even seeing the commodities, that is what is not right."
He said the global market for agricultural commodities was "neither free nor fair."
The U.N. World Food Programme's executive director Josette Sheeran said the world was now in an era where it had to be very serious about food supply. "If people don't have enough to eat they only have three options: they can revolt, they can migrate or they can die."
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Shameful
Latest figures from the UN Food and Agricultural Committee show that the number of hungry people worldwide has dropped by 98 million to 925 million in the past year. However, Oxfam warns that the decline - the first in 15 years and down from a record high in 2009 - is largely down to luck, such as two years of favourable weather patterns, as opposed to concrete action from world leaders. In the ten years since the Millennium Development Goals were agreed, the proportion of hungry people in the world has decreased by just only half a per cent from 14 per cent in 2000 to 13.5 per cent today.
"Despite there being enough food in the world to feed everyone, 925 million people are hungry today...” said Phil Bloomer, Oxfam’s director of campaigns and policy. “It is an outrage that in the 21st century men, women and children are still going to sleep with an empty stomach. There has been virtually no change in the proportion of hungry people now compared to 2000 when the MDG agreements were made...It is shameful that ten years since world leaders vowed to halve global hunger by 2015, we are no closer towards achieving this goal."
"Despite there being enough food in the world to feed everyone, 925 million people are hungry today...” said Phil Bloomer, Oxfam’s director of campaigns and policy. “It is an outrage that in the 21st century men, women and children are still going to sleep with an empty stomach. There has been virtually no change in the proportion of hungry people now compared to 2000 when the MDG agreements were made...It is shameful that ten years since world leaders vowed to halve global hunger by 2015, we are no closer towards achieving this goal."
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Helping hungry children
M矇decins Sans Fronti癡res urges the end of what the organisation terms "sub-standard" food aid donated to impoverished countries through international donors and humanitarian contributions. The majority of the donations are cereal-based fortified flours that do not meet basic nutritional standards for infants and young children, according to MSF nutrition expert Dr. Susan Shepherd.
"Much more attention is paid to the food of cattle and pets," Shepherd told more than 500 attendees of a panel discussion. She urged the international community to "give the children what they need, not what is left over. Treat the young children of developing countries the same way you would treat your own children."
The grim facts from the Food and Agriculture Organisation are that 14,000 children die of hunger every day and five million children die every year. The death of children due to hunger stems from malnutrition than starvation. "Children in Asia are not receiving the correct micronutrients; they lack sufficient vitamins and minerals in their food," said France Begin, regional nutrition advisor of Asia-Pacific office of the United Nations Children’s Fund. "Children die of chronic hunger in Asia because their immune systems are weak" she told IPS. "Pneumonia and diarrhoea are the two main killers."
The cost of food has condemned millions into food insecurity, according to the Asian Development Bank. In Cambodia, nearly 71 percent of a family’s expense goes toward food, in Tajikistan and Burma (Myanmar) 70 percent goes to a family’s food bill, Georgia, 64 percent, Azerbaijan, 60 percent, and Nepal, 59 percent.
The irony among victims of food insecurity in Asia is that most of them live in rural areas that produce food.
"Small farmers are net buyers of food from the market," said FAO official Konuma. "The rice they produce is sold to buy other food items."
The crazy consequence of capitalist commodity production .
"Much more attention is paid to the food of cattle and pets," Shepherd told more than 500 attendees of a panel discussion. She urged the international community to "give the children what they need, not what is left over. Treat the young children of developing countries the same way you would treat your own children."
The grim facts from the Food and Agriculture Organisation are that 14,000 children die of hunger every day and five million children die every year. The death of children due to hunger stems from malnutrition than starvation. "Children in Asia are not receiving the correct micronutrients; they lack sufficient vitamins and minerals in their food," said France Begin, regional nutrition advisor of Asia-Pacific office of the United Nations Children’s Fund. "Children die of chronic hunger in Asia because their immune systems are weak" she told IPS. "Pneumonia and diarrhoea are the two main killers."
