Sue Kedgley on Peak Food
Sue Kedgley spoke at the Farmers Market Biennial Conference yesterday on Peak Food:
We are in danger of becoming a cash crop nation –producing dairy and to a lesser extent meat for export –while other sectors are being eroded by cheap imports. We import 2.8 million tonnes of food each year — bananas from Equador, garlic from China, wheat from Australia–and our imports are growing every year.
In the 1980’s before we removed subsidies, New Zealand was self sufficient in wheat. But now we import 75% of the wheat we eat, which makes us vulnerable to skyrocketing wheat prices.
Ironically, even as international grain prices are soaring, our grain growers are struggling to keep ahead. Our five main grain mills are owned by global agribusinesses which set the price of wheat –and pay New Zealand growers substantially less than they pay for imported wheat.
Wheat growers in New Zealand, as elsewhere, are being hit by rising fertiliser, seed, and pesticide costs, driven up by the rising price of oil; and as a result many are converting to growing wheat for animal feed which gets higher returns, or to dairying.
The same thing is happening in other parts of our food industry. Sheep farmers find themselves squeezed by low prices and high costs. Our once flourishing garlic industry has been decimated by cheap garlic from China and now there are only 3-4 left in Marlborough, and they are struggling. We import 45% of the pork we consume, and our pig farmers are struggling. We import so much cheap canned fruit and jam that very little of that is made in New Zealand anymore, and on it goes. And then we have the absurd situation where Talleys is gutting some species of fish at its local factory, then exporting them to China for re-processing, and then returning them to New Zealand for sale.
And even in the one industry where we do dominate world markets –our dairy industry—prices for dairy products are exorbitant and beyond the reach of many New Zealanders because Fonterra claims we have to pay prices that are set globally –presumably by global commodity traders and speculators –for food that is produced down the road.
She continues to note that our Minister of Agriculture recently suggested “We need a food security strategy as much as we need to prepare for the Martians landing�.
The beauty of focussing on local community initiatives like farmers markets, is that it’s something we can do now, starting tomorrow. We don’t need to wait for the Martians to land before the government will act. The exciting thing is that its already starting to happen, as this conference demonstrates, and we are starting to see a grassroots movement for change, for greater resilience, for more community action, all around New Zealand.
It is below the radar – the media haven’t picked it up yet – but I see it happening all over New Zealand. And the Green Party wants to do everything we can to support this movement, for what could be more important for sustaining present and future generations than providing good food in a manner that sustains not only consumers and producers but also the planet itself.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Transition Towns seems like a very hopeful movement in the direction of (among other things) NZ food security.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:50 am
An excellent speech Sue.
When I was a child in the 1940s and 50s our family grew all our own vegetables and fruit and kept hens for eggs. We went fishing regularly, and gathered shellfish. Our parents bottled fruit and made jam, some neighbours kept bees for honey … we cut up our own surplus tree growth for firewood and we swapped what we didn’t need for what we didn’t have with neighbours. All this was a regular part of the working (and recreational) week, and took place in all city suburbs.
Now a lot of the hours in the day that were formerly spent in such pursuits are spent on the internet or watching videos/TV or “going out for coffee” etc … and (the saddest two:) wandering around shopping malls for “recreation” or driving to the expensive “Gym” to don our lycra exercise gear and replicating the muscle movements of this formerly productive human lifestyle on exercise machines!
May 31st, 2008 at 10:22 am
a good speech..
and the safe food is a thread the greens should be going gangbusters on between now and the election..
it is a platform that is trans-ideological…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 31st, 2008 at 10:33 am
So communes are the answer are they?, makes for a pretty shallow gene pool!
Who would do the work so Phil can sit around doing nothing all day?
May 31st, 2008 at 11:23 am
Personally, I think that this is a load of nonsense - with food imports, at least food has become more affordable than it was back in the days when we were “self-sufficient.” Does anyone remember how expensive chicken used to be back in the good ole days?
