My takeaway from the food security versus sovereignty debate
Just back from an incredible debate on 'Is food security coming at the expense of food sovereignty'!
At the outset there were issues raised about the inadequate long term testing of GMOs, the fact that the herbicide/pesticide use has increased with the advent of GMOs- and how this is detrimental to the land/ these chemicals themselves contain carcinogenic substances. However, it was also pointed out that climate change- leading to conditions such as droughts have also necessitated the need for traditional agriculture to be altered. This brought us to the point of food scarcity.
The dominant narrative today- bolstered by companies such as Monsanto is that GMOs are necessary to tackle the food shortage. However, it was pointed out, that this could be solved by better storage/the removal of middle men who hike up prices, and adequate consideration needed to be afforded to these issues.
It was acknowledged however, that we already rely on plenty of GMOs. there was no debating the fact that the real cause of worry was how these seeds were in the hands of a few companies only. 70% of farmers in Africa are small scale farmers- who will suffer if monocultures become the norm. These farmers are also unable to pay the high price for GMO seed. Compound this with fact that companies like Monsanto forbid the reuse of their seeds (in order to make a profit- they claim). The laws seem to protect the big companies as opposed to small holders.
Corrupt politicians will have no scruples in signing agreements with corporations (who by US law have the same right as persons and can thus negotiate such agreements with States- lawyers please back me up here) and allow the corporations to basically loot their countries. Someone in the debate mentioned the need for bilateral treaties to ensure that corporations met certain conditions in order to enter a country.
Note that the fact that chains such as McDonalds require one species of apples for example, is leading to the demise of several strains of apple as farmers now are forced to grow the strain that McDonalds wants. This is also leading to a dearth in biodiversity.
Compound this with the fact that food has political, personal and cultural meanings, and it is clear that capitalism has set the rules in the favour of size!
What can WE do, was then discussed. Should we boycott chains like McDonalds? Many of those present at the debate already do. However, at some level even 'boycotting' something reflects our privilege- that we are able to do so, while so many do not have this choice as they cannot even AFFORD to go to McDonalds in the first place.
How do we change the narrative- and go for more African friendly ways of ensuring food security and sovereignty? This we still have to discuss.
Just back from an incredible debate on 'Is food security coming at the expense of food sovereignty'!
At the outset there were issues raised about the inadequate long term testing of GMOs, the fact that the herbicide/pesticide use has increased with the advent of GMOs- and how this is detrimental to the land/ these chemicals themselves contain carcinogenic substances. However, it was also pointed out that climate change- leading to conditions such as droughts have also necessitated the need for traditional agriculture to be altered. This brought us to the point of food scarcity.
The dominant narrative today- bolstered by companies such as Monsanto is that GMOs are necessary to tackle the food shortage. However, it was pointed out, that this could be solved by better storage/the removal of middle men who hike up prices, and adequate consideration needed to be afforded to these issues.
It was acknowledged however, that we already rely on plenty of GMOs. there was no debating the fact that the real cause of worry was how these seeds were in the hands of a few companies only. 70% of farmers in Africa are small scale farmers- who will suffer if monocultures become the norm. These farmers are also unable to pay the high price for GMO seed. Compound this with fact that companies like Monsanto forbid the reuse of their seeds (in order to make a profit- they claim). The laws seem to protect the big companies as opposed to small holders.
Corrupt politicians will have no scruples in signing agreements with corporations (who by US law have the same right as persons and can thus negotiate such agreements with States- lawyers please back me up here) and allow the corporations to basically loot their countries. Someone in the debate mentioned the need for bilateral treaties to ensure that corporations met certain conditions in order to enter a country.
Note that the fact that chains such as McDonalds require one species of apples for example, is leading to the demise of several strains of apple as farmers now are forced to grow the strain that McDonalds wants. This is also leading to a dearth in biodiversity.
Compound this with the fact that food has political, personal and cultural meanings, and it is clear that capitalism has set the rules in the favour of size!
What can WE do, was then discussed. Should we boycott chains like McDonalds? Many of those present at the debate already do. However, at some level even 'boycotting' something reflects our privilege- that we are able to do so, while so many do not have this choice as they cannot even AFFORD to go to McDonalds in the first place.
How do we change the narrative- and go for more African friendly ways of ensuring food security and sovereignty? This we still have to discuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment