Random imageNew forum topicsSponsorUser loginActive forum topicsRecent blog posts
Recent comments
Currency Rate
|
The Food Crisis and Corporate ProfitsSubmitted by fyl on 13 May, 2008 - 08:47.
A Real News Network video talks about how the internationalization of food production over the past 30 years has created the current situation where profits of a few corporations soar as people starve. While Nicaragua is not specifically mentioned, it addresses the issues you see here. Specifically:
The video does a good job of showing that Nicaragua is just one of the victims and a local solution is very difficult. Short-term, there are no good options. Long-term, it is clear that local food production with non-chemical methods is the answer. But, it is a long road from today to what is needed to get Nicaragua out of the current situation. If there is good news it is that during the U.S. embargo of Nicaragua in the 1980s, organic farming methods were developed. Time to dust off what was learned then and put it back into practice. ( categories: )
|
NavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 4 users and 27 guests online.
Online users
Who's new
PollThe worst thing about Ortega is Friends with Hugo, et al 6% Lack of transparency 34% Not helping the poor enough 20% Not supporting business enough 9% Other (add comment) 31% Total votes: 35 A Thought... is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once. |
Here's a link to a bit on the Cuban Model
Here's a link to a bit on the Cuban Model
Puzzle Pieces (a few are missing)
Some places with problems a decade or two ago (Jamaica and Haiti come to mind, though Haiti always comes to mind, and there was some related discussion on this site a while back), might not be the best test cases for analyzing current problems.
The video in question does point to the four "facts" in the bulleted display above, but is there any reason to think those fours things are all that true of Central America? I can't comment on the current situation in Nicaragua as I have not been in the country for the last 120 days. However, I have been in Honduras. Nicaragua might be vastly different from Honduras per this matter, but I have my doubts. In Honduras food is at the same if not higher costs than Nicaragua, at least for staples.
The odd thing is that people are not faced with really expensive U.S. food derived from efficient production systems that are taxpayer subsidized with attributing costs due to rising chemical and transportation expenses. In fact, there really aren't any U.S. staples available, anywhere here in southern HN. When you buy beans in the HN market or some rural area, they are always Honduran beans (same for rice, corn, tortillas, etc.). When you buy these same foods in Paiz, La Colonia or Mas X Menos, while you used to see U.S. rice and beans in stores, this stuff all-but disappeared here in late 2007. At present, and not counting PriceMART Club, I don't know of any supermarket in the capital of Honduras with U.S. made rice or beans on the shelf. I suppose someone could make a case for importing negotiated-price U.S. stuff right now, since it would undercut the Honduran stuff on the market and help alleviate an obvious problem - but perhaps that is another matter.
The high prices are for Honduran grown produce, from farms staffed by Hondurans, and sold through chain stores, many of which are partly Honduran owned. While some of this produce would be dependent on fertilizer costs, not all of it is heavily so. And, transport costs are obviously dependent on petrol. But, when you consider how many beans are derived per acre from mechanized farming equipment, and how many bags or rice fit on a semi, and start doing the math, it isn't that hard to see that while gas might double, this in itself does not greatly increase the cost of any 1lb bag of rice or beans. While gas should make exports to Honduras more expensive, many non-quick-date products have not gone up in price as gas has skyrocketed (canned foods, bottled foods, condiments, etc.). But, much of the Honduran produce bought outside the few giant cities isn't from super high-tech corporate farms.
Some "odd" things is that while 1lb and 5lb bags of staples have gone way up in price, bulk purchases have not increased in anywhere near the same proportion (granted, bulk is more immune, but the percentages that used to hold true simply haven't in 2008). So, for the sake of argument, while the 1lb or 5lb bag might have tripled in price, the 100lb bag has, at the same time, increased less than double in price. A good businessman might buy in bulk and undercut the going market or pulperia price by enough to draw ample customers and quickly unload the stuffs. But, that is not how most Hondurans or Honduran businessmen think. If, for example, 5lbs of beans is L90 in the market or at the local store, etc., and they had bought bulk beans for cheap, they would sell for the same exact L90 ("...and my beans are as good as those beans, so my beans cannot be worth less then his beans, so the cost is the same..." -- Honduran Business 101; you are ready for Honduran Business 102 when you can explain why five 1-lb bags of beans often cost less than one 5-lb bag of beans, etc.).
