The following is my latest creation. It is actually a paper that I wrote for my class on globalization, but I was so passionate about the topic that I figured that I would post it here and let you guys enjoy the things that I argued. The information in the paper is very general but I would someday like to write a more detailed and controlled argument, though this version does get the point across that I am trying to make.
You Are What You Eat: The Effect of Globalization on Food Production and Consumption
What effect does food have on the global market? How does the production and consumption of food impact a nation’s identity? How has the history of food changed in the modern era? These questions are essential to understanding how the globalization of the food industry has affected nations developed and developing. The consumption of food worldwide is changing rapidly from locally grown and consumed to conventionally grown large plots of single crops shipped all over the world. Markets are now supplying food that they couldn’t just a few years ago because the produce wasn’t in season. The demand for lower food prices and more food puts strain on production methods and forces producers to reinvent ways to keep up with the demand of a global economy. The universalization of food products has a huge effect on societies the world over.
To understand the changes that have occurred in the consumption of food we need to look at the way food was traditionally grown and eaten. Crops are grown on a seasonal basis. Warm-season crops are available during the summer and fall harvesting times while cool-season crops are available during the winter and early spring months. Another crucial aspect of traditional food production is the geographic space. Food had to accommodate the land that it was grown on. Some crops prefer sandy soil and long growing seasons while others can grow in a short amount of time in a cooler climate. This said, crops grown were traditionally very local in that they were grown specific to the conditions of that area: seasonal length, climate, soil conditions, and plant tolerance. Families grew their own food or hired people to grow it for them on their land.
In addition to agricultural tradition we need to consider the production of meat, which today is the fastest growing production in the food industry of America and certainly under the most scrutiny. Farms, traditionally, would raise enough meat (beef, pork, fowl, and lamb) for the local demand. Slaughter of these animals was relatively humane and done with care. The animals were raised on diets that were instinctually natural. The production and consumption of food is traditionally local and intimate, with consumers associated with many aspects of production from face to face interaction with the farmers to actual growing of the food themselves. But traditional ways of production and consumption in America have almost entirely disappeared and have been replaced with a new and global network of food.
In an article entitled Introduction: Agriculture, Trade, and the Global Governance of Food Abigail Cooke, Sara Curran, April Linton, and Andrew Schrank (from now on Cooke et al.) explain a few key concepts in understanding the impact of the changing food market. According to their argument food is a “fictitious commodity” meaning that it is “not originally produced for sale” (Cooke et al. 101). These commodities are “rarely privatized and commercialized without social and political struggle” (Cooke et al. 101). A stark example of this would be the bread riots of France during the countries revolutionary years. Demand for lower food prices and more food has been going on for centuries. And this has sparked change in the way that food is produced, which now is in mass quantities of lower quality food.
I want to spend less time on how food production and consumption have changed from these traditional ways and dedicate more time to how this has affected national and personal identity, so my summary of how things have changed will be somewhat condensed. Produce production has dramatically changed since the introduction of genetically modified species. Genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) are scientifically altered to have certain characteristics, such as a tolerance to certain diseases or the ability to develop at a faster pace. This sets the stage for growing plants in geographical areas that were limited in their supportable plants. Strains of rice that could only grow in Asia could now be grown in Africa. Soybean production in America has been monopolized by a patented GMO strain of soybean.
Similarly, raising livestock has changed from traditional methods. Animals are fed vitamins and steroids to bulk the flesh up. Chickens have been modified to develop in a shorter amount of time so that production time is shorter and demands are met. Commercial turkeys have so much weight on their bodies that they cannot mate naturally and have trouble walking. Yet this gain in weight gives the consumers what they want: more meat. Animals are raised by the thousands on what are now called factory farms. These farms pump out as much meat as fast as they can, with no regard to sanitation or the livelihood of the animals. The consumers want more and fast, and that is what they get. This is the issue with the modern food economy. People want more food, available at all times, and for a low cost. But what is sacrificed for this cheaper and readily available food? And how does this affect a nation’s identity?
