MOTIVATIONS DRIVING FOOD PRODUCTION George Kent University of Hawai‘i kent@hawaii.edu Draft of January 27, 2015 George Kent is Professor Emeritus with the University of Hawai'i, having retired from its Department of Political Science in 2010. He teaches an online course on the Human Right to Adequate Food as a part-time faculty member with the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney in Australia and also with the Transformative Social Change Specialization at Saybrook University in California. His recent books on food policy issues are: Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food, Global Obligations for the Right to Food, Ending Hunger Worldwide, and Regulating Infant Formula. 1 The world already produces more than enough food to support everyone on earth, but “A billion starve because the wrong food is produced in the wrong places by the wrong means by the wrong people (Tudge 2013a).” Why does that happen? The explanation is simple: good basic nutrition for all is not the dominant motivation that drives food production. Concern for nutrition was the major driver of agriculture from the time of its invention, but in the last few centuries it has been driven primarily by the pursuit of income and wealth. This is well illustrated in the history of islands. In pre-contact Hawai‘i, for example, food was abundant, and people were healthy. Taro and other foods were produced to meet people’s needs. One can eat just so much taro. However, with the advent of modernity, agriculture and nutrition were separated. Settlers came along and decided to produce rice for profit. There was a large-scale shift from taro to rice production in Hawai'i in the 1860s. The rapid displacement of taro by rice led the local newspaper to ask, “where is our taro to come from?” The disconnect between farming for food and farming for money became clear. The people whose taro supply was threatened were not the people who benefited from rice exports. Historically, local pre-modern, non-industrial food systems had tight links between agriculture and nutrition. These systems still function in much of the world where farming is not tied to modern markets: Only 30% of the world’s food supply is produced on industrial farms while half of the world’s cultivated food is produced by peasants. More than 12% comes from hunting and gathering while more than 7% is produced in city gardens. . . . There are about 1.5 billion peasant farmers on 380 million farms; 800 million more urban gardens; and 410 million gathering the hidden harvest of our forests and savannas; 190 million in animal husbandry and well over 100 million peasant fishers. Many of our world’s farmers are women. Better than anyone else, peasant farmers feed the hungry . . . (Courtens 2012, based on ETC Group 2009). Agro-ecology evolved to meet the needs of people and the eco-systems in which they were embedded, in sustainable—almost timeless—systems. That pre-modern form of agriculture is alive and doing well in many parts of the world, but it gets little attention. Its effectiveness in providing good food supplies has been well documented (Inter Pares 2004; Kuhnlein, Erasmus, and Spigelski 2009). These time-tested modes of food production are losing ground. Back when almost everyone was indigenous (Rasmussen 2013), farmers were responsive to the needs of local communities. However, as travel and trade have grown throughout the world, many 2 food producers became disconnected from their local communities. With the encouragement of trade, farmers scan the horizons for the highest bidders for their services. Often, local needs are bypassed. Many modern agricultural investors are outsiders who take over distressed local farms or see farmland simply as another commodity to be traded for quick profits. There is continuity between the actions of settlers and colonists a few centuries ago and modern land grabbers. In pre-modern forms of agriculture, there were and are close linkages between producers and consumers, but in modern agriculture, they are separated. They are separated not only by distance but also by layers of marketers, processors, and investors who all have their own distinct interests in the food system. In modern agriculture, the primary buyers are not the final consumers, but wholesalers and processors. Large-scale wholesalers are likely to ship the products to the most lucrative markets, as illustrated by the global fish trade and the fruit and vegetable trade. The demand for food has grown much faster than can be explained by population growth. Many people now consume far more than they require to meet their dietary needs for an active and healthy life. The global obesity epidemic provides ample evidence. Where food systems used to be driven by people’s dietary needs, now the primary driver is the desire to make money. There is no satiety on that dimension. As agriculture is modernized (industrialized), their production is increasingly directed to people with money, anywhere in the world, rather than to neighbors who just need basic food. Food processors’ main interest is in adding economic value to the product, so the system delivers too much highly processed food. This leads farms and food factories to operate in ways that exploit their workers, their environment, and their customers. The global shift of the motivation for agriculture from producing food to producing wealth is well documented (Kaufman 2012; Lindgren 2013; Rosenthal 2013; a2013a, 2013b). Advocates of large-scale modern agriculture often justify it by claiming economies of scale, but the evidence for that is thin. Rather than efficiency in production, the key advantage of large farms is that they have one owner profiting from the work of machines and many poorly paid laborers. This is incentive enough for the owners. The global drive for genetically modified organisms in agriculture is driven by similar incentives. As Colin Tudge explains: Overall, after 30 years of concerted endeavour, ultimately at our expense and with the neglect of matters far more pressing, no GMO food crop has 3 ever solved a problem that really needs solving that could not have been solved by conventional means in the same time and at less cost. The real point behind GMOs is to achieve corporate/big government control of all agriculture, the biggest by far of all human endeavours. And this agriculture will be geared not to general wellbeing but to the maximization of wealth (Tudge 2013a). Many large farms are profitable