Category Archives: Food Policy

How Math Predicts Revolutions Based on Food Prices

revo

The point about rising food prices being a factor in social unrest has been explored before but now there is a model that can predict when and where revolutions will occur based on food prices. According to this, when the FAO food price index reaches 210, social unrest is triggered. Among the list of countries are some where this has happened on a large scale(Venezuela is a current example), some where it is still contained (India) and also some surprises (Sweden?!). The author of the study, Prof. Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute , points to two major causes for rising food prices: the rise of biofuels and speculation in commodities. And what happens to these two variables will determine if prices will be lower this year. Ethanol mandates are being debated in the US and EU, but speculation is another matter. It is spoken of much less than labeling, or any other food issue of the day.

Consider, also, the impact of climate change. (This was an important factor in the case of Syria, for instance.) Unpredictable weather events, a sudden drought or flood may result in a below average harvest; but higher prices in the global market (fueled by speculation) provide an incentive for exporting most of the crop. This would mean less is available for domestic consumption and  prices would rise for whatever is on the market. If prices were to rise to critical levels, as predicted by this model, social unrest would follow. 

What are the chances of regulating commodity speculation, proposing , for example, some limits for trading? It is difficult, perhaps, to be optimistic on this issue but it has to be highlighted in any conversation on the food system.  Food is a commodity, yes, but it is not like any other commodity. If trading in future, hypothetical, stocks of grain  means people are starving in the present then that is not an acceptable situation and efforts to correct it should not be blocked by purely financial interests.

(Image Courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net)

Non-GMO Cheerios: Something to Cheer About?

28047578

The news that General Mills is going to eliminate genetically modified elements from their line of Original Cheerios was greeted with cheers by many. If true, it would represent a big change in the way the cereal is produced. But how big is this change, I wondered.  Reading closely we find that the main ingredient, oats, were not GM anyway, it is the corn starch and sugar that are being sourced differently and this will only happen for the Original line not for others like Honey Nut, Fruity Cheerios , Apple Cinnamon etc. It is, then, only a small tweak in only one cereal, right. Wait, there is more: on her blog, the Farmer’s Daughter  USA quotes Margaret Smith, Professor of Plant Breeding at Cornell University.

“In reality, Cheerios isn’t changing at all. Margaret Smith, professor of plant breeding at Cornell says:

Corn starch and sugar are highly refined products, so they contain no DNA (which is what is introduced into a genetically engineered organism) and no protein (which is what the new DNA would produce in a genetically engineered organism). Because of that, corn starch and sugar from a genetically engineered corn variety are nutritionally and chemically identical to corn starch or sugar from a non-genetically engineered variety.

It is the exact same cereal.”

The statement from the company seems to indicate that the corn and sugar General Mills uses in future will be conventional, non-GMO (there is no mention of use of organic crops). The main reason for using GM corn is to prevent crop loss to pests,  not world domination ,as so much of anti-GMO propaganda insists. So, how are the pests going to be dealt with? Would this mean increased pesticide use to prevent crop losses? Everyone agrees this is not such a good thing: for the farmers who have to handle and apply the stuff, for the consumers or for the planet. The use of non-GMO crops involves a real cost in terms of crop loss which in turn would impact prices of these crops and the quantities produced, more here.  For example, if in a given year,  x hectares of corn was planted with the expectation of a yield of  y tonnes, and the yield is lower due to crop loss to pests; global demand for corn stays ahead of global supply, next year the farmers might respond by growing x+some hectares by cutting down forests. That is not a great outcome. Would it be better to switch to organic corn and sugar? There are doubts about organic cultivation bringing in the required yields . Besides, organic farming also uses pesticides, just different ones from those in conventional farms.

So far, none of this is positive. And the question remains, why this decision now? What does the producer get out of this?  Well, the company can, for example, put on a big label on its package saying “No GMOs Used” (or something to that effect). This highlights exactly my misgivings with the labeling issue. Basically  a label can obscure as much as it reveals. Consumers, overwhelmed with all the fear mongering on the GMO issue might be persuaded to buy more of what they think is “safer” for their families. This means more sales and more profits, good news for the company.While General Mills has a big chunk of the market, its share has slipped in 2013 (by a tiny bit) and this would be a good time to bump up the numbers.

Just as the insistence on a tortuous and long drawn out approval process for GMO crops tips the balance in favor of big corporations; the clamor for labeling can also have unintended consequences. It will make a difference , yes, but to the big  producers and not to the consumer. Not much to cheer about, after all.

Does Reading Blog Posts Change Your Mind?