One possible explanation is that Hondurans are intentionally (or via ignorance and or incompetence) screwing other Hondurans, and that while the U.S., World Bank, subsidies, and gas costs might play a factor, it is a fairly small factor. After all, how much did those U.S. beans go up in price in the last 8 months? Where I live part-time in rural SD the price is basically the same the whole time; U.S. rice is about half the cost here in the U.S. as is Honduran rice in Honduras; U.S. beans are 20% less in the U.S. than Honduran beans are in Honduras -- but it doesn't matter since the products are not widely available in Honduras. In Honduras there is no actual shortage of food. However, why there is almost no food from the U.S. or neighboring countries is a mystery - yet the Honduran President wants to sell tons and tons of beans to Guatemala, presumably because Hondurans cannot afford to buy them as fast as they are drying them, though where the Guatemalan consumers will get the money is unclear, but the bulk sale will likely be at a discount beyond belief).
In Honduras, seeds for staples are not the major factor in the increase in foods costs, and neither is gas. Since the staple foods being sold are home-grown and their is no competing U.S. product, it is hard to see who else deserves blame. One possibility, at least in Honduras, is that the corporations making the bigger recent profits are Honduran ones. Perhaps neighboring countries are different. But, per Honduras, most Hondurans rarely if ever buy U.S. foodstuffs anyway. I am related to Hondurans who lead basic everyday lives in cities, they are more than 40 years old, and have probably never bought a U.S.-made foodstuff. If their food costs go up, it is not clear fingers should be pointed at the U.S. or related interests. What is going on isn't obvious. The costs do not make sense in themselves, nor do the absences for competing products, nor do the massive sales to other countries. Someone is raking in the money. I just don't know for sure that the blame, this time at least, lies North of Honduras.
A good analysis of some missing pieces
Very thought provoking. And here are a few more facts to add to the mix. There are several threads dealing with this issue, and these deal with some not in this particular one. While there are some points of contention (for example the ability of true organic farming as a means to supply enough food in this urbanized world or the use of any pesticides in general), there are some misstatements/misconceptions in these threads that interfere with a good analysis in an otherwise thoughtful and very important discussion..
In all of this, one has to keep in mind the difference between subsistence production, as will surely benefit a lot of Nicaraguans who need more/better food, and large scale food production which supply food for those who cannot farm for themselves or barter for it locally. This is not only city people in NYC, London or Delhi, but many of those in Managua as well.
Food production is an issue where, as in much else, there is a polarization of ideas.....from the "all green production is the salvation" to the "let's plow another acre and pump in more inputs to grow one more bushel". As with most things, neither one is the real solution.
Here is where I am coming from with my ideas. I have worked in large scale production agriculture for a long time. Also in many countries around the world in large and small farming operations.....and as a real time player in global trade issues in agriculture. While there is a lot to be concerned about in "commercial" agricultural production, on balance it has/causes no more problems than a host of other things in this very complicated world. I believe in self sufficiency wherever possible and where it makes sense......on a country or local level. I also believe that a hybrid of systems can work wonders on the local level and while sustainable agriculture is critical we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water and not use good techniques gained from large scale agriculture. In Nicaragua, I hope to help people do that, as a business but also to, make things better for some of the locals. kind of like fyi and the Ranch, make a bit of money but not have that be the primary driver.
Here are some pieces of the puzzle to help us find the middle ground as it relates to Nicaragua. It is not a one size fits all solution so dealing with the global situation is interesting, but will not get to a workable solution (and feed hungry people) here.
- IPM is not synonymous in any way with organic farming, nor with no use of pesticides. IPM is widely practiced in high intensity agriculture in the US, Europe and other large and small scale operations worldwide. Among its basic tenets are using the right amount of pesticides at the right time and allowing natural events (such as beneficial insects) to do their job before using a pesticide. it means using the pesticide or technique with the least impact on the natural mechanisms that help control bugs or weeds and not worrying about damage to crops that has not appreciable economic impact on the crop. As it turns out, these things are profitable for farmers, big and small, to implement and so they are the rule, rather than the exception.
-The Green Revolution was (is) not a failure and is not based solely on dumping large amounts of chemical fertilizer on the land. It is based on the marriage of high yielding varieties and the use of fertilizer and pest control. It has made India self sufficient in rice production.....and had enormous positive impact in many other countries. It allows a farmer with 1 Ha to grow 30 bushels of rice where he once grew 10 and either feed his family or barter for things he cannot grow,like an eduction for his kids. This isnot some ploy by the multinational fertilizer companies to sell more because of this (although they do). Farmers, large operators and small alike, are very critical of the need/cost of inputs and have a relatively easy way to evaluate the effect and the return. Plant some with and some without and in a year or less, you know. No theory.....see it for yourself and quickly. So, to say it is all a sham, denigrates the intelligence of millions of farmers. Before someone sends me five specific example of a bad situation, I readily acknowledge there are problems and it is not foolproof and many have been fooled. We need to keep working on that (and are)...but we also need to look at the bigger picture as well.
_Chemical fertilizers do not "strip the soil". If you take nutrient out as is done when you harvest crops, whether for export or your table, you need to replace them or you will strip the soil. The best way is with natural amendments like manure,etc. but that is not always possible or enough. And this applies to small subsistence farmers, not just large commercial operations. Or you can just use new land from time to time....slash and burn is an example. Really destructive to the forest and to the soil left behind. As with comments on the Green Revolution, the same applies here. Framers don't just dump on 100 pounds when they need 20. Most actually put on less than the optimum amount which is needed to maximize yields for a particular cropping situation. Is it better for me to fertilize my 10 Ha and graze my 20 cows, or cut down 10Ha of forest to graze them on non-fertilized pasture. I recognize there are trade offs, but cannot dismiss the options.
- The US is not the leader/worst offender in the tariff/subsidy issue. It is a worldwide issue driven by a complex political and social agenda......mostly in the EU.
Last......food prices are going up primarily because of increased demand. That is not likely to stop as people in China and other countries gain the means to buy more/better/ different food. The first thing they want is more red meat. Then eggs. calculate the impact of everyone in China eating just one more egg a week and see what that does to demand. To me, me this is the scariest part of this--growing demand and not enough production to keep costs down make it hard for people to eat right. This is exacerbated by the biofuels mess of using corn and beans for fuel which has double the price of these commodities and drives up the price of many other staple foods. Fuel costs are a problem, but come in a distant third. In my view, fuel costs for shipping will have a positive effect long term, as we learn the stupidity of shipping food from the USA to China for processing and back to he USA to eat.
ATZ
quite right, "Chemical fertilizers do not "strip the soil".,
they just don't replace the secondary nutrients or the micro nutrients the plant uses.
The worlds leading fertilizer producer, IBE's major product is Liquid Anhydrous Ammonia, their remaining product line, excluding urea, is all potassium,phosphorus and Nitrogen. No calcium,magnesium, sulfur, chloride, manganese,molybdenum, or zinc is listed. Instead those nutrients are pulled from the soil year in and year out.
And those nutrient are just what the plant needs to be healthy,the person eating the plant needs other nutrients as well.
Crop rotation does nothing but slow the nutrient depletion. The petro-chemicals kill the bacteria, fungi, algae ,cyanobacteria and protozoa that would normally be processing organic and inorganic materials into plant usable forms.