The cost of food has condemned millions into food insecurity, according to the Asian Development Bank. In Cambodia, nearly 71 percent of a family’s expense goes toward food, in Tajikistan and Burma (Myanmar) 70 percent goes to a family’s food bill, Georgia, 64 percent, Azerbaijan, 60 percent, and Nepal, 59 percent.
The irony among victims of food insecurity in Asia is that most of them live in rural areas that produce food.
"Small farmers are net buyers of food from the market," said FAO official Konuma. "The rice they produce is sold to buy other food items."
The crazy consequence of capitalist commodity production .
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Empty Bellies - Full Bank Accounts
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation studies showed that world hunger has been rising dramatically. Hunger has risen considerably worldwide in the past three years due to the increase of the food prices and it is worsened by the economic crisis affecting the world, the head of the FAO Jacques Diouf said.
"In 2009, the number of hungry people (around the world) rose by 105 million compared with the previous year and reached 1 billion,"
Diouf said there are still millions of hungry people in a region where food production cannot only meet its own needs, but also allow a large surplus to be exported to other parts of the world.
It is the global profit-drive market system whose golden maxim is "can't pay--can't have". The basic problem is whether the propertyless masses can afford to pay for food.The market operates with what is called “effective demand,” which is about ability and willingness to pay.The fundamental reason for capitalist production is to produce for the market with a view to making profit. This overriding interest in profit does not change, no matter in which economic sector production is carried out. In agriculture, production is not carried out because people need food.Food is not produced because people need it to survive This is marginal to the main focus of the market economic system, which is the accumulation of capital.Profits can only be realised from a commodity if it is sold in a market and converted to money.
We are living in a world that has the productive potential to turn out enough to adequately feed, clothe, house, educate and care for the health of every single person on the planet, irrespective of where they live. That this isn’t done today is due to the fact that the production and distribution of wealth is organised on the basis of buying and selling, of trade. In socialism , food and other natural resources won’t be traded. They will simply be transferred from one part of the world to another as required to meet needs. This wouldn’t be trade since there would be no question of payment or of any transfer of something of equal value from the part of the world where they went to the part they came from.If people in one part of the word needed food it would be transferred there, as for instance from the wheatlands of North America. This wouldn’t affect local agriculture since there would be no competition between the two; there’d be no local markets to undermine since local production wouldn’t be for a market either. In fact, local agriculture could be given the fertilizer and equipment that they need - without demanding any counterpart - so that it can contribute increasingly to satisfying local food needs.
This - not trade - but production for use - is the alternative.
"In 2009, the number of hungry people (around the world) rose by 105 million compared with the previous year and reached 1 billion,"
Diouf said there are still millions of hungry people in a region where food production cannot only meet its own needs, but also allow a large surplus to be exported to other parts of the world.
It is the global profit-drive market system whose golden maxim is "can't pay--can't have". The basic problem is whether the propertyless masses can afford to pay for food.The market operates with what is called “effective demand,” which is about ability and willingness to pay.The fundamental reason for capitalist production is to produce for the market with a view to making profit. This overriding interest in profit does not change, no matter in which economic sector production is carried out. In agriculture, production is not carried out because people need food.Food is not produced because people need it to survive This is marginal to the main focus of the market economic system, which is the accumulation of capital.Profits can only be realised from a commodity if it is sold in a market and converted to money.
We are living in a world that has the productive potential to turn out enough to adequately feed, clothe, house, educate and care for the health of every single person on the planet, irrespective of where they live. That this isn’t done today is due to the fact that the production and distribution of wealth is organised on the basis of buying and selling, of trade. In socialism , food and other natural resources won’t be traded. They will simply be transferred from one part of the world to another as required to meet needs. This wouldn’t be trade since there would be no question of payment or of any transfer of something of equal value from the part of the world where they went to the part they came from.If people in one part of the word needed food it would be transferred there, as for instance from the wheatlands of North America. This wouldn’t affect local agriculture since there would be no competition between the two; there’d be no local markets to undermine since local production wouldn’t be for a market either. In fact, local agriculture could be given the fertilizer and equipment that they need - without demanding any counterpart - so that it can contribute increasingly to satisfying local food needs.
This - not trade - but production for use - is the alternative.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Food For Thought
Lord Boyd-Orr, the first Director-General of the FAO, once stated:
'There was no difficulty about producing enough food for the present population of the world, or even twice that number, but the problem was, could politics and economics arrange that the food that was produced was dispersed and consumed in the countries that needed it?' (The Times, 22 July 1949)
Over sixty years later, we still have the same 'problem' and its soultion remains unchanged, as this old essay explains.
During his directorship of the United Nations' Food and Agriculturist Organisation Sir John Boyd Orr won the approval of many people for his work in organising the supply or food to the devastated countries of Europe. Since his retirement from that post he has been tackling the problem of food production for all the peoples of the world. His approach is the direct one; his ideals mere wishful thinking, because conflicting interests in capitalist society, national and international, permit of no direct methods for the provision of a full life for all.
Among many other things he said (Daily Herald, 29/7/48):
"A world of peace and friendship, a world with the plenty which modern science had made possible was a great ideal. But those in power had no patience with such an ideal. They said it was not practical politics."
Within the structure of capitalisrn it is possible that the politicians are right. Inside the nation a capitalist is guaranteed protection while accumulating wealth by exploitation, providing he observes the rules of the game. Between nations the case is different. The right to trade, to colonise, and to have access to raw materials and natural resources outside their own boundaries must be wangled, bluffed or taken by force of arms. A nation having taken possesslon can only hold its gains by superior strength. Consequently it is futile to suggest, as Sir John does that:
"If half the effort being spent making tanks, guns. aeroplanes or atomic bombs was diverted to producing the primary necessities of life, gross poverty would be eliminated for the world within the lifetime of our children."
For each nation to cut its fighting forces by half, to convince the governments of all nations of such a necessity, while each is suspicious of its neighbours and scheming to over-reach them, such an idea is, to say the least, laughahle. Moreover, Sir John only suggests a reduction in armed strength - or equipment - by half. Even he could hardly visualise capitalism being run without armed forces to deal with dissatisfied secticns of the workers from time to time.
Next Sir John says:
"A world government may evolve from the United Nations' Food, Economic, Financial and other organisations."
But he gives no hint as to which nation will be at the head. Nor does he show how the differences between nations can be reconciled to bring about collaboration in a common policy that would be of lasting benefit to the workers. He says:
"Politics was but the shadow of economics "
but overlooks the fact that all the power is in political control of armed force. Those who control the political machinery of any nation make the laws designed to regulate production and exchange; and by tariffs, taxes and subsidies encourage or hinder trade in the various industries according to the interests they represent.
In one of his broadcasts Sir John suggested tnat the agriculturists and food producers of the world should get together and tackle the problem of world food production by mutual agreement, on the principle that they are the actual people concerned with the production of these commodities. But the very fact that these people are concerned with commodity production makes them suspect. In the past such collaboration between the captains of industry has invariably resulted in limitation, or restriction of output in order to control prices in their own interests. Rings and combines are just as common among agriculturists as other interests. They are not philanthropists but capitalists, in business to make profits. They hold the community to ransom whenever their products fall behind demand. In the past they burned millions of tons of wheat and coffee. Even since the war vegetables have been ploughed back into the seil, fruit has been allowed to rot, and hundreds of tons of fish thrown back into the sea or sold as manure to keep up prices.
But Sir John still has hopes, in spite of the callous indifference to the needs of the people that is so prominent a feature in the normal life of those with guaranteed incomes derived from industrial enterprise, or to be exact, exploitation. He says:
"These United Nations' organisations throw a light along the road to world peace and plenty ... Have we the common sense, the decency, the moral purpose to follow the light?"
Unfortunately these qualities have little or nothing to do with the question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Sir John hasn't even mapped out a road to his Utopia; while facing him is the inexorable machinery of capitalist finance and power-politics, blind and deaf to common-sense appeals, in their lust for power.
Then:
"If the decision lay with the people, he had no doubt what the answer would be. Where they had not been too bedevilled to think for themselves, they all wanted the things the organisation stood for."