I am going to take a look at Latin America for a moment, and how the deforestation of one of the world’s most pristine habitats has been caused by the world’s rising food demands. H. Ricarco Grau and Mitchell Aide’s article Globalization and Land-Use Transitions in Latin America details how to improve production and be ecologically friendly with the agricultural land of Latin America. They say that Latin America’s ecosystems “not only feed the local population, but also produce an increasing amount of food for the rest of the world… where growing income is promoting diet changes toward a higher consumption of animal protein” (Grau 2). Grau and Aide discuss how the “shift from traditional agriculture and particularly grazing pastures to modern agriculture” increases the productivity of producers and brings in more money. This is the universalization of producing. Traditional and local methods are being forgotten for the modern methods, and are spreading across the world. Farms can now use the same methods to grow product in every corner of the earth and be more productive than ever before. This poses a problem to small farmers though. Commercial growers are able to lower the prices of their product because of the efficiency they have. Small farmers using traditional methods of growing produce or raising animals cannot compete with commercial growers because the cost of their product is higher and the consumers want a lower price tag. The effect of this is ecologically damaging to the unique ecosystems of Latin America, arguably the best known aspect of that area of the world. The rainforests are being depleted for acreage of pasture and farmland.
Another example of how globalized food networking is affecting social, political, and economic status of a country is here in America. The fishing industry is very much at the center of global food markets. The fishing industry is very different from growing plants or raising animals as there is a limited supply of fish in the ocean which cannot be entirely controlled by human intervention. As the global market demands more fish, the industry raises its quota and brings in a bigger haul. This poses problems that we don’t have in agriculture or raising livestock. The ocean could potentially be depleted of a resource. Michael T. Morrissey, in his article Global Resources and Market Impacts on US Pacific Northwest Fisheries, states that “the 1990’s proved that the explosive growth [of the international fishing market] could not continue as several of the most important commercial species were being harvested at their maximum sustainable levels” (196). This means that the fish were being over-harvested, or that they could not reproduce as fast as they were being harvested, and that if they were to fished at the same rate the population would eventually disappear entirely.
This problem was tackled internationally by coming up with a solution that reduced the amount of fish that could be taken from the ocean every year. This solution was to farm-raise fish. This, like the produce and animal protein, creates a market for cheap fish. This created more problems though. Morrissey states that sales of farm-raised fish “significantly depleted the livelihoods of fishers dependent upon wild-caught” fish (197). Those who made their living on fishing from natural sources were losing out on sales because of the now global method of raising fish. They could not compete in the global market without changing their traditional ways of fishing. Morrissey gives data on a cost comparison of fish-meat in the markets. He says that the cost of “Chilean Atlantic farmed Salmon fillets [went from] a high of $4/lb in 1993 to $2.20/lb by 2001” , and that “consumption of salmon in the US tripled from 0.7 lbs/person/yr to 2.2 lbs/person/yr” making salmon the “third highest consumed seafood product” in the United States (200). This is a dramatic decrease of price when inflation is taken into account. While the cost of living is up, the price of food keeps going down.
The universalization of food is directly affecting every person in the United States of America. Because food is such a large part of our economy, the government has posed regulations and laws on the farmers of America. In a book entitled Integrative Nutrition: Feed Your Hunger for Health and Happiness by Joshua Rosenthal there is a section on how our food is regulated. He says that “public nutrition policy is dictated by the political process, which is now heavily dictated by a corporate agenda to maximize profits” (8). He is referencing the fact that many of the big food corporations CEO’s are now in charge of regulating their own food production because they are either elected government officials or lobby for government officials to pull strings for them. They do this because the sales of food, particularly animal protein, are increasing internationally and they want to milk the cow for all its worth (pardon the pun). This in turn creates health problems for those who are being mislead by those who are in control of food and are putting information about that food into the heads of those who consume it (all-natural beef is really beef that has been fed a diet of corn or soy beans compared to actual natural diet of grass and hay, for example) and by putting unhealthy and untraditional food on to the plates of consumers.
People in America now eat anything they want to at anytime they like. Peppers can be found in the marketplace year round as opposed to late summer, and so-called “fresh” eggs can be found in bulk in the refrigerated section of the grocery store instead of in the nesting boxes of chicken coops as per tradition. And this affects the identity of America. America is now seen as the unhealthiest country in the world, stemming from our modern diet and food consumption. The rise in childhood obesity is astounding. And since we are seen as the source of westernization, the world follows suit. Japan and Korea are increasing their consumption of beef thanks to “the efforts of US-based, but globally powerful agricultural trade associations and their lobbyists” (Cooke et al. 103). America leads the world in the production and consuming of food and the social, political, and economical impact of that fact is huge. If we are defined by what we eat, then American’s (and, increasingly, those around the world) are made of up every corner of our planet. My peppers are from Chile, my olive oil from California, my apples from New Zealand, and my scallops from China. Aren’t I the world traveler?
