Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World's Food System

By Raj Patel, Melville House Publishing. Posted June 2, 2008.


Hunger and obesity stem from the same problem -- the corporations that sell our food determine what we eat and how we think about food.
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System by Raj Patel, published with permission from Melville House Publishing.

Today, when we produce more food than ever before, more than one in ten people on Earth are hungry. The hunger of 800 million happens at the same time as another historical first: that they are outnumbered by the one billion people on this planet who are overweight.

Global hunger and obesity are symptoms of the same problem and, what's more, the route to eradicating world hunger is also the way to prevent global epidemics of diabetes and heart disease, and to address a host of environmental and social ills. Overweight and hungry people are linked through the chains of production that bring food from fields to our plate.

Guided by the profit motive, the corporations that sell our food shape and constrain how we eat, and how we think about food. The limitations are clearest at the fast food outlet, where the spectrum of choice runs from McMuffin to McNugget. But there are hidden and systemic constraints even when we feel we're beyond the purview of Ronald McDonald. Even when we want to buy something healthy, something to keep the doctor away, we're trapped in the very same system that has created our Fast Food Nations?

Try, for example, shopping for apples. At supermarkets in North America and Europe, the choice is restricted to half a dozen varieties: Fuji, Braeburn, Granny Smith, Golden Delicious and perhaps a couple of others. Why these? Because they're pretty: we like the polished and unblemished skin. Because their taste is one that's largely unobjectionable to the majority. But also because they can stand transportation over long distances. Their skin won't tear or blemish if they're knocked about in the miles from orchard to aisle. They take well to the waxing technologies and compounds that make this transportation possible and keep the apples pretty on the shelves. They are easy to harvest. They respond well to pesticides and industrial production. These are reasons why we won't find Calville Blanc, Black Oxford, Zabergau Reinette, Kandil Sinap or the ancient and venerable Rambo on the shelves.

Our choices are not entirely our own because, even in a supermarket, the menu is crafted not by our choices, nor by the seasons, nor where we find ourselves, nor by the full range of apples available, nor by the full spectrum of available nutrition and tastes, but by the power of food corporations.

The concerns of food production companies have ramifications far beyond what appears on supermarket shelves. Their concerns are the rot at the core of the modern food system. To show the systemic ability of a few to impact the health of the many demands A global investigation, travelling from the green deserts of Brazil to the architecture of the modern city, and moving through history from the time of the first domesticated plants to the Battle of Seattle.

It's an enquiry that uncovers the real reasons for famine in Asia and Africa, why there is a worldwide epidemic of farmer suicides, why we don't know what's in our food any more, why Black people in the United States are more likely to be overweight than white, why there are cowboys in South Central Los Angeles, and how the world's largest social movement is discovering ways, large and small, for us to think about, and live differently with, food.

The alternative to eating the way we do today promises to solve hunger and diet-related disease, by offering a way of eating and growing food that is environmentally sustainable and socially just. Understanding the ills of the way food is grown and eaten also offers the key to greater freedom, and a way of reclaiming the joy of eating. The task is as urgent as the prize is great.

In every country, the contradictions of obesity, hunger, poverty and wealth are becoming more acute. India has, for example, destroyed millions of tons of grains, permitting food to rot in silos, while the quality of food eaten by India's poorest is getting worse for the first time since Independence in 1947. In 1992, in the same towns and villages where malnutrition had begun to grip the poorest families, the Indian government admitted foreign soft drinks manufacturers and food multinationals to its previously protected economy. Within a decade, India has become home to the world's largest concentration of diabetics: people -- often children -- whose bodies have fractured under the pressure of eating too much of the wrong kinds of food.

India isn't the only home to these contrasts. They're global, and they're present even in the world's richest country. In the United States in 2005, 35.1 million people didn't know where their next meal was coming from. At the same time there is more diet-related disease like diabetes, and more food, in the US than ever before.

It's easy to become inured to this contradiction; its daily version causes only mild discomfort, walking past the homeless and hungry, signs on the way to supermarkets bursting with food. There are moral emollients to balm a troubled conscience: the poor are hungry because they're lazy, or perhaps the wealthy are fat because they eat too richly.

This vein of folk wisdom has a long pedigree. Every culture has had, in some form or other, an understanding of our bodies as public ledgers on which is written the catalogue of our private vices. The language of condemnation doesn't, however, help us understand why hunger, abundance and obesity are more compatible on our planet than they've ever been. Moral condemnation only works if the condemned could have done things differently, if they had choices.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, farming, corn, food system, michael pollan, green revolution, stuffed and starved

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fantastic excerpt!
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 2, 2008 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gonna buy the book...

great catch!!


BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄
"...tolerance of intolerance is cowardice" ╌ Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just bought...
Posted by: jadresak on Jun 2, 2008 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just bought the book too and can't wait to read it.

Did you know that there are over 5,000 different varieties of Potato in Peru but only a hand-full of those are used in the West? The Irish Potato Famine was caused by this lack of variety as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, but what about chemicalized processing, etc.?
Posted by: JPHickey on Jun 2, 2008 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi, Well, many of us are suspicious of the unlabeled frankenfoods which include most of our corn and soy production. GMO sugar is almost here, and we, as citizens don't even have the right to know and choose.

Since our bodies have not evolved to deal with these crops or all the chemical additives in ordinary store-bought or restaurant foods, evidence is already appearing indicating the relationship to weight gain and these marginally toxic foods. Not to mention that MSG and excesses of over-processed salt obviously stir up cravings for these nutritionally hollowed-out so-called foods, while sugar, white flour, etc are designed to give blood-sugar rushes which do indeed lead to more addicitve, cravings. Oh, woe is me.

If most of us feel we cannot afford unprocessed, organically grown, perferable raw fruits and vegetables, not to mention free-range buffalo or chicken, we are demonstrating the usual lack of foresight. Eating healthily ultimately results in great savings over the long run as good health is much less expensive than falling into chronic degenerative health conditions, which also empower the symptom-based and excessively expensive medical system, to exploit us to the hilt. Heads they win, tails, we lose.

This situation is just one area where too many of us have fallen for the hype of a commercialized system that puts profits above all else. It has become another facet of the "perfect storm" brewing all 'round us.

We must wake and take responsibility for our own health and longevity and just say no the being duped!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

too late
Posted by: wittler youth on Jun 3, 2008 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after 56 years o devil may care...im the biggest hypocrit...now i wanna eat healthy..ALL PROSSED FOOD IS POISON ..but i still will sneak a double cheesburger at mc ds...but i have been rideing my bike for 11 years so fuck you...your suv exaust in my face is worse than any big mac attack...try holding your breath while 12 autos are behind you..they stink like the kiaser on crack...man you have no idea how much i hate piston enjines...death tech..101..........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The false economics of bad food and unhealthy habits
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 4, 2008 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People make excuses as to why they eat junk food and can't find the money for fresh fruit and veg, or cant't find the time to exercise, but it really is just that: excuses.

Everyone should sit down for a couple of hours and analyse their life. How can I place exercise and activity at the centre of my daily routines? How can I make sure that when I go shopping I buy fresh foods, and keep the occassional bit of junk food as a treat only? How do I fill my life with positive, healthy pastimes, rather than unhealthy habits?

It will come as a surprise, but everyone has the power to change. And when we change our daily habits and purchases, the economy will change. The economy isn't stupid. Growth in fresh food sales will be met with more fresh food. Being more active and not using cars will be noticed by the car manufacturers (they are already choking on their own exhaust).

And the best benefits are of course personal: you won't be sick as often, you will feel better, and be more happy with your body (and in turn more people happy with your body: you get laid more). Change the paradigm and shape your future: it is in your hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

True, but no mention of those man-made additives misused to keep prices artificially "low".
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 4, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, let's start out with a perfect example which pretty much went a long ways to go this far. Back in the early 1980s, when the FDA was not quite as corrupt as it is today, artificial sweetners such as high fructose corn syrup and aspartame were "approved" despite obvious health dangers and it took a political overruling against the FDA to get them approved. Stevia, on the other hand, was banned in 1991 because it was all natural and in fact healthy and thereby deemed as a "threat" to the POISONOUS artificial sweetner industries. As a matter of fact, with the rise of Type II diabetes, stevia can and will cure those diabetics any day.

And what about shit such as MSG? Despite the health risks, it's still used because in the name of "free" trade, all that oil is gonna wasted transporting and preserving all that food, most of which can be grown here in the states if only we'd get rid of privatization, "deregulation", rigged markets dubbed "free", "free" trade, FDA, WTO, DEA, etc ... sooner than later.

P.S.: Don't worry though. As oil prices keep rising and supplies get tighter, all this overprocessed junk food will also rise in prices. Hint: For overprocessed foods, 10 calories of fossil fuels are burned to produce 1 calorie of this junk and we aren't even talking about the transportation part. Not a great idea for food at a time fossil fuel supplies are getting harder to come by, is it?

Also, the author made no mention about the growing suicide of farmers in the far East especially in India. One of my wife's uncles who used to own a farmland there was forced to commit suicide after a Big Pharma giant was able to take over the farmlands to set up their labs for all those outsourced near-slave labor jobs. I can see why non-corporate farmers here in America and elsewhere are in a lose-lose situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American obesity will lose the "War on Terror"
Posted by: David/Daoud on Jun 4, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may seem a little off the wall but listen. America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. are obviously not eating McDonalds or Burger King and are probably more healthy.
Even soldiers in the Green Zone of Iraq are getting obese on the food that is available to them there. This is also, at least in part, why the U.S. military can't get enough fit recruits and is having to send the men they have on many deployments. You get my point? Processed foods, while making profits for the food industry's shareholders, will ultimately help to spell the doom of Western superpowers. I'd like your opinions on this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Asked, It is Moronic! Posted by: Gravitas
would you belive how the american stooge manmohan singh destroyed Indian agricultre?
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jun 4, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ever since 1993 when manmoahns singh was isntalled as fincace minister to do the biding for anglosaxons the Indian agricultre has tanked-as has india's self sufficency in nuclear and missile and defence industries.


How india is being treacherously enslaved by angloamerican agents likes of (unelectable and defeated in democratic election ) this pm manmohan singh and the english media inside india.

a great misconception is that so caled liberalization and globalization was brought to india by this manmohan singh. In fact soon after victory in iraq war in febraury 1991 the bush no. first declared a new world order in which he explicitly said that he will open up the world for american business. In fact his trade seccratary immeditealy annomnuced that she will make sure that america open up the thighs of thrid world countries as a slwoly and surely to american business(true analogy to a rape)-that was given the name liberalization and globalization for which the british and americans had been working since 1986. What was left for america to do was install maleable stooges inside the thrirld world countries. escpeally those types who are unelctable and have no mass base of their own-- in other words who are not elelctable democratically but installed from above through media and other manipulations.
this manmohan singh in india fulffiled that criteria of being unliked and unelctable insignificant person who was willing to act on arder of his american masters -if they had asked him to turn communist he would have done that.it isa sad refletion on india that since 1986 we have has only weaklings as our prime minsiters and fincnace minsiters not to speak of non mentionable defence misnters who made sure that indians nuclear and missle programme got stuck at 1986.





march, 2007

--this unelectable (and three times defeated in democratic elections ) so called prime minieter manmohan singh is a blot on the face of democratic india. he is there aonbly because the anglosaxon powers wanted him there instead of sonia gandhi(who wouldnot have been that maelelable to english speaking world-master race as this stooge manmohan is). this manmohan singh has been very unpopular in democratic election losing even when there was a wave in favour of congress. he has not even let pujab select his d=congress pqarty for assembley election in 2007 so mucn unpol;ular he is. but he is very popular amnost the anglosaxon media and govert. therefore he is popular amonst the english media and all the angloamerican stooges theat you find in any thirld world aka allwi,Ahmed Chalabi(of iraqi traitor fame) mubarak types.

manmohan singh is a yeltsin of india-very pouilar amonst enemies of india exactly because he has sold india cheap to thse amngloamericn interests.
now the idito indian elites are pro=jecting this imbecile manmohan singh as some intelecutal -whoever heard of e=an economist as a scintist or intellectual espceaccilly the economist who foolws voddo ecnomy of chaicago school?
even granted someone is educated what thse iditot elites of india are saying is that a geek with =zero personality and nil oratory power with no public fowwlloping should become a leader of 1.2billion people without being unecleted or despite losing elelction in genral elelctions. three times.
===============================================

Would you belive that only last year in 2007 there was one MR Mittel of some indian telecome company fame(not laxmi mittal) who was proudly saying that he will make pact with wall -mart and then wil provide food on the breakfast table for the americans the very next day-- the foood or vegetable to be harvested in India and then flown all the way to the american conusmers!. and he was baostful about that fact!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anything to avoid talking about the real problem
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jun 4, 2008 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we have 800 million hungry when food production is so high? 10,000 years ago food production was virtually non-existent compared to today, and we didn't have 800 million hungry people then. A-ha! We didn't have corporations then, either. Hunger must be caused by corporations. Brilliant!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still Overly Simplistic
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 5, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A a sociologist who has researched obesity for decades, I find his point of view simplistic. I do appreciate that he points out obesity is not about overeating, it is quite possible to get fat other ways. And he does point out lack of food early on creates obesity later in life. (So of course, lets put our children on diets!) But pollution, stess, and lack of sleep, and medication also cause weight gain. Not to mention some people are just naturally healthier being large and robust. The more diverse a species, the better its chance of survival. I object to anything that automatically dismisses fatness as negative! And those studies claiming reduced life expectancy our sponsored by PHARMA, they have no basis in fact and are part of marketing campaigns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]