only because they operate in unsustainable ways, externalizing many of their social and environmental costs. The “development” of modern agriculture is about increasing concentration of control and wealth, not about increasing productivity, efficiency, or sustainability. Much large-scale agriculture is profitable because it receives subsidies from government. Some subsidies are explicit, in the form of cash, and some are hidden in the form of government services such as road-building, marketing assistance, and research. The subsidies provide incentives for overproduction of certain commodities, leading to distortions in the human diet and in local and global economies. The overproduction of corn in the U.S.is well-known (Pollan 2007), and the global overproduction of rice has recently become more visible (Lobello 2013). Unfortunately, the excess food does not go to those who need it. It is more likely to be turned into a cheap ingredient for processed food, go to animal feed, or be used to produce biofuel. What is the purpose of the vast subsidies for large-scale farmers? If the public policy objective was to improve human nutrition, far more would be achieved by subsidizing well-managed small farms that produce basic fresh foods (Wiggins and Keats 2013), or by supporting breastfeeding (Gupta 2013). It is curious that the international agencies ask how agriculture might make a stronger contribution to nutrition without at the same time discussing the role of the marketers and processors who come between the primary producers and the ultimate consumers. In the global food system, most of the power is in these intermediaries, and they receive the largest share of the food dollars that are spent. The small-scale producers who supply their local communities are marginalized in that system, as demonstrated by their low incomes. In the industrialized food system, consumers might get cheap food, but many suffer from food insecurity and nutrition-related health issues. The roles of the intermediaries in the system should be made more visible. How might it be possible to return food systems to their original mission, providing good food for everyone? One remedy would be to ensure that local communities are capable of providing for themselves, whether by producing their own food or by earning enough money through other means so they can import food. People in local communities are likely to care about one another’s well being, unlike industrial farmers who never get to know the final consumers of their products. If communities import or export, it should be on terms they set together with their trading partners. The key is not local self-sufficiency 4 under which communities produce all their own food, but self-reliance under which communities make their own decisions. This is not a call for simply turning back the clock. The task is to imagine, design, and implement post-modern food systems--globally, nationally and locally--that draw on the best of both the pre-modern and modern worlds, and avoid their worst features (Kent 2014). Global and national agencies could help to ensure that local resources are managed locally, and outsiders are not permitted to harm people, land, and other resources. If that were done, using appropriate technology, the historic connection between agriculture and nutrition would be restored. The need now is for social, not technological, innovation. This work would not be easy, but it would be the right thing to do. 5 REFERENCES Courtens JP (2012) Blame industrialized agriculture, not organic farmers. Letters to the Editor. September 13. http://www.letterstotheeditor.com/blame-industrializedagriculture-not-organic-farmers/ ETC Group (2009) Who will feed us? Questions for the food and climate crises. November. Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will-feed-us Gupta, A (2013) “Breastfeeding needs more aid.” Devex. August 1. https://www.devex.com/en/news/breastfeeding-needs-moreaid/81555?source=DefaultHomepage_Center_1 Inter Pares (2004) Community-based food security systems: Local solutions for ending chronic hunger and promoting rural development. Inter Pares: Ottawa, Canada. http://www.interpares.ca/en/publications/pdf/food_security_brief.pdf Kaufman F (2012) Bet the Farm: How Food Stopped Being Food. Wiley: New York. Kent, George 2014. Ending Hunger in Caring Communities. University of Hawai'i. Unpublished manuscript. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/EndingHungerinCaringCommunities.docx Kuhnlein HV, Erasmus B, Spigelski D eds. (2009) Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, and Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment: McGill University, Canada. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0370e/i0370e00.htm Lindgren S (2013) Bet the farm: Spinning wheat into gold. UTNE Reader. January/February. http://www.utne.com/politics/bet-the-farmzm0z13jfzlin.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=01.02.13+Environment&utm_ca mpaign=2013+ENEWS&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email Lobello, Carmel 2013. “Why Asia is letting millions of tons of extra rice go to waste.” This Week. July 31. http://theweek.com/article/index/247611/why-asiancountries-are-letting-millions-of-tons-of-extra-rice-go-to-waste Pollan, Michael 2007. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin. Rasmussen D (2013) “’Non-Indigenous Culture’: Implications of a Historical Anomaly.” Yes! July 11. http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/non-indigenous-cultureimplications-of-a-historical-anomaly 6 Rosenthal E (2013) As biofuel demand grows, so do Guatemala’s hunger pangs. New York Times. January 5. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/science/earth/infields-and-markets-guatemalans-feel-squeeze-of-biofuel-demand.html?_r=0 Tudge, Colin 2013a. “The Founding Fables of Industrialised Agriculture.” Independent Science News. October 30. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/unsustainable-farming/the-founding-fables-of-industrialised-agriculture/ Tudge, Colin 2013b. “World agriculture: Living well off the land. [Commentary] World Nutrition August-September, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 514-548. www.phna.org Wiggins, Steve and Sharada Keats 2013. Smallholder Agriculture’s Contribution to Better Nutrition. London: Overseas Development Institute. http://www.ajfand.net/Volume13/No3/ReprintODI%20Smallholder%20agriculture%E2%80%99s%20contribution%20to%20N utrition%202013.pdf 7