The Global Journal | Americas
The Global Journal | Americas
Food Security: A Global Issue Story by Kuei-Feng Tung, On Campus
Here in Boston, food is readily available where
of the global market when other countries else were
On the other hand, the Food and Agriculture
assumptions do not reflect reality. For example,
and cuisine exist to suit the consumer’s needs.
Eventually, the concept of food security evolved
serves many roles besides trading commodities and
move between borders is outrageous because labor
many combinations of price range, convenience,
It’s often more difficult to decide what to eat than it is to find a place to eat. Perhaps one third of the world’s population engaging in agriculture
has got something to do with it. However, at the
same time, the latest State of Commodities Report indicates some levels of chronic undernourishment in most countries worldwide, meaning that people
periodically don’t consume enough nutritional value to cover their annual needs. Of the one
third engaged in agriculture, 70% of the world’s
poor work the lands. It’s ironic that many of the people growing food are the ones prone to hunger.
How can this duality of abundance and scarcity simultaneously exist? Food
security
researcher
Jennifer
Clapp
discussed her findings and the academic dialogue
on our current food system at Northeastern University’s guest speaker series on February
23rd. According to Clapp, food security originated
as a military concern. It was a high priority threat to the state if people couldn’t be fed and we can
see evidence of the United States’ agricultural
industry’s exceptional treatment to both our tax code and our foreign trade policy. Agriculture is in a separate tax code from other business industries
allowing for more government subsidies just for that industry, and up until 1947, the United States
had upheld protectionist trade policies to shelter
domestic productions of food from the whims
16
advised to lower tariffs and other barriers to trade. beyond self sufficiency and food was weaponized into
diplomatic bargaining chips; e.g. threatening to stop
shipments of staple foods to control states dependent on these imports. There are currently two highly polarized narratives on trade and food security – both championed by powerful international institutions:
On one hand, the World Trade Organization (WTO) adamantly encourages globalization, more
transnational trade relations, and less tariffs or other
‘barriers’ that inhibit trade deals. The WTO’s narrative, rooted in David Recardo’s theory of Comparative
Advantage, claims that each country is predisposed to growing certain produce due to their conditions
(geography, etc). As such, many WTO experts argue that an interdependent and connected world system
of countries utilizing their resources to develop and produce what they’re most suited to grow and trading
with each other is inherently more efficient, trade is now a moral imperative because many countries require
these “transmission belts” of goods and services to
generate income and access products they’re not
suited to grow themselves, and that protectionism is a peril to stability. Clapp used Cambodia as a case
Organization of the UN (FAO) argues that food recommends countries diversify their crop yield to ensure self-sufficiency, buffer their vulnerability to the world market’s price volatility (in a similar way
to hedging bets and risks by diversifying a stock market portfolio), and protect their autonomy and sovereignty. Countries are more stable socially and farmers are protected against loss of land rights and
fluctuating prices compared to those countries that
depend on one or two cash crops. Unlike trading stocks, in the event of devaluation, ‘cutting your losses’ and changing produce to something else
more profitable is often not an option. Considering
that plants may need years to mature to the point they start producing actual valuable fruits, berries, nuts, etc, the transition phase between crops is long and a farmer from that 70% would be without income
possibly for years until the new crops mature with no Photo by X
insurance until then.
At the same time, neither narrative is perfect. The Comparative advantage theory only plausible
within the confines of its assumptions, and these
the basis that commodities are the only things that and cash can flow from one country to another. Equally, the diversity narrative may not be a viable
option anymore since as many as 66 states (⅓ of all countries) are beyond able to reverse their
interdependency on other countries for their access to food.
Because there are problems and merits with both narratives, deadlocks often happen at the
institutional level; “WTO rules matters for food
security, but it’s not a food security organization.”, said Clapp, and at the same time, FAO considers
there be no place for discussions of free trade in their
forums. Consequently, the two major institutions
making structural recommendations for food security do not communicate with each other.
What that indicates to Clapp is that perhaps the
binary yes/no nature of the question being asked by scholars in the food systems field needs change.
Instead of “Is trade is beneficial for food security?”, the question “under what situations can trade be
beneficial for food security?” might better answer our
questions of food systems, abundance, and scarcity.
study to illustrate the WTO’s structural adjustment recommendations. Because of Cambodia’s monsoon seasons and access to flatlands, they were encouraged to focus most of their agricultural sector on growing
rice. Today, Cambodia and 4 other countries supply 85% of the world’s demand for rice.
“ The concept of food security evolved beyond self sufficiency. ” 17