The Rural Voice, 1980-10, Page 611,
The politics
of food
BY ADRIAN VOS
"So Samson went and caught 300
foxes, and took torches; and he turned
them tail to tail, and put a torch between
each pair of tails. And when he had set
fire to the torches. he let the foxes go into
the standing grain of the Philistines. and
burned up the shocks and the standing
grain as well as the olive orchards."
Judges 15:4-5.
From the biblical quote we see that
using food as a weapon is not a new
concept. In the time of "Kings", strong,
walled cities like Jerusalem could only be
taken though cutting off the food and
water supply. This took, in some cases.
several years.
The castles and walled cities of the
Middle Ages were often so formidable
that only starvation and disease could
make the garrisons surrender. At the
time food was a universally accepted
weapon. It is only in the last century that
a general revlusion against this type of
warfare surfaced.
Nevertheless, only a few years ago the
world was horrified at the plight of the
Biafrans when they were starved into
submission after their revolt against their
government.
Currently America, under the guidance
of President Carter, is fighting evil with
evil, by limiting grain sales to the Soviet
Union in response to the Russian
occupation of Afghanistan.
Meanwhile. hardliners in both Canada
and the USA have been advocating using
the power of food surplus to force OPEC
nations to lower oil prices. While the idea
has been around at least since 1975, it
has only slowly gained ground. But
currently, government officials connected
with the Canadian wheat board have
been talking with their American
counterparts about a minimum price for
wheat, with the stated purpose of
guaranteeing prairie farmers a decent
income.
As world population continues to
increase, the use of grain as weapon
becomes more potent, particularly since
there are only five major grain exporting
countries.
The USSR is vulnerable because of its
large population. Some reports from the
Ural region tell of unrest because.
instead of an expected higher living
standard, less meat is available. These
reports have some backing. for only last
month the USSR asked for tenders for
large quantities of pork. The recent
labour unrest in their Polish satellite
state was also connected with food.
Politics in food is not all threatening
however. The government economists of
the wealthy countries are well aware that
to increase their sale of manufactured
goods to underdeveloped countries. these
countries first need money. If they should
spend it all on imported food. there
wouldn't be any left for job producing
products. A result of this forward
thinking has been aid programs from
many western countries aimed at
educating the poor so they can increase
their own food production.
In Canada we have volunteer
organizations like CUSO and others. And
government programs like the Canadian
International Development Agency
(CIDA) and the International Develop-
ment Research Centre (IDRC), are doing
much to help Third World people to help
themselves.
Scientists from IDRC work under the
direction of local scientists. They are not
sent out to make new rules, but to help
the under developed countries to improve
existing programs.
One of the problems in the poor
countries is often a shortage of protein in
their food. The people there have moved
away from legumes rich in protein. such_
as beans. to cereals with a lower ana less
complete protein content. The legumes.
moreover, fix their own nitrogen from air,
while cereals depend on man to take
nitrogen to them. The policy of the IDRC
is to teach the farmers in these countries
to grow the right crops. and to rotate
crops for best results.
Triticale. which Canadians helped
develop. is just one example of what the
west can do. Genetic engineering will
undoubtedly develop more. completely
new. plants. _
STRONG IN AGRICULTURE
Throughout history it can be shown
that a country strong in agriculture is
prosperous. A rich country is able to
improve its standard of living by buying
from industrial countries. Thus it makes
excellent economic sense to teach under-
developed countries to produce their own
food.
The same holds true in Canada. for the
more our agriculture declines. so
ultimately. will our prosperity.
Still, voter support is a political
consideration. It is therefore not
surprising that successive Canadian
governments have pursued a "cheap
food" policy.
Western Canada has complained
PG. 4 THE RURAL VOICE/OCTOBER 1980