To bedevil means to confuse, and the vast 'majority of the workers are in a hopeless muddle of confused thinking on political and economic questions. The class that appropriates the major portion of the wealth produced, without contributing towards its production, must be deeply interested in obscuring the method by which it is achieved. The majority of capitalists are, no doubt, quite ignorant of the scientific explanation of surplus value. Yet they all know that the system in some way guarantees them wealth and privilege without effort on their part. Consequently they welcome any theory that keeps clear of this fact, and encourage any shallow, but plausible ideas that only deal with day-to-day occurrences on the surface of capitalist events, This flood of bedevilment is a free-for-all. Politicians, economists and journalisrs all take a band, many of them finding it pays extremely well; especially the politicians. The so-called Labour, Fabian and Communist parties are responsible for much of the confusion.
Next Sir John says:
"The carrying out of a world food plan alone would bring a great expansion of world industry and trade such as occurred in the 19th century."
That possibility should certainly gain capitalist support for Sir John, because the more work there is for the workers, the greater the amount of surplus value from which capitalist incomes are derived, while the workers still only get wages that barely cover their cost of living. But Sir John overlooks one important factor. During the 19th century Britain had a flying start in the raca for markets. Today every capitalist country is in the race, and the share of each will diminish with the ever-increasing fierceness of the international race for markets.
" If food production could not be doubled in the next 25 years," warned Sir John, "we were heading for disaster." Due presumably, to the estimated enormous increase in the world's population on top of tbe present food shortage. We are not told the nature of the disaster that threatens, but unlike Malthus, who visualised the time when there would only be standing room on the earth, Sir John reveals the forces already operating to avert the disaster - whatever it is - when he says:
"Of every three families in the world today, two suffered premature death for lack of adequate food and shelter."
Sir John may hope that a world government might set a limit to the process. But such a government, especially by agreement, is just a dream, while world government by conquest is a nightmare even to the capitalist and his political stooges.
Next he says:
"The first right of man was food and shelter to maintain life. The masses today demanded this. And they would get it because they were in a vast majority."
Not merely because they are in a majority, nor because they demand them, will they get these things. They have first to understand why they lack them now. At present the workers, between them, possess all the scientific and technical knowledge, and actually carry out all the work of production and distribution. Their failure to satisfy the needs of all is due to the incubus of trade, commerce and finance; the capitalist machinery of appropriation, that limits production to what the market can absorb. The workers must get rid of this incubus. To do so they must organise politically as a class, in opposition to all parties which maintain the present system. Only when they contral the political machinery through their delegates, pledged to carry out the wishes of the workers, will they be enablecl to control production and distrlbution in accordance with their needs.
One of the greatest obstacles to a clear understanding of their position by the workers, is the bedevilment, or confusion, much of it considered and deliberate, referred to by Sir John Boyd Orr. However laudable his ideals and aspirations his assumption that they can be realised by a world government of capitalists is a false and dangerous fallacy. It is the working-class that suffers under capitalism, and it is only by the conscious and organised efforts of that class that emancipation can be achieved.
F.F.
The Socialist Standard, October 1948
'There was no difficulty about producing enough food for the present population of the world, or even twice that number, but the problem was, could politics and economics arrange that the food that was produced was dispersed and consumed in the countries that needed it?' (The Times, 22 July 1949)
Over sixty years later, we still have the same 'problem' and its soultion remains unchanged, as this old essay explains.
During his directorship of the United Nations' Food and Agriculturist Organisation Sir John Boyd Orr won the approval of many people for his work in organising the supply or food to the devastated countries of Europe. Since his retirement from that post he has been tackling the problem of food production for all the peoples of the world. His approach is the direct one; his ideals mere wishful thinking, because conflicting interests in capitalist society, national and international, permit of no direct methods for the provision of a full life for all.
Among many other things he said (Daily Herald, 29/7/48):
"A world of peace and friendship, a world with the plenty which modern science had made possible was a great ideal. But those in power had no patience with such an ideal. They said it was not practical politics."