Of course, it is in the name of “self-sufficiency” that the likes of the European Union, the United States and Australia have had some really stupid policies. Consider Australia; so they could be self-sufficient in rice and cotton, they encouraged farmers to grow it; of course, let us not forget that both crops need a lot of water, and of course, Australia is dry at the best of times. Take the cotton and rice away, and I don’t think that Australians would be facing as heavy water restrictions as they have been in recent years.
About the United States and European Union, need I say more - their agricultural subsidies are screwing over the Third World and helping to keep Africa in poverty. It is in the name of “self-sufficiency” that the European Union has become the second largest producer of sugar in the world (they even grow sugar cane in Finland, no doubt using electricity to warm up the crops; even more waste).
I would much rather let the market decide prices, and leave the policy of auturky in the past where it belongs. You never know, you may actually help bring people in the Third World out of poverty, and have far less waste of resources. Of course, if people want to have their farmers markets and use them, I have no problem.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Come on phil, let’s hear how much of your food budget is the result of your own toil? If only to quieten bb momentarily.
Me? Still getting tomatoes off the vine in Christchurch thanks to the clear plastic covers supplied free with every pallet of salt from Grassmere.
Has anybody had personal experience of making a hotbed?
May 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The last imported tinned apricots and peaches i bought were SO tasteless and UNfruit like that i will never EVER buy them again.
There will be a generation of kiwis grow up without knowing what a REAL apricot is supposed to taste like - i used to love Roxburgh apricots in the tin when i was a kid but you can’t get them any more. gotta love this progress !
June 1st, 2008 at 7:31 am
well on thursday morning the BBC were hinting that GMO was looking mighty attractive, worked really well for mossanto this crisis.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
jon-ston asks:
“Does anyone remember how expensive chicken used to be back in the good ole days?”
I do! and YES “chicken” was relatively more expensive than now.
There are two major factors to consider, however:
(1) The the LIVES of the hens of that time were more like those of today’s “organic” hens (or, at the least, of todays’ “free range” hens).
(2)This is unlike the lives of the majority of today’s hens, which are generally kept in crowded, inhumane cages, or at least in “barns” with artificial light, where they are fed formula food made from left over waste (sometimes including meat from their own species.) etc … (and I won’t even start about growth hormones …)
Between “then” and “now”, many factors, including price, are no longer comparable.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
oh well..at least the age of gluttony will end..
(small consolations for what we all face..
but..y’know..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
You certainly have a point re: subsidies johnston, and I absolutely abhore those policies of the US and Europe there. However, the Greens don’t appear to be advocating that here, although it would be GREAT to know what they DO want in terms of action here…
June 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Stephen R that’s crap
If you want to protect local industry (or agriculture).
There are only realistically three ways to do it -subsidies,tarriffs or quotas
And the price is at least partially in starving Africans
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 am
Sue is economically illiterate, it is utter nonsense. By what measure is one better off subsidising inefficient food production through taxes than paying the market price directly? How does Sue possibly think domestic wheat producers would shield you from high wheat prices? Are they going to be banned from exporting and making excellent returns (as they should be)?
The so called “absurdities” are of course so to someone not actually in the business. There is nothing wrong with exporting large quantities of something efficient that you produce and reaping the benefits of it, while buying cheaper imports instead of paying more to produce something locally. The economic arguments of autarky have been disproved so much you have to wonder why this nonsense is trotted out again and again? This “we import” nonsense as if it is some collective decision. What does she want done?
