Home | Changes in a Child’s Diet in the 20th Century »
The Politics of Food
 Printer Friendly Version |
The Politics of Food
Olli Lukkari discusses the politics of our current food production system in the UK
Introduction
Over the last couple of decades, food has become an increasingly politicised issue. Environmental aspects of exporting and importing food, the debates over the benefits of organic and genetically modified food, health concerns related to foot-and-mouth and mad cow diseases, and the rise of the supermarkets and their growing influence on the industry have put it permanently on the political agenda – and in the media spotlight. At the same time, globalisation has transformed the way in which the food industry operates. Once based on a linear supply chain from producers to customers, it is now a complex network of suppliers, processors, middle-men, distributors, retailers and consumers, often located in different parts of the world. We may be able to choose what we eat from an unprecedented variety of products, but we are also faced with growing uncertainty about what actually goes into our food and the conditions under which it is produced.
As everyone has to eat, individuals have to make decisions about where to shop and what to buy. Thus we are drawn into the politics of food whether we like it or not. The more we know about the origins of the products we see in the shops, the more we can understand the impact of our own actions, and those of the industry. Hence we become better informed to demand and act upon, within our capabilities, what we feel is just and fair.
The topic of this article – the politics of food – includes a myriad of issues, and spawns many more questions than can be adequately covered here. Nevertheless, this article intends to highlight the political nature of food and provoke thoughts for further investigation. For that purpose, a list of recommended reading is provided at the end.
A brief history of the food industry
Since the Second World War, global food production has undergone a major transformation. The food shortages experienced during and after the war convinced many European governments of the importance of a national food supply, and when they started to form an economic and political union, food security became a political priority.[1] As a result, the Common Agricultural Policy, a system of subsidies paid to farmers to encourage and protect production, has been a main expenditure in the European Union budget, accounting for almost half of the entire spending. With generous subsidies and the introduction of modern machinery, together with the arrival of new farming technologies, farmers in industrialised countries were able to increase production enormously. Although worldwide the human population doubled between 1960 and 2000, from 3 billion to 6 billion, improved farming techniques meant that, despite some gloomy predictions about the world’s future food supplies, this population growth did not cause mass starvation.[2] It has been estimated that in the last fifty years, the per-hectare yields of potatoes, wheat, sugar and barley have tripled and milk yields per cow doubled.[3]
The Global Scale
As farmers in Europe and North America were making the most of the support they were given, higher efficiency soon led to overproduction. The consequences of this are well documented.[4] In short, world market prices of many basic commodities fell, due to surplus goods from Europe and North America entering the market. Smaller-scale farmers found it increasingly hard to compete in these markets, because of the low prices of this surplus food, often exported into markets at prices below the cost of production. This ‘food dumping’ has seriously affected countries that are dependent on exports, increasing the hardship of many already poor countries who are vulnerable to price fluctuations of commodities traded in the global market. For example, it has been estimated that if the prices of the most traded tropical commodities (such as coffee and bananas) had followed the rate of inflation from 1980 to 2002, producers in the developing world would have received $243 billion more than they actually did over that period.[5]
At the start of the 21st century, over 350 kilograms of grain per person per year is produced globally, enough for a sufficient diet, yet more than 850 million people are undernourished.[6] The issue of distribution is at the heart of global food politics. Rich countries emphasise the importance of free trade, and organisations such as the World Trade Organisation monitor these practices, yet in reality trade in agriculture is anything but free or fair. It is estimated that poor countries lose $100 billion a year, twice the amount they receive in aid, because of trade restrictions.[7]
Structural changes in food production
With some 2.5 billion people worldwide dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, any change to food production is likely to have major consequences.[8] The shift from more localised and linear production chains to the present model of large corporations, has put enormous pressure on farms everywhere. Over recent years there has been a clear division of producers in agriculture into three groups – a small number of large farms and entrepreneurs who form a large part of the modern food industry due to close connections with the retailers and processors; family farmers and landowning peasants who are struggling to integrate and often face declining trade; and the majority of the world’s poor who are subsistence farmers and virtually excluded from the global food market.[9] However, even amongst the biggest farmers, only the richest and best managed enterprises can meet the high standards and low prices demanded by the food industry processors and retailers.
The emergence of agribusiness
Recent years have seen an increase in the influence of companies producing and selling inputs for production, such as seeds and fertilisers, processing, packaging and marketing food,[10] whilst the profits and power of smaller scale farmers have been reduced. Consequently, supermarkets have become the main players in the food industry. Since the 1980s, they have experienced a massive growth in size and retail market dominance by successfully ‘operating a strategy known as Efficient Consumer Response’[11]. Its aim is total control of the links in the supply chain, to maximise efficiency. This has been made possible by the introduction of sophisticated technology in logistics and sales control. The results are immense and far-reaching. Globally, the 30 biggest supermarket chains and food companies control about a third of all grocery sales.[12] In Britain, the market leader Tesco accounts for 31 per cent alone of the grocery market, while the four biggest retailers control 75 per cent of the entire sector. Independent stores have a combined market share of only 2.8 per cent (see graph 1).[13]
For an overseas producer in a developing country, a supermarket contract means big money, which many producers compete for. With a desperate need to participate in world trade, many producers are forced to ‘relax’ their already weak labour laws, to enable them to offer the cheapest prices possible. Tesco for example, is the biggest buyer of South African fruit in United Kingdom. A study by Action Aid on working conditions in the supplying fruit farms found that the workers were paid below the minimum wage, were exposed to pesticides and were suffering food insecurity.[16] When another food giant Asda, owned by the largest retail company in the world, Wal-Mart, forced its suppliers in China to cut their costs, some factories began operating with working hours as long as 18 to 20.5 a day.[17]
The consequences of agribusiness
Food today is treated as any other commodity and traded in the marketplace. Food companies constantly place the interests and needs of their shareholders over those of the consumers and public health – in fact, they are legally obliged to do so.[18] Food retailers often defend their practices by saying that this process is the only way to guarantee the cheap food their customers are demanding. However, it is highly debatable whether it is the demand from consumers that is driving the industry, or the lure for greater profits by selling cheap food in ever larger quantities. Whichever the case, industrial farming with extensive use of machinery and agro-chemicals, may produce cheap food in the short term, but in the long run there are hidden costs, not least in the form of environmental pollution, and costs to human and animal health.[19] A growing awareness of the consequences of modern food production on public health is alarming consumers and health officials alike. Outbreaks of mad cow and foot-and-mouth diseases are both examples of well-publicised cases of recent health scares linked to the food industry. However, there are much greater public health issues hidden in the background. These receive less attention, but have far-reaching consequences. One of these issues is the influence the food companies have on government policymaking and health advice. Although it is widely accepted that modern western diets can contribute to chronic illnesses such diabetes and coronary heart disease, healthcare professionals may find it difficult to get the message across to the public because of forceful marketing and advertising campaigns the junk food industry undertake.
Food labelling and nutritional information on processed food has also become an ambiguous issue of concern. The Foods Standards Agency introduced a ‘traffic light’ system to be used on the labelling of all processed foods to indicate the levels of fat, sugar and salt in processed products. It is a simple three colour system – red for high, amber for medium and green for low fat, salt and sugar content. The simple system is used by Sainsbury’s, the Co-op and Waitrose. However, the supermarket giants Tesco and ASDA have rejected the easy-to-understand traffic light system in favour of their own labelling system which is arguably more difficult to understand. This has happened despite the attempts by different organisations and government bodies to create a single system for nutritional information, which consumers can use easily.
Conclusion
Food production today is hardly recognisable compared with that of a few decades ago. With the growing interconnectedness of the world economy brought to us by globalisation, the world food industry has transformed itself into a production machine previously unrecognisable. It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that in the long term we are all paying high prices for our seemingly cheap food. Practices within the industry may undermine the livelihoods of farmers in other, often poor parts of the world, and also the health of consumers worldwide. Furthermore, intensive production often exacerbates environmental degradation. As consumers, we have the power to choose how we spend our money. Although we may be constrained by financial or social factors, nothing is going to change unless we want it to.
Recommended reading
Marion Nestle (2003) Food Politics. University of California Press: Berkley Friends of the Earth (2004)
Food and Farming. Available at www.foe.co.uk/resource/factsheets/food_farming.pdf
Felicity Lawrence (2004) Not on the Label. Penguin: London
Christopher D. Cook (2004) Diet for a Dead Planet. How the Food Industry is Killing Us. The New Press: New York
References
[1] Hart, K. 2001 Political economy of food in an unequal world. In Politics of food, M.E.Lien, B. Nerlich Eds. Berg, Oxford, 199-220
[2] See Erlich, P.R. 1971 The population bomb. Pan Books: London
[3] Jules Pretty et al. 2000 An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65(2), 113-136.
[4] See for example: Cook, C.D. 2004 Diet for a dead planet. How the food industry is killing us. The New Press:New York or Oxfam . Stop the dumping! How EU agricultural subsidies are damaging livelihoods in the developing world. Oxfam Briefing Paper 31, 2002. www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp31_dumping.htm (accessed in July 2007)
[5] Robbins, P. 2003 Stolen fruit: The tropical commodities disaster. London: Zed Books
[6] Food and Agriculture Organisation. Production of Cereals and Share in World. Rome: FAO, 2004. www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_1/pdf/b01.pdf (accessed July 2007) and Food and Agriculture Organisation 2006 The state of food and agriculture 2006, Rome: FAO.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid.
[10] Tulip, K., Michaels, L. A rough guide to the UK farming crisis.
[11] Millstone, E., Land, T. 2003
[12] Brown, O. 2005 Supermarket in agricultural trade and impact of extractive industries. Quoted in Human Development Report 2005, United Nations Development Programme. UN: New York, 142.
[13] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Food statistics in your pocket.
[14] United Nations Development Programme 2005 Human development report. UN: New York
[15] Smith, D. 2007 British film-makers ask: What is the hidden cost of your £2 latte? The Observer, 27th May 2007
[16] ActionAid. Rotten fruit. Tesco profits as women workers pay a high price. London: ActionAid, 2006. www.tescopoly.org/images/stories/rotten_fruit.pdf (accessed in July 2007)
[17] US National Labor Committee and China Labor Watch 2004. Toys of misery. www.nlcnet.org/campaigns/he-yi/he-yi.shtml (accessed in July 2007)
[18] Nestle, M. 2002 Food politics. University of California Press: Berkley
[19] Millstone, E. and Land, T. 2003
Topics: Articles (Food and Health Information) |
