Last night BBC's NewsNight reviewed DEFRA's new report on food security. The report says, in a nutshell, global food production will have to increase by 70% and become local and sustainable. I blogged on this topic last month on my other blog, World Coloured Glasses. NewsNight missed the bear and instead of providing a useful and educated discussion let panic and uninformed comment prevail.
A few highlights:
Peter Kendall, director of the NFU (National Farmer's Union) said that countries that are selling their land to foreign interests do so by choice. No they don't. (Big surprise Kirsty missed this one) Developing country governments stripped bare for revenue by SAP's and limited in maneuverability by a global economic infrastructure that favours wealthy countries with high bond ratings don't have a choice. And you can bet the people of those countries aren't making the choice to sell that land. Their future food security isn't being looked after.
Phillipe LeGrain (don't even get me started) actually got away with saying we should buy more food from abroad, "I think we should have a free choice to buy British pork or Brazilian pork or pork from other countries, the point is we ought to have a choice." Yes, because free market economics has proven effective as of late. Government regulation? Absolutely unnecessary, just look at the financial crisis.
LeGrain went on, "Britain is a rich and densely populated country which means that land is very expensive... it means that farmers have an incentive to economize on land, to farm ever more intensively... and that leads to problems whether it's animal welfare or food safety problems." And a moment later, "I think we could import everything we need from Brazil." Kirsty, completely missing the bear moves to Kendall, "And now you're being asked to farm with less." (Rip hair from head, groan, roll eyes).
Hold up. First, we've glossed over the bit about land being more expensive because "Britain is a rich country." The British government could have protected agricultural land if it wanted to, if it didn't pander to global agribusiness. Second, farmers have to farm "ever more intensively" is a load of bullpuckey-- you can farm sustainably and sufficiently and make a living with the proper business and economic incentive structure and farming knowledge. If you don't believe me, go ask the Grass Point Farm cooperative in rural Wisconsin (I'm sure there are equivalent cooperative in the UK), or indigenous farming communities in Latin America, Asia, and Africa that have been farming sustainably for generations. Over time, it has been empirically proven crop yield decreases with intensive farming practices because you strip soil fertility. So no, British farmers aren't being asked to "do more with less," they are being asked to farm sustainably with carbon neutral techniques.
Maybe NewsNight could have used the segment time for a useful explorative discussion of sustainable farming techniques, the Slowfood movement, and economic revaluation that would allow for such systemic change. Instead fear mongering-- protect your food, fetch the pitchforks, trade protectionism, subsidize agrobusiness to buy up (more) land in developing countries. I was waiting for a population control pundit to pop up and start talking about birth rates in Africa and sterilization...err... I mean family planning policy from the 1960's and 70's.
Missed the Bear NewsNight? Yes, yes I think so.
A few highlights:
Peter Kendall, director of the NFU (National Farmer's Union) said that countries that are selling their land to foreign interests do so by choice. No they don't. (Big surprise Kirsty missed this one) Developing country governments stripped bare for revenue by SAP's and limited in maneuverability by a global economic infrastructure that favours wealthy countries with high bond ratings don't have a choice. And you can bet the people of those countries aren't making the choice to sell that land. Their future food security isn't being looked after.
Phillipe LeGrain (don't even get me started) actually got away with saying we should buy more food from abroad, "I think we should have a free choice to buy British pork or Brazilian pork or pork from other countries, the point is we ought to have a choice." Yes, because free market economics has proven effective as of late. Government regulation? Absolutely unnecessary, just look at the financial crisis.
LeGrain went on, "Britain is a rich and densely populated country which means that land is very expensive... it means that farmers have an incentive to economize on land, to farm ever more intensively... and that leads to problems whether it's animal welfare or food safety problems." And a moment later, "I think we could import everything we need from Brazil." Kirsty, completely missing the bear moves to Kendall, "And now you're being asked to farm with less." (Rip hair from head, groan, roll eyes).
Hold up. First, we've glossed over the bit about land being more expensive because "Britain is a rich country." The British government could have protected agricultural land if it wanted to, if it didn't pander to global agribusiness. Second, farmers have to farm "ever more intensively" is a load of bullpuckey-- you can farm sustainably and sufficiently and make a living with the proper business and economic incentive structure and farming knowledge. If you don't believe me, go ask the Grass Point Farm cooperative in rural Wisconsin (I'm sure there are equivalent cooperative in the UK), or indigenous farming communities in Latin America, Asia, and Africa that have been farming sustainably for generations. Over time, it has been empirically proven crop yield decreases with intensive farming practices because you strip soil fertility. So no, British farmers aren't being asked to "do more with less," they are being asked to farm sustainably with carbon neutral techniques.
Maybe NewsNight could have used the segment time for a useful explorative discussion of sustainable farming techniques, the Slowfood movement, and economic revaluation that would allow for such systemic change. Instead fear mongering-- protect your food, fetch the pitchforks, trade protectionism, subsidize agrobusiness to buy up (more) land in developing countries. I was waiting for a population control pundit to pop up and start talking about birth rates in Africa and sterilization...err... I mean family planning policy from the 1960's and 70's.
Missed the Bear NewsNight? Yes, yes I think so.
Love the blog idea!
There was criticism of Saint Kirsty Wark circulating a few days ago for asking dumb questions of twitter's founder: I actually leapt to her defence saying she was interviewing to her audience, not her own understanding. Now I'm not so sure...
Both instances smack of an interviewer having her (or his) own agenda and trying to get people to support that. Isn't that what all journos do? Well, yes and no. A good interviewer understands the issues and, basically, has an open discussion with the interviewee: you may have your own agenda but you have a duty to be fair and even handed as well. This is much more like a professor trying to get evidence to support their own pet thesis.
Trouble is Newsnight is a deeply conservative broadcast. I often imagine grey suits and red cravats watching it with a glass of something closeby, having just walked round the block from their offices in the City of London/Westminster.
In short, the establishment doesn't take too kindly to having it's prerogatives threatened and so I'm sure Ms Wark had that in mind when instead of attacking the woeful mismanagement of British agriculture of many decades, she simply plumped for how to keep the agribusiness machine rolling.
Oh, and well done for mentioning population control and sustainability in one blog. Now to wait for someone to draw a line between the two and wave their elephant-in-the-room sign...