Sue Kedgley is going to a world conference on food security to essentially argue on the side of the EU, US and Japanese protectionists (few note the Bush Administration has actually been pushing to abolish agricultural export subsidies but the EU isn’t interested) in arguing against free trade in agriculture. At best it is inane and stupid, at worst she is advocating that the economic vandalism of the EU CAP continues, damaging the NZ economy and the economy of dozens of developing countries.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
My favourite part of the speech was about encouraging schools to grow edible plants. Exposing children to the taste of fresh produce, or perhaps contrasting the human-based timeframes of urban life with those of plant growth, each offer people broader experiences from which to make their decisions. One day, perhaps, we will all eschew ´imported tinned apricots’ in favour of savouring a few of Roxburgh´s best. Or we might not - but we´d understand better the choice being made.
Naturally everybody wants ready access to food, and we ought to be collectively ashamed if anybody lacks that. I cannot accept, however, that as members of the richest fifth of the world´s population it is moral to withdraw to fortress NZ. Trade exposes us to the follies of ´the system´, but if we find them hard to swallow then how can we abandon the fight to those more poorly placed than ourselves?
If our dairy has outstretched the country´s sustainable capacity, or we have allowed a monopoly to develop, then we should address that. We should insist that all goods and services provided in this country, including imports, have paid for their GHG emissions according to acceptable international standards. This will provide a market for overseas companies who desire to lead the way in their region by costing in their emissions. And NZ will bear that cost as the consumers, even as we may be choosing to subsidise (transparently, and hopefully only partially) our exports to markets which disregard their environment. That would be good global citizenship.
Looking into the future, NZ can expect to be wealthy in fresh water as global warming sets in. Will we play Scrooge McDuck, swimming in the wealth of our Turkish bathhouses? Or will we grow ´cash crops´ which the world needs but lacks the water to grow?
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
In the 70’s the story of pineapples in Philippines was a well known story. Was it Dole? who persuaded the Philippine government that their country’s best option was to plant pineapples for the American market. The result was vast areas of local food producing land was taken over to grow pineapples.
The local land owners were mostly dispossessed and moved to the cities, providing cheap labour; a few were employed in the pineapple factories; all lost their inherent skills at growing rice and tending their small holdings. Ultimately the pineapple market found new price levels (crashed) as the same advisors went around the world establishing more pineapple empires to compete and Philippines became net importers of rice for many years.
The same story can be repeated about so many “developing countries�.
It suddenly occurs to me that the dairy boom in NZ is taking us down a similar track. Incredibly the large dairy farms are using cheap Philippine labour to keep their costs down; our own young are destined to move off the land, losing their food production skills.
New Zealand’s dependence on imported food, associated with a crash in dairy prices, is a frightening thought for our future.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Coffee tells a similar story to the pineapples. Pretty much a free market, no competition from subsidised producers in the EU, US or Japan, yet coffee growers in developing countries are still in poverty, despite huge rises in prices.
So much for the market delivering wealth to people in developing countries - the rich world agricultural subsidies are problematic in lots of ways, but aren’t the cause of starvation in Africa.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Sam - Not the cause no, but in Africa it does affect many commodities like cotton, fruit, sugar, wheat and dairy/meat in southern Africa (though Mugabe has butchered part of that successfully). Coffee of course is seeing record prices, but what would you suggest instead? It would help if private property rights were probably defended in coffee producing countries rather than land just being taken or corruptly provided by the state. Few now deny that the EU CAP and US protection of cotton and sugar in particular cost developing country producers dearly, and have also hindered development of production in those countries. Arguing the economic snakeoil Sue is advocating plays into the hands of the parasitical French and US farmers suckling off of state welfare.
Africa’s poverty is predominantly generated by corrupt government that fails to protect property rights and contracts, and engages in enormous graft to protect businesses run and owned by state cronies. One of the bigger problems is infrastructure or import monopolies which hinder capital development and investment. The biggest single difference between Africa and the rest of the world is chronically bad governance. That requires introspection that parts of Asia and parts of Latin America (notably Chile, Uruguay and Argentina) have had. The simple point is that aid wont fix Africa, it’s government that people can’t buy favours from to deny others the right to trade and control their own property.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Africa and other nations are certainly affected by corrupt governments; however it was the incursion of corporations under the wing of World Bank and others which provided the wherewithal for much of the corruption that followed.
