 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
March 2002 |
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON? |  Back to contents | |
|
|
|||
|
|
It is well documented that chronic hunger and undernourishment lead to growth retardation, mental impairment, impaired work capacity and lower resistance to infection.1, 2 Yet the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that approximately 841 million people in developing countries have inadequate access to food. In addition to concern about the quantity of food worldwide, there are other concerns regarding quality and safety and the global incidence of foodborne disease. The food production chain has become more complex, providing greater opportunities for contamination. Many outbreaks of foodborne disease that once were contained in small communities, may now take on global dimensions.3 As more food is imported into countries, there is an increased risk of disease being imported. The recent foot and mouth outbreak in the UK has highlighted the risk of disease spread due to infected imported meat, movement of animals across long distances, and intensive farming methods.4 Ingredients are sourced from many countries and global industries want common standards. As consumers press for more information and higher standards, exporters in developing countries find it hard to keep up with the regulations and standards5. Retailers have power over what the farmers grow, and how, by use of contracts and specifications. But specifications require uniformity, which only a narrow form of farming can produce, increasing cost and making food less available to the poor6. The causes of food insecurity are complex and a shortfall in food production is often not the issue. However, with a rapidly growing world population, the challenges of producing enough food for everyone in the coming century are substantial. The required additional food production will have to be achieved under conditions of shrinking per capita land and water resources1. In addition to slowing yield increases due to degradation of land and shortage of water, obstacles to food security include:
Also, industrialised countries are providing a huge variety of foods all year and at ever lower prices. Globalisation is causing a weakening of economic control by national governments, leaving developing countries vulnerable to economic factors beyond their control and to fluctuations in world prices. There is a two-tier food safety system developing, where, for example, products for export conform to national standards while domestic consumers are left with food that does not meet these standards. Biotechnology may be important for developing countries but there are environmental and human safety concerns and improved testing procedures are needed. New technologies may only be suited for large-scale farming, resulting in further impoverishment of small-scale farmers. A revolution in agriculture will be required to adapt food production systems to growing needs and changing environments. Socio-economic and environmental factors must be taken into account by focussing on production, sustainability and poverty reduction1. GLOBAL TRADE RULES Professor Tim Lang has suggested that in the global arena, the goal of market economics has assumed priority over food security, consumer choice, environmental protection and public health6. The 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) - now part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - included agriculture and food, and this opened the way for further globalisation. The model stated that cheaper commodities should not be impeded from having access to hitherto protected markets. However, critics suggest that free trade does not work for food6. Affluent consumers benefit from cheaper goods and companies switch production to areas where labour costs are low, so the poor lose. Deregulation, narrow criteria of economic efficiency, international competitiveness and reliance on the market favour large farmers and big food companies. Transnational corporations now account for 70 per cent of total world trade in all goods. In Europe, for example, 80 per cent of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies go to the largest 20 per cent of farms6. Globalisation can mean more choice for richer countries, but if their own subsidised surpluses are then dumped on poorer countries, hundreds of local businesses in these countries will go out of business. There is a need to enable developing countries to export and grow their way out of poverty5 but there is the danger of a dislocation in food culture5 and a huge cost to the environment. Those costs include deforestation, loss of traditional land use patterns and destruction of fragile habitats5. Large supermarkets demand regularity of supply and all year round sources, so food travels further and causes more traffic pollution6. There is a need to manage environmental assets sustainably and industries should conform to global environmental agreements as well as national priorities for sustainable development5. There are many issues relating to globalisation. Poor countries export produce to repay debt, while their own populations starve. For example, in the Gambia, roads have been installed which radiate from the airport, with the specific aim of getting food produce to Europe faster - exacerbating home inequalities and creating a dependency culture6. Vast amounts of Brazilian land is used to grow soya beans for animal feed and oranges for fruit juice for the UK and Germany, yet Brazil has one of the world's worst child nutrition rates6. Fish is transported half way round the world to market places, but local people in the region where it was fished find stocks so depleted that there is not enough to feed their families and the long-term sustainability of the resource is threatened5. SELF-RELIANCE IN FOOD PRODUCTION Providing assistance to enable developing countries to evolve their own food production