Food Chain
From Griffith REVIEW Discussion
© Copyright Griffith University & the author.
5 October, 2010
Greta Nielsen
Via internet
Dear Editor,
I read Cameron Muir’s article (‘Feeding the world’, Griffith REVIEW 27: Food Chain) with great interest and want to thank Griffith REVIEW for the series of articles in this edition, which I will be referring to for a course I’m doing.
Although I don’t come from a farming background, it seems all I’ve read on agriculture (quite a lot over the years, as viewed from an international economic, international trade and development policy perspective) points to the unpredictable nature of farming as a source of income generation.
I find it interesting that Australia seems more concerned about food security issues, although I’m not sure there’s only one view emerging from this on-again off-again national debate. As a highly urbanised nation, it concerns me that people seem to take for granted the role that agricultural production – and food production in particular – plays in our everyday lives. People have become too divorced from the forces of food production to comprehend what it takes to get that plate of food to the table, let alone place that within an economic, social, historical and environmental context.
I was impressed that Mr Muir had picked up on the issue of how Australians still operate under certain misconceptions. I was unaware of the prevalence of the myth that Australian agricultural exports were ‘feeding the world’s poor’, being much more familiar through direct interaction with those promoting Australian agricultural exports as a way of earning national income. The underlying assumption is that Australia is one of the competitive and efficient producers of food and other agricultural commodities and, therefore, we should be able to export these with the minimal of barriers to trade. Hence, the foreign policy emphasis on reducing the distortions in international trade which are harming our incomes.
But, what seems to be overlooked is the cost to our natural resource base in how we go about achieving this drive to export. It is only recently we seem to have realised the damage to soil and water, both in quality and quantity, and to raise serious questions about the sustainability of our policies and practices.
I was also impressed that he pointed to the ‘double lie’ of global shortage perpetuated by the distortions in international trade. Too often, I am frustrated reading un-substantiated press reports or articles which flog the idea that there is a global food shortage and that the problem lies in producing more in order to drive prices down,so that it becomes cheaper to the world’s poor. Muir’s article points to the problems with this argument and the many potential complexities that are glossed over. As Muir points out, production and export subsidies in developed countries artificially boost production, leading to export surpluses which are offloaded (dumped) on international markets. In some cases, this dumping forces local prices below the cost of production and in developing countries this is particularly damaging for the poor.
He might as well add, that it is known that some of that subsidised surplus ends up recycled into international development aid contributed to assuage ‘famines’. If there’s ever a system intent on perpetuating poverty, inequity and powerlessness, it is the international trading regime with its current flaws.
Globally, we produce too much, we throw away too much, we undermine a fair return to production and we diminish our resource base in the process of supporting surpluses above and beyond what is needed to feed those who need the nutrition most.
Congratulations to the author for his well written article. I’ll be reading others in the issue with relish.
Greta Nielsen
Response from author:
Thank you for your letter to the editor. It is encouraging to receive this kind of feedback, and very pleasing to know you will be drawing on the Food Chain essays for your course – I am glad the edition has inspired you in this way.
You seem to have a long familiarity with many of these issues and welcomed the synthesis in the essay. No doubt you saw some of these long-standing perceptions of Australian agriculture influence the rhetoric in the response to the Guide to the draft of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. Let’s hope for some serious debate, and that some of the rural representatives that have dominated the media so far try to listen to and inform rather than scare the people they’re supposed to be supporting.
Regards,
Cameron