I recently witnessed the small holdings proliferated around the “White Highlands” in Kenya. I could not help feeling that these so called inefficient land holdings were ultimately better for Africa and the world than the large farms and corporate efficiencies they have replaced. Even if the owners have not got wealth, they have food and the resources to produce it. Obviously the changes wrought will cause some fairly massive disruptions including the effects of drought etc, but minor compared to the social disruption caused by the introduction and subsequent failure of corporate farming. We should take note in NZ.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
One can make a case for saying rich world subsidies have lowered the price farmers receive from some commodities (cotton, wheat). One can also make a case for saying that the free market has lowered the price of other commodities (coffee, pineapples. cocoa). The lot of the average African isn’t going to be improved by exporting cheap wheat to the United States and having their infrastructure run by western companies.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Fundamental changes must be made in order for Africa to “catch up” with the developed world.
Its a little unfair to claim that bad governance and corruption are responsible for the lack of development in Africa, when its indemic in all countries, whether developed or Third World nations. Only in the West its merely considered part of the political system. Pork barrel politics, political machines, and the “revolving door” phenomon. It doesn’t have a perceivable negative effect on their economies only because of the maturity of their capital markets and social/governance/economic institutions. Well it does, but most are oblivious to it.
Nor is it to claim that development came about, because governments respected “property rights”. You could hardly argue that the colonials in South Africa, South East Asia, the Americas, or Australasia, protected the property rights of the indigenous peoples, but those areas still managed to develop anyway. It can be argued to the contrary, that those regions developed precisely, because they didn’t.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Does Africa want to “catch up” with the developed world? Is it not the developed world that is taking us to the brink?
Property rights only apply to the conqueror, who ignores such things during the conquering.
My concern is that the development of NZ is still going on and in time, the production specialisation of narrow ranges of primary production will lead the country into a state of paying for imported food against falling dairy prices, whilst waiting for the next primary product boom to pay the bills - all the while squandering our natural resources.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Wilber, in a manner of speaking I’m sure they do. Most want the clean drinking water, affordable healthcare, economic security, freedom of expression, legal protections, and freedom of oppurtunity that the West offers its citizens.
Yes theres many problems in Western societies, but seeing the violence, suffering, and poverty thats indemic in the Third World I’d honestly prefer to live here.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
SleepyTreehugger - in some ways I believe that we view their needs through our western eyes. My take on it is that most of those who have not experienced the western way, or have chosen to revert away from this way are very happy with their lot.
Despite viewing this from a position of comfort and privilege, I fear that much of what we value forms part of a mirage established by those who will profit from our holding ‘drinking water, affordable healthcare, economic security, freedom of expression, legal protections, and freedom of opportunity’ as inalienable rights. Whereas the “others” wonder what all the fuss is about and enjoy their simple life style and the patterns of living including birth and death and all the hardships and pleasures in between.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
“Most want the clean drinking water, affordable healthcare, economic security, freedom of expression, legal protections, and freedom of oppurtunity that the West offers its citizens. ”
Not so sure that “the West” offers affordable healthcare and economic security these days, nor freedom of opportunity (whatever that is). Legal protections work reasonably well on the “preventing both rich and poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges” and the “I stole this land fair and square and I’ve got guns” principles.
Clean water I’ll give you (in general) and freedom of expression seems only mildly under threat, as long as you’re happy with the richest having the loudest voices.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Sam Buchanan,
Like I alluded to in my previous comments, life in the West isn’t perfect, but in alot of ways its far superior than that experienced in alot of the Third World.
No death squads, no being “disappeared”, not having to scrape a living from the rubbish dump, not having to die early because unavailable medicine, etc.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Don’t think death squads, disappearances and scraping a living from rubbish dumps are particularly normal occurences in developing countries.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I suspect death squads, rubbish dumps and medicinal expectations are the residue of conquerers and their developed world, not the lot of those who have been left untrampled.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Sam,
“Don’t think death squads, disappearances and scraping a living from rubbish dumps are particularly normal occurences in developing countries.”