 

cake

 

A bit of introspection brought about by the cheery wishes from WordPress because Thought+Food had completed another year. Even  with the stats and the kind comments, sometimes one  does get the “shouting into the wilderness” feeling. Who is reading this and do they keep any of it with them once they are done?  Hopefully , they do! even if for a short while. One would have to be Michael Pollan to leave an impact that lasts for a year, apparently.

And while food policy in this country and the world continues on its  incomprehensible way, there will be a huge motivation to write about it in the hope of bringing some change. Thanks for joining me on this journey!

Just Label It!

 

cherry

I watched the GMO labeling debate closely in California and cheered when the proposition was defeated there. But when I read the arguments from the pro-labeling side,(based mostly on misinformation and unsubstantiated fears) I began to think that blocking labeling is perhaps not the best strategy. GMO foods, it has been proven, again and again, are  safe for human consumption. The pro-label lobby has therefore, framed the debate in terms of the “consumer’s right to know what is in their food”. It is hard to make the case that the consumer should not know/does not need to know what is in their food and so, blocking labeling makes it seem like the producers of food containing GM ingredients are hiding something. One would like to ask the question: how would knowing this be useful to the consumer anyway? If they do not want to purchase GMO products, there is already a label for them: it says “organic” or that fascinating mystery term, “natural” which many seem to rely on.

It is important to remember that this debate is being played out in parts of the world that have the luxury to debate about food. In other areas, where people are going hungry every day, children are malnourished and suffering from dietary deficiencies, food on the table is a survival issue. Biotechnology offers a way to combat global hunger. By  blocking labeling and letting the “there is something to hide” misinformation gain ground, we are denying choices precisely to those who are most vulnerable. If we continue to block labeling, the ultimate aim of the anti-GM lobby; to take biotechnology out of the options forever, would be achieved and this would be a disaster in the struggle to deal with hunger and malnutrition.

Instead, imagine a situation where the labeling issue is actively owned by those seeking to make sure the benefits of GM foods actually reach the public. Companies need to proactively steer the labeling issue in a positive direction: uniform labels for the whole country so that the same chaotic battles do not have to be fought over and over again in each state, providing more opportunities for spreading misinformation. The actual words on the label are crucial and that should not be dictated by the naysayers. Ideally, I would propose :”This product contains GM ingredients which have been more rigorously tested than most products in your grocery store. They are produced using less pesticides and so are better for the farmers who grow them and our planet. They are also fortified with Vitamin A (for example) which will prevent blindness and death in millions of children.” But that is a dream and in the real world, companies will have to work hard to merely ensure that negativity is minimized.

In purely economic terms, there is a far bigger market out there as measured by currently undernourished/malnourished people than the few who might switch from buying products post labeling. And, most important to remember, the one piece of information on the label which seals the deal for a consumer on a budget is the price.If there is an initial cost increase involved, companies need to refrain from passing that on immediately to the consumer. Instead, let them read the label, see the price, compare it to the high priced organic option and make their decision.

You can read more on both sides of this here and here.

GMOs: The View From Italy

italy

Absorbed as we tend to be in our own food system battles: food safety, labeling, etc; we tend to forget that similar struggles are taking place elsewhere. I always tend to think of Europe as solidly anti-GM although, there is a lively debate on right now in the UK, for example, on the adoption of GM technology. So, this piece on the import of GM corn by Italy was illuminating. First, the elaborate dance around growing/importing GM corn even when the current corn crop has been devastated by pests is entertaining to read. Also, I learnt that several countries in the EU do grow or import GM crops, somehow working through loopholes in the regulations banning this technology. And, finally, a familiar picture: no one is listening to what the farmers have to say. The final scene in the drama played out thus: Italian pigs will be fed GM corn imported from the US (but what will this mean for future prosciutto?!), while Italian farmers are left to deal with the consequences of a failed harvest. Too bad they cannot blame it all on Monsanto!

Drought, Hunger and Syria

 

syria

Looking at the news these days, it seems that the world is just coming apart and understanding all of this is impossible. But it is also difficult to turn away from, so I started reading this piece to learn about the situation in Syria. And when I came to point 6, I had to stop and read it again. How did I not know this already?

There was a severe drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011 which disrupted the rural economy. Lack of water meant that farmers lost their livelihoods and migrated to the cities to get whatever jobs they could, to keep their families from starving. The Syrian government, meanwhile, decided to sell off the grain reserves.  Already unsuccessful in dealing with the drought crisis, it now had no food to offer its citizens and had to import food. This, obviously, was not a viable solution and it is easy to see why violence, fed by this and other factors, has broken out.