is preferable to sending surpluses, as dependence on food imports creates vulnerability to world markets and prices and weakens a country's potential to create a sustainable local food system.6 Relief aid is not always wisely given, or used,5 and aid money has repeatedly been used to buy weapons or feed the military, in order to prolong war. Food aid has also been used to displace people from an area7. While aid should create conditions to attract inward investment and boost economic growth, in the past it has been used to win contracts, tied to purchase of goods from the donor or given as part of a donor-led project which may not be in the best interests of the country. Food security is a global issue that is not solved by increasing global production, but rather by access to reliable food sources of acceptable quality. Reducing poverty by promoting sustainable livelihoods would allow access to alternative food sources during local shortages2. Communities can become more food secure if they diversify crop patterns, use traditional varieties of crop resistant to disease and climate variation, balance food and cash crops, and have adequate storage and distribution facilities2. SUBSIDIES Subsidies distort trade and lead to unfair competition. The CAP is widely believed to be an unfair barrier, restricting access to EU markets for developing countries. It was created at a time when Europe was in deficit for most food products but enormous increases in production have secured food supplies.10 The United Nations estimates that this barrier costs developing countries £13.7bn annually5. The CAP has been the cause of higher food prices, hindering economic development and reducing international competitiveness. The CAP price policies encouraged intensive farming, over use of antibiotics and pesticides, and has ultimately proved damaging to the environment. It is known that the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on food, yet the CAP has made the types of produce eaten more commonly by low-income families expensive8. The Treaty of Rome (1957) established five goals for the CAP:
BIOTECHNOLOGY The responsible introduction of genetic modification is supported by the Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST), provided that issues of product safety, environmental concerns, information and ethics are satisfactorily and continually addressed. Possible innovations include fodder crops that contain more calories, crops that destroy mould toxins, and disease resistant crops, such as sweet potato and cassava, that are staple foodstuffs of the poor. Crops that survive despite drought and salty soil could enable farmers to expand into marginal lands. If maize could be made to produce more of the amino acids it naturally lacks, the estimated 80 million people who live almost exclusively on maize would get more protein in their diets10. Concerns however, include antibiotic resistance, allergenicity, potential toxicity and environmental issues. There is a continuing need for studies on the possible risks of genetically modified (GM) crops to the agricultural environment. Very little environmental monitoring of large scale GM cultivation is taking place worldwide and potential problems may take several generations to manifest. The problem of possible cross-pollination from GM to non-GM crops is of concern to organic farmers. Herbicide resistance may spread to weeds and the problem of insect resistance may be aggravated. The adoption of insect resistant crops worldwide may lead to the extinction of some insect species. Some of the potential environmental risks are impossible to predict. There are also socio-economic concerns - the potential for misuse of the terminator genes which prevent seeds from germinating, for example. There are fears that large companies might use such genes to prevent farmers from storing seed, additionally disadvantaging poor farmers11. THE FUTURE The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is in a position to oversee the rural economy as a whole. It needs to integrate environmental, consumer and health considerations. Consumer considerations include food safety, quality, reasonable prices, rural employment, access to countryside, environmental protection, diversity, farm income, healthy diet, farm and animal welfare, and protection of wildlife9. Without action, the future could see: more intensive, automated production units producing cheap, standardised food across the world; free trade leading to food travelling further and little control over standards in certain parts of the world where competition will keep costs low; development of a niche market for free range and organic foods which is costly and only available to the wealthy; and biotechnology introduced to create "designer" foods (non-allergenic wheat, increased flavour, ability to absorb less fat and sugar, and ability to stay fresher) further dietary supplements and individually designed, disease preventive diets. The wealthy will be healthy, have choice and variety, but the poor will have standardised, mass-produced processed food of little nutritional benefit12. To achieve food security, food has to be available, culturally acceptable, nutritional and adequate in quantity, quality and variety. There should be global, national and local involvement. Responsible use of biotechnology may be involved as the benefits include improved yields, reduced pesticides and improved micronutrient supply, but concerns over product safety, the environment and ethics need to be addressed. Consumers need access to accurate and unbiased information, to make informed choices. Food production systems should be sustainable, economically viable and equitable. The production of more food will not solve the problem of world hunger and malnutrition; the focus should be on poverty, health, the environment and the politics and economics of food production and distribution. Dr Fiona Bushell,PhD,MSc,BSc(Hons) MCIEH,FRSH,MIFST References
|
||