Within the structure of capitalisrn it is possible that the politicians are right. Inside the nation a capitalist is guaranteed protection while accumulating wealth by exploitation, providing he observes the rules of the game. Between nations the case is different. The right to trade, to colonise, and to have access to raw materials and natural resources outside their own boundaries must be wangled, bluffed or taken by force of arms. A nation having taken possesslon can only hold its gains by superior strength. Consequently it is futile to suggest, as Sir John does that:
"If half the effort being spent making tanks, guns. aeroplanes or atomic bombs was diverted to producing the primary necessities of life, gross poverty would be eliminated for the world within the lifetime of our children."
For each nation to cut its fighting forces by half, to convince the governments of all nations of such a necessity, while each is suspicious of its neighbours and scheming to over-reach them, such an idea is, to say the least, laughahle. Moreover, Sir John only suggests a reduction in armed strength - or equipment - by half. Even he could hardly visualise capitalism being run without armed forces to deal with dissatisfied secticns of the workers from time to time.
Next Sir John says:
"A world government may evolve from the United Nations' Food, Economic, Financial and other organisations."
But he gives no hint as to which nation will be at the head. Nor does he show how the differences between nations can be reconciled to bring about collaboration in a common policy that would be of lasting benefit to the workers. He says:
"Politics was but the shadow of economics "
but overlooks the fact that all the power is in political control of armed force. Those who control the political machinery of any nation make the laws designed to regulate production and exchange; and by tariffs, taxes and subsidies encourage or hinder trade in the various industries according to the interests they represent.
In one of his broadcasts Sir John suggested tnat the agriculturists and food producers of the world should get together and tackle the problem of world food production by mutual agreement, on the principle that they are the actual people concerned with the production of these commodities. But the very fact that these people are concerned with commodity production makes them suspect. In the past such collaboration between the captains of industry has invariably resulted in limitation, or restriction of output in order to control prices in their own interests. Rings and combines are just as common among agriculturists as other interests. They are not philanthropists but capitalists, in business to make profits. They hold the community to ransom whenever their products fall behind demand. In the past they burned millions of tons of wheat and coffee. Even since the war vegetables have been ploughed back into the seil, fruit has been allowed to rot, and hundreds of tons of fish thrown back into the sea or sold as manure to keep up prices.
But Sir John still has hopes, in spite of the callous indifference to the needs of the people that is so prominent a feature in the normal life of those with guaranteed incomes derived from industrial enterprise, or to be exact, exploitation. He says:
"These United Nations' organisations throw a light along the road to world peace and plenty ... Have we the common sense, the decency, the moral purpose to follow the light?"
Unfortunately these qualities have little or nothing to do with the question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Sir John hasn't even mapped out a road to his Utopia; while facing him is the inexorable machinery of capitalist finance and power-politics, blind and deaf to common-sense appeals, in their lust for power.
Then:
"If the decision lay with the people, he had no doubt what the answer would be. Where they had not been too bedevilled to think for themselves, they all wanted the things the organisation stood for."
To bedevil means to confuse, and the vast 'majority of the workers are in a hopeless muddle of confused thinking on political and economic questions. The class that appropriates the major portion of the wealth produced, without contributing towards its production, must be deeply interested in obscuring the method by which it is achieved. The majority of capitalists are, no doubt, quite ignorant of the scientific explanation of surplus value. Yet they all know that the system in some way guarantees them wealth and privilege without effort on their part. Consequently they welcome any theory that keeps clear of this fact, and encourage any shallow, but plausible ideas that only deal with day-to-day occurrences on the surface of capitalist events, This flood of bedevilment is a free-for-all. Politicians, economists and journalisrs all take a band, many of them finding it pays extremely well; especially the politicians. The so-called Labour, Fabian and Communist parties are responsible for much of the confusion.
Next Sir John says:
"The carrying out of a world food plan alone would bring a great expansion of world industry and trade such as occurred in the 19th century."
That possibility should certainly gain capitalist support for Sir John, because the more work there is for the workers, the greater the amount of surplus value from which capitalist incomes are derived, while the workers still only get wages that barely cover their cost of living. But Sir John overlooks one important factor. During the 19th century Britain had a flying start in the raca for markets. Today every capitalist country is in the race, and the share of each will diminish with the ever-increasing fierceness of the international race for markets.