Are you kidding me? Death squads have been known to terrorise most Third World countries in the Third World in modern times. Routinely used to murder or kidnap and torture street children, drug users, indigenous and labour groups, and political dissidents.
Argentina, Algeria, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, South Korea,
Lebanon, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, and Vietnam have all suffered from the ravages of death squads and people who oppose the governements have routinely been “disappeared” by governement agents in recent times.
Wilbur
Medical expectation are the residues of the conquerers. Are you kidding me? Why should millions of children die from easily preventable illnesses such as malaria or even hunger? I hope you’re not alluding to the belief that they shouldn’t be able to expect to live through to adulthood with that question, because that is completely callous and uncaring. Not something I’d expect from a supposed Green.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
United Kngdom, Ireland, South Korea, etc. - isn’t that stretching the definition of ‘death squad’ a bit? Not to mention the definition of ‘third world’ (OK - parts of south London maybe).
June 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
There’s a simple solution: grow your own food, buy local produce, and place importance in the quality of what you buy, not just the price. If there is something you want which cannot be produced locally, or at an affordable price, then perhaps you can do without it.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Sam,
Doh! I thought I’d deleted them. Copied the list from Wikipedia.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
How about China? Deeply nasty government, but where’s the death squads?
June 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Wilbur-
Interesting posts. I think I like your thinking.
SleepyTH-
“Why should millions of children die from easily preventable illnesses such as malaria or even hunger?” Kids die from hunger if they don’t have enough food. If there continues to be more and more kids, and not more and more food, then more and more kids will die from hunger.
I don’t know much about malaria, but it’s good to hear that’s it’s “easily preventable”. A friend of mine had to take doxycycline for 8 weeks (!) as a preventative when he visited the Phillipines for just a few days. I have heard that the best way to cost effectively prevent malaria deaths was to use DDT around villages. Is this how to easily prevent malaria deaths?
June 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Kids aren’t dying because of a lack of food - they are dying because they don’t have money to buy it. Likewise malaria - easily treated with artesunate if you’ve got the money (it doesn’t cost much). Doxycycline is pretty lousy as a prophylactic.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Sam Buchanan,
Precisely why its preferable to live in the developed world. Because even our poorest should have access to food and affordable healthcare.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:45 am
I agree wtih SleepyTreehugger, its definitely preferable to live in more developed part of the world because the poorest do have access to food. Especially in America. And as I was reading this article it reminded me of this article I read a little bit ago called Peak Food and it definitely harped on the same points this article did. Thanks Ya’ll
June 5th, 2008 at 9:23 am
SleepyTreehugger - my comments re medical expectations is quite contentious and probably another thread. Look up the history of Trovin to see what our medical providers can get up to.
In regard to where best to live, my concern is that our satisfaction in living where and how we do may become short-lived and the fall from grace may be devastating to us due to our loss of food producing skills and associated dependence on imports of so much that we presently depend on, including our medical expectations.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“Precisely why its preferable to live in the developed world. Because even our poorest should have access to food and affordable healthcare.”
I notice the “should”. But aren’t you just arguing that it’s better to be upper class or middle class rather than lower class? People in developing countries are part of as global economic system and happen to be the current losers in that system - they aren’t in a different system.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Sam Buchanan,
“But aren’t you just arguing that it’s better to be upper class or middle class rather than lower class? People in developing countries are part of as global economic system and happen to be the current losers in that system - they aren’t in a different system.”
Not really, because even middle and upper class people don’t have the legal protections that even the poorest here does, not to mention that our govenments are accountable to the people so no kidnappings or summary executions here, well unless you’re a Muslim.
Theres noone to speak or campaign for your civil liberties in Third World Countries.