• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Food' for thought

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    'Food' for thought

    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/food-drink/the-good-news-is-soon-well-all-be-eating-turnips-and-swedes-again-1254510.html

    The good news is soon we'll all be eating turnips and swedes again
    Tools


    By Paolo Tullio
    Saturday December 29 2007


    Firstly, the 20th century was awash with cheap oil. We burned up that oil at an astonishing rate, using it, amongst other things, to power agriculture and food production. We used it to transport goods worldwide cheaply, making surpluses in far off countries available to consumers elsewhere. Cheap oil meant cheap goods.


    Secondly, we became more efficient in the production of foodstuffs. Vast monocultures sprang up during the 20th century, like the mid-western plains of America, whose wheat production fed the world. We used oil to run the huge machines, we used oil to make the fertilisers for those crops and we used oil to produce the chemicals that became necessary to keep those monocultures healthy.

    We began to raise poultry and cattle intensively, feeding them on the cheap grain, and used the logistics of mass distribution to move that protein easily around the world. That's why you can find Brazilian beef here in Ireland.

    And lastly, it's been the stated policy of European governments since the end of the last world war to provide cheap food. Keeping food cheap meant we had money for other things. If we didn't need to spend all of our money on feeding ourselves then we had some left over for buying plasma TV screens, iPod nanos, computers, digital cameras and all the other must-haves of today. The explosion of consumer durables has been an off-shoot of cheap food.

    This extravagant wastefulness of oil has brought us to something approaching a crunch point. Since the American invasion of Iraq, oil prices have soared, hovering around the $100 a barrel level instead of the previous $30 benchmark. Everything that relied on cheap oil has now begun to feel the pinch. The competition for resources has also had its effect on world prices. The main source of competition has been China, whose need for oil to power its burgeoning economy has been a major factor in pushing up the prices.

    China's increasing wealth has meant that their diet has also changed. Whereas once the vast majority of China's population subsisted on rice, the diet is moving quickly towards a protein diet. The Chinese now want to eat the way we do -- they want burgers and chicken nuggets, not just a bowl of rice.

    But meat proteins come at a cost because to produce meat you need animal feedstuffs, and those feedstuffs are grain-based. So now there are new demands on grain production, not just for feeding a growing human population, but to feed animals destined for the table in the newly emerging economies like India and China.

    Grain production is under other pressures as well. Climate change has caused a reduction in crop sizes in various parts of the globe lately and that shortfall has been aggravated by a move by many governments towards biofuels. It has been estimated that as much as 40pc of the US maize crop in 2007 went to the biofuel industry. That's a trend that's bound to continue as governments try to find ways of being less dependent on oil.

    When grain becomes scarcer it get gets costlier. This year Italian consumers had a pasta strike, a kind of basta pasta, when their staple food rose in price relentlessly as the world-wide cost of grain soared. When grain costs more, then so will bread, pasta, poultry, beef and a huge variety of foods that need grain or flour in their production. With the world population rising, falling supplies of grain will cause massive social stresses.

    As the effects of these global trends start to impinge on us here in Ireland, expect to see some changes. Whatever else we want to spend our money on, buying food isn't going to be an option -- we'll still need to buy it. We'll have to cut back on something else. Luxury goods will be the first to feel the pinch, so too might foreign travel and restaurants.

    If these global trends continue, then we may find that our food distribution systems will revert to where they were 60 years ago. As distribution and transport costs rise, we'll move back to locally produced foods. Kiwi fruit from New Zealand and asparagus from Peru will become harder to find because the cost of moving perishable goods over oceans will become prohibitive. Self-sufficiency will be the new mantra in both food and energy.

    So what changes do I see in my crystal ball? I predict that land currently in set-aside will come back into production and that dairy farms will once again be profitable because their cattle aren't being fed on grain but graze on our abundant grass. Beef cattle will once more graze in fields, instead of being raised on slats indoors. Sheep production will remain unaffected for the same reason. I predict we'll see more geese in the poulterer's shops since geese don't eat grain, but grass.

    Consequently the cost of grass-producing land will rise. Local markets, continental style, will become more common, where consumers and local food growers can come together without involving a huge distribution chain. We may have to adapt ourselves to a less global diet, just as we were getting used to one.