Two things come to mind here: the issue of climate change and the breakdown of Syria’s food production system has largely remained invisible in the discussions on military action. How could a calamity that resulted in an estimated 2 to 3 million people being reduced to “extreme poverty”, have remained unnoticed?  And, for the future: as the impact of climate change on our food system becomes more intense;  this situation ,with minor changes in variables, could be repeated across the globe. What will we do then?

It is time to put the food system at the center of any debate on the future. If we talk of dealing with climate change, let us start by recognizing its crucial impact on how we grow food, if we want a more equal world, let us ensure that its roots lie in a just and fair food system, and if we want a secure world, food security needs to be the first step.

Another Green Revolution in India?

9688921-front-view-of-a-farmer-holding-plow

In the 1960s, India was facing  a severe food shortage. The Indian economy was decimated by 200 years of colonial rule and the 3 wars fought after gaining Independence in 1947. The country was struggling to grow enough food to feed its people and did not have the resources to import food either. Finally, it was food aid under the US PL480 program that enabled India to to stave off the threat of starvation for millions.  It was in this situation that India decided to adopt Dr. Norman Borlaug’s newly developed variety of medium wheat and what is known as the Green Revolution got its start. As productivity increased, so did rural incomes and many lives that might have been lost to famine were saved.

Despite the criticisms that have since been directed at this program, the enormous good that it did cannot be denied. This video captures the sense of what the adoption of this technology meant to India. While it highlights Dr. Borlaug’s efforts, what struck me most was the enthusiasm of the farmers for innovation, the openness to technology and the unsettling awareness that the path to adoption of technology today may be more difficult. Fifty years ago the decisions about farming were the domain of the farmer who had the knowledge to make those decisions, today the scenario is fraught with those who trust neither science nor those who have grown our food for years (in the case of Indian family farmers, this would mean over centuries!).

India’s “Right to Food” Debate

food

My vacation mornings here, in India, are usually spent in a leisurely session of  sharing newspapers with my father. As I read, I am fascinated  by the lively debate around the Food Security Bill. which basically ensures the right to a certain amount of food for everyone. The discussion is quite sharply divided among those who feel that these would amount to hand-outs and create the Indian version of  “takers”, a term familiar to us from the recent US election. The other side argues that despite impressive growth in recent years, the benefits remain limited to a few sections while most Indians, specially in the rural areas; live in crippling poverty without access to basic amenities like clean drinking water, sanitation, electricity and education. Some effort, they argue, is required on the part of the state that everyone can partake of the growth pie.

This debate is front and centre right now because the political parties are using it in one way or other to substantiate their position in the upcoming elections; the ruling party is pushing for it and worked around the problem of passing it in Parliament by getting it passed as an executive order. This would be applicable for 6 months, close enough to the elections for those in power to claim it as their record. Others think this a bad idea for several reasons: difficulty in deciding eligibility, execution of the program through the existing, leaky public distribution system, cost to the taxpayer etc. But it is simply the more visible version of an underlying dilemma: should India pursue growth alone and let the results work out for themselves or should social goals like education, sanitation etc. be actively pursued by the state? And it is one that reflects the differing attitudes to economic development in India, presented in an excellent article here.

Despite the differences on the ground between India and the US there are ways in which they echo each other: a certain impatience/indifference to those who are struggling. The “if they were any good they would have pulled themselves out, instead they are holding us back” school of thought has supporters everywhere it seems; the ability to ignore increasing inequality is global and the willingness to exploit the issues for political points is robust on every continent.

A very good summary of the debate  can be found here.

The Mystery of the Suddenly Appearing GM Wheat

11312703-closeup-view-of-green-wheat-ears-on-a-white-background

You have been reading about the sudden appearance of GM wheat in a field in Oregon, the ongoing USDA investigation into how it appeared there, the possibility of a boycott of American wheat by countries worried about GM wheat in their food supply, and the possibility of stiff losses to farmers (90% of Oregon wheat is exported). However, being a member of that vast group,  Clueless Urban Consumers, you held back on giving your opinion on social media because you were discovering a whole new world which you knew very little about , and did not feel comfortable asking out to the world  the questions burning in your brain: for instance,” where do baby wheat come from anyway?”; and, “wait, what, there are different kinds of wheat?”

Here is something to start with: wheat is not pollinated by insects, it self pollinates inside the flower while the flower is closed. Why is this important? Because bees or insects flying around cannot carry pollen to other wheat plants and enable  cross pollination. The pollen is heavy and cannot be carried far, anyway. Extra pollen may fall to the ground but is not viable for long so the possibility of pollen in soil getting moved to the field planted with regular wheat is remote.