" If food production could not be doubled in the next 25 years," warned Sir John, "we were heading for disaster." Due presumably, to the estimated enormous increase in the world's population on top of tbe present food shortage. We are not told the nature of the disaster that threatens, but unlike Malthus, who visualised the time when there would only be standing room on the earth, Sir John reveals the forces already operating to avert the disaster - whatever it is - when he says:
"Of every three families in the world today, two suffered premature death for lack of adequate food and shelter."
Sir John may hope that a world government might set a limit to the process. But such a government, especially by agreement, is just a dream, while world government by conquest is a nightmare even to the capitalist and his political stooges.
Next he says:
"The first right of man was food and shelter to maintain life. The masses today demanded this. And they would get it because they were in a vast majority."
Not merely because they are in a majority, nor because they demand them, will they get these things. They have first to understand why they lack them now. At present the workers, between them, possess all the scientific and technical knowledge, and actually carry out all the work of production and distribution. Their failure to satisfy the needs of all is due to the incubus of trade, commerce and finance; the capitalist machinery of appropriation, that limits production to what the market can absorb. The workers must get rid of this incubus. To do so they must organise politically as a class, in opposition to all parties which maintain the present system. Only when they contral the political machinery through their delegates, pledged to carry out the wishes of the workers, will they be enablecl to control production and distrlbution in accordance with their needs.
One of the greatest obstacles to a clear understanding of their position by the workers, is the bedevilment, or confusion, much of it considered and deliberate, referred to by Sir John Boyd Orr. However laudable his ideals and aspirations his assumption that they can be realised by a world government of capitalists is a false and dangerous fallacy. It is the working-class that suffers under capitalism, and it is only by the conscious and organised efforts of that class that emancipation can be achieved.
F.F.
The Socialist Standard, October 1948
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
same ol' story
"Now is the time for action. The food crisis has taught us that to defeat hunger, we have to deal with its root causes and not to continue coping with the consequences of past mistakes," said Jacques Diouf, director-general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization . UN officials are demanding a new global system to ensure that people across the world have enough to eat.
My , when SOYMB read those lines we thought finally , at last , there is a call for Socialism , a world where peoples' needs count more than company profits. But , alas , it was not to be . What we found was simply another wishful attempt to reform and legislate the failures of capitalism out of existence as exemplified by "the humanitarian agency Oxfam International is calling on leaders to commit to a legally binding agreement to eradicate hunger. We later read that Mr. Diouf calls for increased funding to help developing countries boost their agricultural output through investment in rural infrastructure and ensuring access to modern inputs. Scarcely addressing the root cause of hunger and starvation .
Meanwhile , 115 million more people have been driven into poverty and hunger by rising food prices over the past three years. The most recent FAO report on food insecurity estimated that worldwide, the number of undernourished people is close to 1 billion . Over 850 million people worldwide are at risk due to the food crisis, and half of the 10 million people who die of hunger each year are children. In Tanzania, more than 20 percent of young children are underweight, and malnutrition is a major cause of early death. Rural households spend well over half of their incomes on food, and families are struggling to maintain their normal diet as prices for basic food items continue to rise.
The crisis currently gripping the world economy will likely cause an additional 200 million people to fall into "absolute poverty," said a recent report from the International Trade Union Confederation. Financial speculation, massive profit-taking by a handful of multinational companies, and failed policies by international financial institutions are key factors in the global economic crisis, the workers' rights group rightly said yet still even those experts fail to advocate the solution and cling to the futile efforts of capitalist tinkering .