    Irish potatoes could stage a major comeback as other sources of imported carbohydrates become pricier, and locally produced turnips, swedes and parsnips may supplant imported delicacies like yams and aubergines.

    Wind energy and tidal energy will become increasingly our power source as oil becomes scarcer and costlier. Biofuels will play their part too, so expect to see fields of yellow-flowering **** around the country producing oil for fuel.

    In truth, this doesn't look like bad news to me. Anything that puts us back in contact with the land around us and that gives us good locally-produced food can't be all bad.

    - Paolo Tullio

    #2
    Devil's advocate here...
    Local food is simply a way to prevent those in third world countries from becoming wealthy by restricting their access to wealthy markets with agricultural products (often the first products in the chain of development)...
    I appreciate that this is not a balanced statement, but it is something to think about.

    Comment


      #3
      Good article pandiana. I guess this means you will be looking for a nice hairy grass fed two year old bull or two to throw out with those wonderful girls of yours. All part of the program ----- not?

      Comment


        #4
        C'mon Sean you are kidding right?? "Local food is simply a way to prevent those in third world countries from becoming wealthy by restricting their access to wealthy markets with agricultural products...."
        You extol the virtues of the "global market" that the masses have bought into yet are involved in an industry that has been on the receiving end of the consequences. Moving food around the world does not help the poor in third world countries,or the food producers there either indeed the policies of the global corporations that control politicians, agriculture and global trade create a lot of the poverty in poorer countries. The global marketplace was created to produce corporate wealth at the expense of food both producers and consumers.
        Local food makes sense - of course it does, but is our society prepared to step up to their responsibilities as global citizins?
        From the retail debauchery we have just witnessed in the name of Christmas I doubt it. We in the west have by and large turned into a nation of wasters - wasters of food, raw materials, manufactured goods,the environment. It makes me sick to see the crowds at a parasite outfit like Walmart (I maybe get dragged to one once a year)filling their trollies with crap because it's "cheap". Cheap if you ignore the sweat shop conditions that create much of their produce, cheap if you ignore the pollution Walmart causes moving it around the world, cheap if you ignore the slave like conditions of their retail workers, cheap if you don't count the cost our children will pay for this generations greed. Are we really so shallow as a civilisation?? apparently so.
        I was reading recently of the global trade in recycled electronics and circuit boards in particular. There are outfits in north America that are set up to handle this work but by and large the work is exported to China and India - there was a picture of an Indian man melting lead out of circuit boards in the same pans his family eats out of. And people in the west are surprised when the toys they buy contain lead?? Well I guess we deserve it for going with "cheap" rather than "sustainable, ethical, sensible or moral"

        Comment


          #5
          I am all for local food. We try to follow the 100 mile rule and avoid Wallyworld when possible. It might be a good time to read Michael Pollen's NY Times article, Power Steer.

          query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5DB153BF932A05750C0A9649C8B 63

          per

          Comment


            #6
            Not neccesarily my viewpoint, that I posted, just food for thought.
            Does a banana produced by hand labour and shipped to Canada have a larger or smaller carbon footprint than a loaf of bread baked with flour produced with fossil fueled wheat?
            I think the local food thing is a good one, but I can see the argument from the other side of the fence as well. I am not sure we can support local food on one hand and then target say the European market with our product on the other all the while leaving third world countries out of the game.

            Comment


              #7
              Another angle to it Sean is the fact that in supporting locally grown food, people in any country, not just third world countries, have the ability to increase the local economy. Issues such as food safety are often more easily undertaken and people know where their food comes from.

              Local food enables production of foods that grow best in an area, not forcing land to do what it isn't supposed to do i.e. try to grow grain on land that is pretty much dry year round.

              By growing locally, you often preserve local customs, traditions and breeds of plants and animals that would/will be lost if we keep going down this train wreck of a path we are on.

              I'll play devil's advocate from another angle of your argument. People quite often "pooh-pooh" the notion of sustainability, saying that 40% of producers will be lost if we grew agricultural products sustainably. Is that a realistic number or would it be better to loose 75% of producers if we continue doing what we have been doing?

              Comment

              • Reply to this Thread
              • Return to Topic List
              Working...