Barry Wilson’s article “For rich nations, words far cheaper than food; if only the poor could eat them” (WP, Nov. 19) provides an important lesson. Wilson writes that we appear unable to reduce hunger, no matter how many words are used.
There have been many proud pronouncements about how hunger will be beaten.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
At the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger stated: “Within 10 years, no child will go to bed hungry.”
Similar pronouncements have been made at each of the major global food summits during the past 45 years. However, hunger has increased. Why?
Perhaps we use the wrong words. Actions needed to reduce hunger run counter to dominant economic and political thinking.
Hunger is a matter of wealth distribution; poor people are the ones hungry. Seventy-five percent of the world’s hungry are small-holder farmers. Do our words reflect this reality?
Words like land reform, fair trade, appropriate technology, and local control are needed. Why does the Dole pineapple company in Honduras get all the good land while poor local farmers get only hill slopes?
Hopeful words are now coming from other places – the biotech industry, for example (see “Anti-GMO threatens ag: Syngenta”, WP, Nov. 5).
The biotech industry is using the world hunger issue to advance its business. I question the words coming from biotech companies and offer two examples.
Monsanto promises to improve the water use efficiency of crop plants by 30 percent within 15 or so years.
People who have come to believe that all things are possible with biotechnology should listen to those who really know plants – people like Tom Sinclair of the University of Florida, one of the world’s top plant physiologists.
At last year’s American Society of Agronomy conference in Houston, he stated: “I don’t care what any chemical company tells you …” referring to the fact that the amount of water required to bring a molecule of carbon dioxide into plants (water use efficiency) is fixed in the plant’s hard drive and cannot be changed.
The way to increase water use efficiency is to reduce water evaporation from soil through no-till and cover crops and not use precious water to irrigate corn for feedlots.
By making this promise, Monsanto gives the illusion that it has the answer to a critical global problem. It has fallen into the same trap as the food summit people.
Dr. Brian Rossnagel has his own word to describe such empty promises (“Processors keen on purchasing GM oats” WP, Dec. 17).
Solving the world’s problems requires people with integrity. Syngenta is using Rosa Parks, the woman who refused to give up her seat on the bus during the civil rights movement in the U.S., and Gandhi, the man who brought dignity and independence to India, to endorse its latest campaign called “Take a stand for sustainability.”
Syngenta’s project is not about sustainability. It’s about herbicide resistance management, a problem Syngenta helped create.
Using Rosa Parks and Gandhi in such a campaign shows how low agribusiness will stoop for profits. If Syngenta really wants to change, I suggest inviting people like Rosa Parks and Gandhi to serve on its board of directors.
Creating food security requires serious people, not opportunists. Thank you, Barry Wilson, for reminding us to choose our words and actions wisely.