There are several varieties of wheat and the distinctions are important. The wheat grown in Oregon is soft white winter wheat, bought by Japan and Korea where it is used for noodles and crackers. There is also, “hard red winter wheat, “hard red spring” “hard white wheat’ and keeping all these varieties separate is a special concern of wheat growers and there are associations on every state to ensure that correct procedures are followed.

Now to the incident in question. A farmer in Oregon discovered that some wheat plants in his fields were resistant to glyphosphate and contacted researchers at Oregon state University where it was determined that this was indeed, genetically modified wheat. GM wheat was tested by Monsanto from 1998 to 2005 and last grown in Oregon in 2002. Monsanto then withdrew the application and closed the trial. After this, proper measures should have been taken to deal with the seeds and other materials from the trial. (It is important to note here that this GM wheat had been certified safe by the FDA, but before the deregulatory process could start, there were threats of international boycott, protests etc so GM wheat never came to the market). Also worth noting,   Monsanto is currently testing GM wheat in Hawaii and North Dakota.

So if I have understood all this correctly, some questions arise. The obvious one, how did the GM plants get to this field? No one, wheat growers, scientists, or even those opposed to GM technology else has a plausible explanation of how this wheat could come up, years after testing had stopped in a field  which has been cultivated regularly without any previous occurrence of GM wheat.  GM corn and soy are widely grown in the US so logically there would be a higher probability of these sprouting randomly than wheat.

And that brings us to some notable observations: if I wanted GM technology to vanish overnight or even scare the population enough to push through my agenda of labeling everything in sight, what crop would I pick to create a fuss over? One that had already been the object of controversy which lead to abandonment of the GM version, (and , double bonus, the GM version was being tested by the company that has been made virtually synonymous with biotechnology in agriculture by anti-GM groups), one which forms a huge share of exports and is essential to the livelihood of many people , one where the distinction between varieties is crucial, one that would stir international controversy: wheat is the perfect answer.  Is it possible that this is not a random occurrence?

While we wait for for the USDA to publish its findings, it is important to remember that even if this wheat entered the food chain it is perfectly safe for human and animal consumption. So there is no reason for panic. All this does is stir, once again, the pot of fake science and fear that some people cannot seem to let alone. Let us take a step back and understand this: every time fears are raised and technology is abandoned, farmers and consumers, specially in the developing world, lose options. There is so much noise about GM seeds being expensive, well, look at how expensive the process is: if GM wheat ever comes to market the whole process would have taken decades, and who has the resources to stay the course over that period of time? Not universities or governments or research institutions but, you guessed right, a corporation like Monsanto.

“I Have Measured Out My Life With Coffee Spoons”

15759463-scoop-of-coffee-beans

T.S.Elliot spoke for so many of us when he wrote that, but now, this warm indulgence so crucial in equipping us to fight the cruel world is under threat.  Coffee plants in Central America  face the possibility of being wiped out by a pathogen called Coffee Leaf Rust (Hemileia vastatrix).  This pathogen was earlier responsible for the devastation of coffee plantations in Ceylon.  Is there a way to avoid this? Yes, it can be dealt with by using a synthetic fungicide called Triazaline. The problem? Coffee drinkers in the US and other prosperous countries want their coffee to be organic. The organic fungicide that is used by farmers who grow organic coffee is copper based, much less effective and the run off from the plants poses environmental problems. Most of the organic coffee is grown by smallholder farmers who would lose their organic certification if they used the synthetic fungicide. However, if they had the option of using the synthetic fungicide  solely in order to deal with this crisis, they could save their crop (coffee is grown from seeds which could be saved from the current year’s crop) and be re-certified after 3 years. But faced with the consistent insistence on the organic label, these smallholder farmers may have to lose their livelihood.

How important is the “organic” label anyway? We already know the organic fungicide is not a good option. For farmers to receive certification, they have to pay stiff fees which puts a huge burden on them. Unless the coffee is shade grown, it means forest cover has been cut down to make way for farms (even organic ones) which is not environmentally optimal. Often, middlemen buy from the poor, smallholder farmers paying them a fraction of what this coffee will eventually earn in a market driven by the drinking tastes of consumers who remain unaware of the ground reality of those who produce the coffee.

Colombian coffee growers with the help of their government were able to eradicate leaf rust. Could these results be replicated elsewhere? I am still trying to research what methods were used there. Accessible and detailed information on the leaf rust issue is here at Applied Mythology. Solutions are available, the outcome is not inevitable. In this as in so many problems with the food system today, two things are essential: first, the voice of the farmer has to be heard on par with the consumer; second, a pragmatic perspective that brings us a good outcome for all and not just a few privileged people.  Otherwise those coffee spoons might just be left there, unused…