Food inflation is at its worse in decades and global food crises could turn into global food catastrophes at the drop of a hat. But with the US election pushing starvation out of front pages, less than 10% of money pledged by donor countries has been delivered. One candidate could have caught the other camp off guard with the mention of a new comprehensive agricultural policy, but the issue, not surprisingly, was entirely ignored.
With more sexy issues, such as the war in Iraq, high energy prices and financial collapse crowding agricultural policy out of voters' minds, one could forgive the average American for not demanding more of the Presidential candidates. But ignoring high global food prices, and their remediable causes, only serves to hurt the United States in the long run.
A sound food policy is a cornerstone for good foreign policy. Americans vote with their wallets, whereas many around the world cannot afford such a luxury: they vote with their stomachs, which are growling.
A BBC World Service global study on the issue has found that the percentage of those dissatisfied by their leaders is in the mid to upper eighties in Egypt, the Philippines and Lebanon; countries not famous for their political stability. The same study found that rising food and energy prices have had a “great effect” on 60% of people across 26 countries. American politicians might find that staying the course with food policy could mean losing scarce legitimacy as a self-proclaimed “force of good” in global politics.
Two weeks ago, former President Bill Clinton addressed the issue. He was frank when speaking at a UN Meeting last Thursday. “We all blew it, including me,”he said. Clinton then blasted the agricultural policies of Western governments, for treating crops “like color TVs.”
No one was spared as Clinton railed against the US government, the World Bank and the IMF. Congress was chastised for spurning the idea (shockingly supported by President Bush, who got it right for once) of giving some food aid in the form of cash, instead of dumping American agricultural surpluses on fragile developing markets. The World Bank and the IMF were criticized for requiring African countries, at the behest of the US, to drop subsidies on fertilizer and other forms of financial support for farmers in return for World Bank/IMF aid.
Such policies only served to increase poor countries' dependence on the West and reduced their domestic food supply, thus leaving many people around the world where they are today: reeling from hunger. If we continue these policies, we only serve to alienate countries around the world that rightly view our intentions suspiciously. Our image cannot afford anymore of a beating, thus we must glean agribusiness' interests out of foreign policy decision making. We must therefore stop subsidizing exports and most non-cash food aid to poorer countries.
But it isn't just for reasons of foreign policy alone that our attitudes towards food must be reformed. Our economy, federal budget and health care systems could all use a boost; something that a national food policy could help accomplish.
Rising food costs are not only eating into household budgets, but they are squeezing businesses as well. Small businesses, such as restaurants and bakeries, are being hit hard. Who are benefitting from high food costs? The usual suspects: large multinationals with “upstream” market power. Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto all saw their profit nearly double. Wal-Mart claims that food sales are the driving force behind rising profits.
Subsidizing agriculture, though controversial, can be used to alleviate pressure on prices, though you wouldn't know it by living in the United States. Instead of paying farmers to not grow crops, thereby increasing food prices, the federal government should take a different approach. Guaranteeing farmers a minimum price for their crops is a better method. Farmers will then sell “downstream” at much lower prices, as they know the government will make up the difference, thus benefiting consumers.
Subsidizing farms, to some, is unnecessary: a way of distorting the market. To others, however, it is democracy on your dinner plate. Farm subsidies could, for example, be used to ensure that healthy, ethically grown food is sold at low-cost in the United States. Not only would this create jobs in the United States, but it would also reduce our dependence on oil (without subsidizing corn for ethanol development). As an increased supply (and decreased price) for domestically grown food, would decrease demand for imported food.
The need to fix our farm subsidy system also implies that agribusiness special interests must be locked out of formulating legislation. When two-thirds of total subsidy spending goes to the richest 10% of farmers, one cannot deny big business is calling the shots in a defunct agricultural program.
"Distorting the market" through subsidization can also help ensure that healthier food is cheaper. This would relieve pressure on the American health care system, assuming consumers were responsive to cheaper, healthier food. The result could potentially save Americans countless dollars, as problems such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and a whole other host of health problems went into remission.
For two major candidates who claim to be intent on changing the American political landscape for years to come, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have incredulously barely even mentioned a new agricultural policy, at their own peril. Let us hope that whoever is elected president November 4th, will formulate a national food policy; one that could give the United States momentum needed for wholesale positive change for decades to come.
Change is needed and hopefully the calls for it are genuine. As George Orwell once wrote: “We may find in the long run that tinned food is a deadlier weapon than the machine gun.” Who would have thought our own government would have us looking down the barrel?
No comments:
Post a Comment