The work of Nobel prise winning chemist Linus Pauling showed the link between proper nutrition and health, the object of eating is to gain nutrients from our food. If the food is grown with just NPK fertilizers decade after decade the soil is stripped of the secondary and micro nutrient the plant needs and the nutrients the consumer needs by the plant itself.
The petro-agribusiness produces plant mass, thats what farmers sell, bushels, pounds, tons, carloads. The products nutritional value is of no importance. The 'magic seeds' they sell are hybrids that don't produce 'true' offspring or terminator seeds that can't reproduce. This forces the farmer to purchase seeds every year. Seeds that due to genetic modifications don't grow well without costly fertilizers and the pesticides they are designed to be used with them. Such as;
Roundup-Ready Corn2;
from- http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/input_traits/products/round...
"Features & Benefits
Superior crop safety can add bushels to your yield and more than $13† more profit per acre to your bottom line. More flexibility means no matter what your spray program is, Roundup Ready Corn 2 fits the way you farm:
*
Pre-emergence residual herbicide followed by post-emergence herbicide. *
Pre-emergence residual herbicide tank mixed with post-emergence herbicide. *
Sequential post-emergence herbicide only."
Most of the plant varieties are grown for marketability, what does the produce look like when it gets to the store. Nice firm tomatoes ship well, have a passable color (close to red) but tastes like cardboard, it's ok because they are heavy (profitable). Nutritionally little better than the dirt cookies they are eating in Haiti, which is supposed to be caused by some Chinese family eating a cow or a soccer Mom in an SUV that tanked up on E85.
Well it's not often that I agree with that asshole on Fox;
'Fox's O'Reilly, at least, is clear: He blames all "these Vegas-type people [who] sit in front of their computers and bid on 'futures' contracts." As he puts it: "Supply and demand? - my carburetor, this has nothing to do with the free market."
and what do the petroleum producers have to say ;
" John Hofmeister, president and CEO of Shell U.S., said the price of crude oil was very inflated and he blamed it squarely on speculators"
The price of oil goes up, the price of fertilizers and pesticides go up, the price to grow and transport goes up. These may only add "a few cents" to the end price but they come from the meager profits per acre that the farmer makes, not the profits of the brokers or retailers.
As for bio-fuels causing corn and bean (soy) prices to rise, another layer of brokers have been added. The corn used for ethanol (bad choice for bio-fuel) is field corn. Animal feed, not the kind you would like to eat, the remaining mash from the ethanol process is a very sought after feed stock for cattle. Bio-diesel should not be made from food. The planting of African oil palm and jatropha on land used to grow food should be stopped, lots of marginal land to do that. With a little funding the remaining hurdles for algae produced bio-diesel could be over come.
The "green revolution" of the 1950's was and is a sham.
Simply look who started it, and who has profited most from it and the global problems it has caused.
Can real organic be 'plugged into" the corporate agro-business model and magically replace the frankenfood plants jacked up on 'plant speed' ? No.
Nutrition wise organic kicks ass,
bushel per dollar wise..take out the government subsidies and lets see.
Total tonnage per acre probably not.
The days of shipping potatoes from Idaho to Jamaica are coming to an end, without the government subsidies it would stop tomorrow.
For Nicaragua and other non-wealthy countries, small farms growing the foods that are consumed locally, organically from seeds they can save year to year seems like a better option.
-Doug
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
A link you should check out
Agreed...micronutrients (zinc, calcium, magnesium and many others) are crucial to plant growth. If not supplemented some can be the limiting factor to yields and quality. The fact is that they most ofen are looked after carefully.
The fact that they are not in fertilizers of IBE (or other suppliers) does not mean they are not applied. Micronutrients are generally added as needed and in the specific amounts needed for the soil and the particular plant species. This varies a great deal and applying them in a non-specific way is not only inefficient (they are often expensive) but potentially counter productive to growth: too much of a nutrient can actually interfere with growth.