As of last month, 31 countries - 20 in Africa, nine in Asia and the Near East and two in Central America and the Caribbean - in are facing a food crisis and need emergency help
"This cannot be acceptable. How can we explain to people of good sense and good faith this dramatic situation in a state of abundance of international resources and when trillions of US dollars are being spent to stimulate the world economy?" Mr. Diouf asked
The task for the FAO and Mr Diouf is to identify the useful mechanisms which co-ordinate production and distribution as distinct from the value factors of buying and selling in the markets, which under capitalism constrain useful production. The FAO ,charities and NGOs may do their bit, alleviate a little suffering here and there, but their work in is in reality only addressing the symptoms, not the disease.The disease is the global profit-drive market system whose golden maxim is "can't pay--can't have". It is a system governments believe they can run in the interests of us all. In the years to come we will see many conferences and summits looking at the problem of global hunger. A lot of rubbish will no doubt be uttered at the same and you can bet no remedy will emerge. This is because there is only one remedy and governments cannot contemplate it because, as the executive of capitalism, it runs counter to the real interests they serve.The remedy involves abolishing the money system, freeing production from the artificial constraints of profit and establishing a world of free access to the benefits of civilisation.The FAO and Oxfam believe the problem of hunger, in a world of abundance, a problem rooted in the way our society is organised for production , can be solved by reforming that system, by coaxing the capitalist class into mending their ways. Decades of world conferences on hunger, a thousand promises by the defenders of capitalism have proved otherwise, and always will until we end their system.
See:-
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The world could produce more food
Socialists have always contended that the world could produce enough to feed every human being on the planet. This has been confirmed time and again by bodies such as the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Organisation as well as by agronomists and other specialists in the field. So, why is the world price of wheat, rice and other agricultural products rising? Surely this shows that enough food can’t be produced? No, it doesn’t. What it shows is that food is not produced today to meet people’s needs but to be sold on a market with a view to profit.
World food prices are rising, and this does reflect the fact that paying demand is currently exceeding supplies. But this does not mean that enough food cannot be produced. It means simply that enough food has not been produced.
Various explanations have been offered for this imbalance between demand and supply. Extra demand resulting from the migration of millions of people from the countryside to the towns in places like China and India. Diversion of land to growing biofuels instead of food. Such explanations concentrate on why demand has increased. An article in the Times (26 June) by Ross Clark offers an explanation why not enough food has been produced.
Clark is a supporter of the market (who thinks that any opponent of the “free” market is a “Marxist”) and so expects that sooner or later food supplies will increase to satisfy the paying demand. No doubt it will (but this will still leave those who can’t pay either to starve or to have to rely on minimal hand-outs from charities and from the UN and other agencies). He argues that food production has fallen because in previous decades it had been overproduced. It is of course obscene to talk of “too much” food being produced when there are millions in the world who are starving, but he means “too much” in relation to paying demand. Even so, his explanation is still interesting in showing the irrational way in which the capitalist system works.
According to him:
“The reason for the fall in cereal production over 15 years has not been soil degradation or climate change: while crops yields are not increasing as fast as they were doing in the 1960s, they have still risen by 1-2 per cent per annum over the past 15 years. Rather, the decrease in production has been a straightforward response to overproduction. Remember the grain mountains of the 1980s? They resulted in a collapse in prices that in turn persuaded grain producers to contract their operation. Now that prices are rising again the opposite has happened: the FAO estimates that this year's wheat harvest will rise by 13 per cent as a result of extra planting, putting downward pressure on prices next year.”
He points out that today:
“the background to rising food prices is the shrinkage of global agriculture over the past decade and a half. Globally, less food is being produced on even less land than was the case in the early 1990s. Take the US, which according to the FAO was producing 1,210kg of cereals per person per year between 1990 and 1992 and 1,104 kg between 2001 and 2003. Or Canada, at one time the “world's bread basket”, where cereal production fell from 1,905 kg per person per year in 1990-92 to 1,384 kg in 2001-03.”
Given the current strong paying demand for food, the 1990s levels may well be reached again but, as we just said, this will satisfy only paying demand. What about those who can’t pay?
Though it is far from his intention, Clark provides information which shows that enough food could be produced to satisfy their food needs too. Of course it won’t be, and never will be, under the capitalist market system which he supports. But it could be in a socialist world where production would no longer be limited to what can be sold.
Clark writes:
“the total landmass cultivated for arable crops in 2006, according Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), was 1.402 billion hectares - or 14 million sq km. In other words, all the world's cereals and vegetables are grown on an area equivalent to the USA and half of Canada. A further 34 million sq km - equivalent to the rest of North America, South America and two thirds of Australia - is given over to grazing, much of it extensive, unimproved grassland. The rest of the world - equivalent to the whole of Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia plus a third of Australia - is not used for food production in any way. Some of this land, of course, is desert, mountain or rainforest, which either cannot be used for agriculture at all or would require irrigation, engineering or clearance. But a vast amount of it could quite easily be converted into agriculture, but has until now not been needed.”
What does he mean “has not been needed”? Of course it’s been needed! What Clark means again is that it has not been needed to meet paying demand. We say that it is needed to end world hunger but will only be able to be used for this when once the resources of the Earth have become the common heritage of all humanity. That’s the only basis on which these currently unused resources can be used to meet the food needs of everyone, not just of those who can afford to pay.
ALB
World food prices are rising, and this does reflect the fact that paying demand is currently exceeding supplies. But this does not mean that enough food cannot be produced. It means simply that enough food has not been produced.
Various explanations have been offered for this imbalance between demand and supply. Extra demand resulting from the migration of millions of people from the countryside to the towns in places like China and India. Diversion of land to growing biofuels instead of food. Such explanations concentrate on why demand has increased. An article in the Times (26 June) by Ross Clark offers an explanation why not enough food has been produced.
Clark is a supporter of the market (who thinks that any opponent of the “free” market is a “Marxist”) and so expects that sooner or later food supplies will increase to satisfy the paying demand. No doubt it will (but this will still leave those who can’t pay either to starve or to have to rely on minimal hand-outs from charities and from the UN and other agencies). He argues that food production has fallen because in previous decades it had been overproduced. It is of course obscene to talk of “too much” food being produced when there are millions in the world who are starving, but he means “too much” in relation to paying demand. Even so, his explanation is still interesting in showing the irrational way in which the capitalist system works.
According to him:
“The reason for the fall in cereal production over 15 years has not been soil degradation or climate change: while crops yields are not increasing as fast as they were doing in the 1960s, they have still risen by 1-2 per cent per annum over the past 15 years. Rather, the decrease in production has been a straightforward response to overproduction. Remember the grain mountains of the 1980s? They resulted in a collapse in prices that in turn persuaded grain producers to contract their operation. Now that prices are rising again the opposite has happened: the FAO estimates that this year's wheat harvest will rise by 13 per cent as a result of extra planting, putting downward pressure on prices next year.”
He points out that today:
“the background to rising food prices is the shrinkage of global agriculture over the past decade and a half. Globally, less food is being produced on even less land than was the case in the early 1990s. Take the US, which according to the FAO was producing 1,210kg of cereals per person per year between 1990 and 1992 and 1,104 kg between 2001 and 2003. Or Canada, at one time the “world's bread basket”, where cereal production fell from 1,905 kg per person per year in 1990-92 to 1,384 kg in 2001-03.”
Given the current strong paying demand for food, the 1990s levels may well be reached again but, as we just said, this will satisfy only paying demand. What about those who can’t pay?
Though it is far from his intention, Clark provides information which shows that enough food could be produced to satisfy their food needs too. Of course it won’t be, and never will be, under the capitalist market system which he supports. But it could be in a socialist world where production would no longer be limited to what can be sold.
Clark writes:
“the total landmass cultivated for arable crops in 2006, according Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), was 1.402 billion hectares - or 14 million sq km. In other words, all the world's cereals and vegetables are grown on an area equivalent to the USA and half of Canada. A further 34 million sq km - equivalent to the rest of North America, South America and two thirds of Australia - is given over to grazing, much of it extensive, unimproved grassland. The rest of the world - equivalent to the whole of Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia plus a third of Australia - is not used for food production in any way. Some of this land, of course, is desert, mountain or rainforest, which either cannot be used for agriculture at all or would require irrigation, engineering or clearance. But a vast amount of it could quite easily be converted into agriculture, but has until now not been needed.”
What does he mean “has not been needed”? Of course it’s been needed! What Clark means again is that it has not been needed to meet paying demand. We say that it is needed to end world hunger but will only be able to be used for this when once the resources of the Earth have become the common heritage of all humanity. That’s the only basis on which these currently unused resources can be used to meet the food needs of everyone, not just of those who can afford to pay.
ALB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)