argylesock says… And here are more thoughtful words. ‘[F]ood support works as a wipe to retain items surpluses in the North and discard it at costs underneath the expense of generation in the South.’
The Root Causes
The food emergency is an indication of a food framework in emergency. Terrible climate, high oil costs, agrofuels, and hypothesis are just the proximate reason for a deeper, systemic issue. The underlying driver of the emergency is a worldwide food framework that is profoundly powerless against economic and ecological stun. This powerlessness springs from the dangers, inequities, and externalities inborn in food frameworks that are commanded by a worldwide mechanical agri-foods complex. Fabricated over the past half-century—to a great extent with open trusts for grain subsidies, remote support, and global horticultural improvement the modern agri-foods complex is made up of multinational grain dealers, goliath seed, substance, and compost organizations, processors, and worldwide grocery store chains.
View original post 4,100 more words
I need to work my way through both of these, slowly there’s a lot of information here.
Me too. I reblogged in haste, and followed the author likewise.
The two articles do a good job of explaining “how we got here. And It’s a pretty ugly story. “‘The handicapping of food frameworks in the worldwide South opened up whole mainlands to the extension of streamlined agri-foods from the North. This development crushed nearby agro-biodiversity and discharged the farmland of important characteristic and human assets. In any case as long as shoddy, financed grain from the modern North continued streaming, the mechanical agri-foods complex developed, combining control of the world’s food frameworks in the hands of fewer and fewer grain, seed, synthetic, and petroleum organizations.”
But we are here now, and some of the conclusions don’t make sense. . It demonstrates that when food supplies are low, rich countries give less of it away, but then argues that we don’t need more food. I suppose that could be right if we lived in an altruistic world, but we don’t.
I suppose what disturbs me out these two articles is that they seem to be bending over backwards avoid any indication that since many hungry families can’t afford food, one way to increase the food per person in these families is smaller family size. The movement in the US to restrict access to birth control has definitely made hunger in America more widespread.
“The Sub-Saharan African populace has developed from 230 million in 1961 to 673 million in 2000, a 292% expansion over 39 years. Domesticated food creation has not kept pace.” That sure seems like a problem to me. Development of seed that will perform in local conditions, supporting local food production. A kinder gentler world that does a better job of feeding the poor, will all work, but they will not work without controlling population growth.
You and I have discussed several times why birth rates are high in poor countries. We’re not going to agree on this topic, I think.
No we agree on the why 100% I simply think that it’s a part of the problem that should be addressed, not ignored.
‘we agree on the why 100%’
No, we don’t. Let’s not try to debate it.