Farmers in the big operations which seem to be in question rarely neglect to include them in the mix and special soil tests are done to ascertain what amount of each to add to the bulk N-P-K mix each year. For smaller operations which use bagged fertilizer, if you check the label you will commonly see Fe, Mg, Mn and S as added components. Those growers who have special needs can (and should) supplement with additional micronutrients in one of several possible ways.
FYI...micros are profitable not only for farmers to use but fertilizer companies to sell, so there is no reason not to use them, except for the lack of farmer education about their utility.
The link below is to a Danish site which addresses the issue of the relationship of nutrient content in foods......provides a partial answer to your point about lower nutrient content in non-organic foods and also the declining nutrient value because of high volume production methods. It may seem counter-intuitive, but there is little, if any link. This site is a good representation of what is found in many different analysis. i used a Danish source as their seems to be a distrust of things USA. Also, note that in general EU production systems are much more intensive than in the USA or Canada, so these result are not because Danish food is somehow less intensively produced.
http://www.uk.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Nutrition/Vitamin_mineral_content_is...
ATZ
Two points
First, there still is U.S. rice here. My wife (who was running a food distributor) says that while it is more expensive than domestic, it is what at least the retailers want to buy.
While there have been no food shortages here, the price fluctuations in the last year have been greater than in past years and are at all-time highs. Lack of storage capacity, investment capital forcing sale at a lower price and environmental factors such as Hurricane Felix all contribute to that picture but it is looking like they are not dropping as fast as in the past.
Nicaragua was lucky...
that the "green revolution" , initiated by The Rockefeller Foundation in the 1950s, mostly sidestepped around it. The places that embraced the petro-chemical fertilizers are now burning out. Some of the soils are devoid of life and can now be considered hydroponic medium.
The PNK fertilizers that are applied in ever growing amounts today are the barest life support for plants, keeping them big, green and heavy but nutrient wise quite lacking. And even with the massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers being dumped on them are not producing the same as they once did. As more and more fertilizers are applied the soil becomes increasingly saline from the residues that build up.
One only has to look at Jamaica to see the wonders of global agri-business. Nicaragua seems to have missed a lot of that by being on the 'B' list of US foreign aid.
-Doug
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
What are the organic methods?
FYL, Is there a written resource for organic food production techniques developed for Nicaragua in the eighties or later? I looked and could not find anything on line.
Not sure
I hope someone will jump in here. My references come from someone from Nicaragua speaking at Earth Day at the University of Washington 20+ years ago about it and also seeing reference to this is some documentary films from the 1980s.
I remember specifically that growing cotton organically was documented. I need to look through my old VHS tapes and see if I happen to have something. Beyond that, let's hope someone speaks up. That knowledge could be very useful both here and for others in the region.
a good start,,
since I'm 'jumping' around on the net today. Now I haven't read these but a couple of them sounded interesting enough to order;
The Paradox of Plenty: Hunger in a Bountiful World By Douglas H. Boucher; http://books.google.com/books?id=FqhTsaDpcjAC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=The+Para...
-------------------------------------
Nicaragua: what difference could a revolution make? : food and farming in the new Nicaragua by Collins; http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/mwb/65325.shtml
-------------------------------------------
Review: Evaluating Nicaragua's Agrarian Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on the Difference a Revolution Can Make"by Harris ; http://www.jstor.org/pss/2633676
------------------------------------
Alternative Agriculture and Agroecology in Nicaragua E. Espinosa Rojas; http://www.infrc.or.jp/english/KNF_Data_Base_Web/PDF%20KNF%20Conf%20Data...
-------------------------------------
-Doug
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
The article cites increased use of petrofertilizers in the 80's
The cited E.Espinosa Rojas article lauds the Sandinista government for financing the purchase of petrochemicals and petrobased ferilizers during the 80's. No organic growing techniques here. I am not saying that chemical fertilizers are good, bad or indifferent but let's not fool our self into thinking that the Sandinistas are green organic growers. The first thing that was done for the agro sector last year was to increase the delivery of lower cost petrochemical based fertilizer from Venezuela.
Organic Production
I haven't found the books (lots of my books got lost in my move to CA 6+ years ago) and still haven't done a thourough search through the videos I have but this Envio article is of interest.
It starts off by saying Nicaragua had been sucked into chemical-based farming and the Sandinistas, not knowing any better, continued that trend. But, it then goes on to show that alternatives were developed. Here is an excerpt.
The article continues to detail the steps they took to continue with their transition to organic methods. It actually offered me some clues for what we can do in the Geek Ranch. It also introduces the fact that theNicaraguan Enrionmentalist Movement (MAN) exists.
Searching for MAN took me to another Envio article. This one covers a lot of the Somoza-era environmental destruction at at least shows a bit of the Sandinista concern/action.
the words "green revolution"..
were used by the Rockefeller foundation and other proponents of the petro-chemical fertilizer/pesticide model of farming to try to focus attention to the increased harvests. It requires more and more chemicals... with more and more residue.
I don't know if the the past governments very successful at it or not. In my local hardware store both 2.4.D and Paraquat were for sale by US companies, can't be sold in the US though.
the article you mentioned stated further on that ;
" During more than 10 years of the Sandinista Popular Revolution, a number of changes were made that directly affected agricultural policies and practices in Nicaragua. For example, the structure of land tenure was reformed; a large number of labor cooperatives were organized; agricultural loans and bank credit were easier to obtain; and subsidies were available to help farmers acquire costly agricultural chemicals, i.e., chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Meanwhile, agriculture continued to contribute to environmental pollution and degradation of the natural resource base, including the progressive deforestation of marginal lands by peasant farmers practicing slash and burn agriculture, i.e., shifting cultivation."
------------------
The breaking up of the large land holding into small farms by the Sandinista government did make it more difficult to obtain bank loans,
------------------
"Banks are often reluctant to loan money and extend credit to small farmers since they are perceived to be of greater risk than large commercial, export-oriented farmers. Banks are even more hesitant to loan money to farmers who seek to reduce their dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In making loans to farmers, banks often stipulate in the loan agreement that the farmer must agree to use agrichemicals in his crop production program."
-----------------
I don't really think the Sandinista government placed the curse of owning a small farm onto a person as a means to enslave them to the petro-chemical cartel. In that era there wasn't much information available, no internet, not much published, even less in Spanish. Any assistance from the US had been cut off, but that was still the 'green revolution" BS. I do think the Cubans had sent some technical agricultural support, I'm not sure if they were into the real green agriculture then or not. It seems from what this article said the Sandinista government may not have been well equipped to educate farmers on sustainable farming but they may have been of more assistance to the small farmers in general;
---------------------
"The newly elected Government of Nicaragua, which succeeded the Sandinista Popular Front, has implemented neo-liberal policies of free enterprise and privatization that have encouraged the importation of technologies for large-scale production of export crops. These policies do not appear to be supportive of the non-governmental organizations (NGO'S) that have provided technical assistance on alternative agricultural technologies to small farmers in the past. In view of the fact that most of the food crops and food products marketed and consumed in Nicaragua are produced by small farmers, including peasants, there is a growing concern that the government has neglected this sector while providing a disproportionate amount of resources to support the large commercial farms. However, the policies of the Sandinista Agrarian Reform Program were generally supportive of small farmers and helped to resolve some of their problems and constraints."
---------------------
It seems that some of the past governments may have been more open to new ideas than others. With the rising cost of petro-chemicals I think the real green revolution may be the best (and cheapest, most profitable) option for the future.
Let me know if you get a chance to read the other articles.
-Doug
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate