Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa?
Ethical consumers should be aware poor Bolivians can no longer afford their staple grain, due to western demand raising prices
• Peta response – Eating quinoa may harm Bolivian farmers, but eating meat harms us all
• Peta response – Eating quinoa may harm Bolivian farmers, but eating meat harms us all
A Bolivian woman
harvesting quinoa negro. 'Well-intentioned health and ethics-led
consumers here [are] unwittingly driving poverty there.' Photograph:
George Steinmetz/Corbis
Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you
could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's
keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel
addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked
over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in
with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy
foods".
Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as a credibly nutritious substitute for meat. Unusual among grains, quinoa has a high protein content (between 14%-18%), and it contains all those pesky, yet essential, amino acids needed for good health that can prove so elusive to vegetarians who prefer not to pop food supplements.
Sales took off. Quinoa was, in marketing speak, the "miracle grain of the Andes", a healthy, right-on, ethical addition to the meat avoider's larder (no dead animals, just a crop that doesn't feel pain). Consequently, the price shot up – it has tripled since 2006 – with more rarified black, red and "royal" types commanding particularly handsome premiums.
But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.
In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there. It's beginning to look like a cautionary tale of how a focus on exporting premium foods can damage the producer country's food security. Feeding our apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus. Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream off the profits. That's the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy spears on supermarket shelves.
Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations.
Three years ago, the pioneering Fife Diet, Europe's biggest local food-eating project, sowed an experimental crop of quinoa. It failed, and the experiment has not been repeated. But the attempt at least recognised the need to strengthen our own food security by lessening our reliance on imported foods, and looking first and foremost to what can be grown, or reared, on our doorstep.
In this respect, omnivores have it easy. Britain excels in producing meat and dairy foods for them to enjoy. However, a rummage through the shopping baskets of vegetarians and vegans swiftly clocks up the food miles, a consequence of their higher dependency on products imported from faraway places. From tofu and tamari to carob and chickpeas, the axis of the vegetarian shopping list is heavily skewed to global.
There are promising initiatives: one enterprising Norfolk company, for instance, has just started marketing UK-grown fava beans (the sort used to make falafel) as a protein-rich alternative to meat. But in the case of quinoa, there's a ghastly irony when the Andean peasant's staple grain becomes too expensive at home because it has acquired hero product status among affluent foreigners preoccupied with personal health, animal welfare and reducing their carbon "foodprint". Viewed through a lens of food security, our current enthusiasm for quinoa looks increasingly misplaced.
Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as a credibly nutritious substitute for meat. Unusual among grains, quinoa has a high protein content (between 14%-18%), and it contains all those pesky, yet essential, amino acids needed for good health that can prove so elusive to vegetarians who prefer not to pop food supplements.
Sales took off. Quinoa was, in marketing speak, the "miracle grain of the Andes", a healthy, right-on, ethical addition to the meat avoider's larder (no dead animals, just a crop that doesn't feel pain). Consequently, the price shot up – it has tripled since 2006 – with more rarified black, red and "royal" types commanding particularly handsome premiums.
But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.
In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there. It's beginning to look like a cautionary tale of how a focus on exporting premium foods can damage the producer country's food security. Feeding our apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus. Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream off the profits. That's the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy spears on supermarket shelves.
Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations.
Three years ago, the pioneering Fife Diet, Europe's biggest local food-eating project, sowed an experimental crop of quinoa. It failed, and the experiment has not been repeated. But the attempt at least recognised the need to strengthen our own food security by lessening our reliance on imported foods, and looking first and foremost to what can be grown, or reared, on our doorstep.
In this respect, omnivores have it easy. Britain excels in producing meat and dairy foods for them to enjoy. However, a rummage through the shopping baskets of vegetarians and vegans swiftly clocks up the food miles, a consequence of their higher dependency on products imported from faraway places. From tofu and tamari to carob and chickpeas, the axis of the vegetarian shopping list is heavily skewed to global.
There are promising initiatives: one enterprising Norfolk company, for instance, has just started marketing UK-grown fava beans (the sort used to make falafel) as a protein-rich alternative to meat. But in the case of quinoa, there's a ghastly irony when the Andean peasant's staple grain becomes too expensive at home because it has acquired hero product status among affluent foreigners preoccupied with personal health, animal welfare and reducing their carbon "foodprint". Viewed through a lens of food security, our current enthusiasm for quinoa looks increasingly misplaced.
There is clearly no easy solution to a unique problem such as this one. Producers in an under-developed country are receiving higher revenues because the demand for their crop is so high in a developed country. I have seen a first-hand example of this happen in Jamaica where I am from. Foreign demand pushed the prices of fertilizers and seeds up so high that Jamaicans were forced to eat more imported foods, which are usually much unhealthier. When you look at all of the possible economic solutions, there is no easy way out some actually sound disastrous.
ReplyDeleteOne possible solution the government could consider is to literally attack the demand by forcing producers to raise the price of the crop so high that the quantity demanded will rapidly decrease. This will put downward pressure on the import demand for the crop. Also, the government could consider raising the duties for exporting Quinoa while simultaneously raising the import duties on imported foods. Every single economic repercussion for these actions cannot be measured, but some are more obvious than others. Taking either action would surely incite a trade war with the more developed nations that Bolivia trades with and this would be a fight that they surely could not win. Also, attacking the demand would destroy it and the revenue stream producers within Bolivia have become dependent on because you would not be just bringing down the quantity demanded to decrease lower prices, but instead shifting the demand and risking destroying an entire industry.
Another possible solution is to try and shift the supply of Quinoa outwards by providing land and incentives for new farmers to enter the business and start producing the crop. Once the supply curve for Quinoa is shifted outward, local prices should see a decline over relative time as long as the quantity demanded remains the same, but that is a lot to assume/hope for. Also, this is only a temporary fix to the solution as it would only contribute to an already growing demand for Quinoa. Also, when both local and foreign demand continues to grow, the situation reverts back to the beginning with the people of Bolivia paying for skyrocketing locally-grown crops.
The only viable option is for the government of Bolivia to nationalize Quinoa production in Bolivia, similar to Hugo Chavez’s decision with Venezuelan oil. Nationalizing production lead to a rapid decline in domestic prices while giving the government more control over export quantities. This idea may seem very rash and out of line, but if the government truly cares for their people, it will put their needs first and not allow them to fall victim to the leisurely desires of consumers in more developed nations.
Posted By: Geordi Taylor
I believe what you mentioned in your last part of your is a pretty good idea. If Bolivia's government is concerned for their people they should be looking into what Hugo Chavez did for Venezuela. The government must be too busy lining their pockets to be concerned about this situation.
DeleteThis is a hard topic for me to respond to. On one hand, I'm glad for the Bolivians and Peruvians who are flourishing from the increased income. These are humble people unused to luxuries and unable to break from their normal routine because of money constraints so I'm glad they're trying out pasta. This is not to mean I hope they eat pasta forever and forget their Quinoa but I'm happy they can have more variety in their diet. Sure it will be less healthy then Quinoa but it doesn't hurt to satisfy cravings once in a while. On the other hand, it probably is difficult for them to adjust to a non-Quinoan diet and it doesn't sound fair to take from them their only nutrition. Although (for argument's sake) they are willingly giving up Quinoa because of the increased income it probably isn't an easy adjustment for them to make. If they were being forced to do so by the farm owner or their contractor, this would be a different story.
ReplyDeleteBut one portion of this article definitely hurts me when I think of this in the long run. Popularity for the Quinoa might be booming now but, like everything popular, it'll die down eventually and the Bolivian farmers, still driven by the "fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets" will continue producing the same amount of Quinoa. This will result in a higher quantity than demand and, ultimately, result in food waste. I absolutely hate overproduction of food because, unlike overproduction of goods, the food cannot be resold at a cheaper price. It rots and becomes inedible. In a world where there are starving children, this really HURTS. It also hurts the economy and the environment; the land cleared for farming has been destroyed for nothing.
The Bolivian and Peruvian day laborers, whom the article refers to, aren't enjoying the benefits of increased demand in Quinao. The exporters and other companies in the supply chain are the ones receiving all the profits.
DeleteMy apologies for not clarifying this. This article was linked to another article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/14/quinoa-andes-bolivia-peru-crop
DeleteIn this article is the following:
"They have westernised their diets because they have more profits and more income," says Mejia, an agronomist. "Ten years ago they had only an Andean diet in front of them. They had no choice. But now they do and they want rice, noodles, candies, coke, they want everything!"
From this snipet, I assumed that they ARE enjoying some sort of profit from the increased demand. Of course the exporters and the companies are receiving much more than they are, but the farmers are getting more money than the usual and can now afford luxuries.
This was an interesting article that highlights one of the most common side effects of globalization: the possibility to increase poverty in developing nations. In respects to Bolivia and Peru, one way maintain their country's food security would be to charge a tax on the export of crops that developing have a high demand for, in order to artificially decrease is. However, as another student previously mentioned thus would result in a trade that a developing country could win.
ReplyDeleteThus the question is, is there any way for a developing country to main security over a particular resource/good/service without shooting themselves in the food? It would seem unlikely given the scenarios that Geordi described.
Unfortunately, for many developing countries this has been a reoccurring problem. As the article explains how developed countries are swooping in to the undeveloped countries and reaping the profits from these foods.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that developing countries put great restrictions and limitations on how much control foreign countries have. 1) a heavy tax on goods made locally to foreign merchants so it discourages them to buy it. 2) Be the traders themselves. By this i mean take control! open up your own business where you cut out the middleman merchant and sell directly to the source.
I agree with the Peta rebuttal that the meat industry hurts everyone, and is a major contribution to climate change. The most poignant part of this article is the suggestion that we all grow quinoa in our backyards. If this self-reliant method became widespread enough, it would enable Bolivians and Peruvians to afford to eat their own quinoa again. The rebuttal article stated that many vegans have never even touched quinoa, which is likely. It still is a growing trend food that is unknown by many, but popular amongst its fans. It is greatly unfortunate that Bolivians and Peruvians are forced to eat cheaper junk foods because this dependence on cheaply produced food will ultimately affect their health in the long run. A main issue of poverty in the U.S. as well as the developing world is the paradox between being too poor to buy quality foods and paying expensive medical bills for diet related issues. Hopefully Bolivians and Peruvians will still manage other sources of nutrients from other produce while their access to quinoa is limited.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that it is unfortunate that they are forced to eat cheaper junk foods. As i mentioned in my post, it is not just easier for Bolivians and Peruvians to eat cheaper junk food it is how our county is too. It is easier to stop at Mcdonald's to grab lunch than stop at the grocery store for a healthy alternative.
DeleteThis is very difficult topic. I am all about good quality food and helhteir lifestyle. I do not respect big chains such as McDonalds and will not help their revenue. In the same time the situation of Bolivian and Peruvian farmers and many other developing countries is result of demand of people like me. As a possible solution to this problem I see better control over the export of Quinoa. In fact, my friend imported products from Europe and she had to pay higher tax because she was importing cotton materials and this was not in help of cotton industry of USA. Other possible solution it may be good is nationalize of production of Quinoa as Geordy suggest, so people of Bolivia can be able to have this product on affordable price.
ReplyDeleteThe lesser of two evils, is still evil. So just because by eating Quinoa you are saving animals, it’s not okay to unjustly “steal” from the local Bolivians who have lost a staple food in their diet. In my opinion, PETA's elitist response is truly a cop out and shows their lack of sympathy with the local Bolivians who can no longer afford their own product.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of parties to blame here but I believe if the Bolivian government steps in and takes action against mass production and export of Quinoa, they can actually control the extreme price spikes. Right now the only parties benefiting from this is the government who collects the taxes on the sale/export of Quinoa but doesn’t use that money to invest in Bolivian infrastructure and is just lining their pockets. The other party who is benefiting from this is the mass producers who actually own the Quinoa farms. The government should either restrict the number of pounds of Quinoa going out of their country per year or reinvest the profits of Quinoa sales into their country and ration off Quinoa farms so that 75% production of Quinoa is sold domestically and the 25% can be exported. This should help drive the price down.
According to research, Quinoa is not a very demanding plant and doesn’t really have very strict restrictions to where it can grow. So instead of buying imported Quinoa, maybe the demanding countries of this product can invest their money domestically to cultivate this product at home. Quinoa is actually grown all over Europe and even some places in America. This way certain countries are not 100% dependent on exported Quinoa and maybe this can help boost the economy at country level if enough Quinoa is cultivated and sold at the home land. Also, if Quinoa enthusiasts still want to indulge in Bolivian Quinoa, they will still have the option of buying that from time to time.
These two articles were an interesting read, although the PETA article seemed rather biased and I question the author's real motive. I did a bit of research into the quinoa craze and as others have pointed out, it is not just grown in Bolivia, it will grow nearly anywhere. American's have recently adopted this crop causing a large spike in demand; it has actually been grown here in the USA since the 80's but demand had been very low for quite awhile, therefore most farmers did not bother with the crop. With new demand we had to import the crop, and one way or another we chose to import from Bolivia. The obvious impact is a rise in prices, and in this case it has gone so high that the domestic population is now largely unable to afford it, but I believe it is only a temporary problem.
ReplyDeleteWith demand so high, prices will naturally be volatile, but as quinoa farming gains popularity in the USA I believe prices will fall and eventually stabilize at a more affordable level for Bolivians. I believe this is the best solution for all parties and it is a simple one at that. High demand causes high prices, and it should also cause an increase in supply. With high import prices in the USA it would be wise for domestic farmers to capitalize on the 'craze' and thus increase domestic output. Although Bolivia exports quinoa to many other countries, if others followed suit and began domestic production it would hopefully leave Bolivia with a surplus of crops which would then be sold at lower prices rather than not sold at all. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached that would allow for reasonable prices again.
The main barrier to domestic production seems to be the fact that no one has much information about growing the crop, so farmers have been hesitant to take a risk. I believe this barrier will be broken down soon as early-adopter types are beginning to discover efficient and reliable farming methods.
In regards to the malnutrition, although some believe that Bolivians have 'no choice' but to eat imported junk foods, I would question that. Statistics can be interpreted in many ways depending on what you are trying to convey. Malnutrition in Bolivian children dropped nearly 9% (22.9% - 16.5%) between 2005-2011(cjr.org). Contrary to what these articles are trying to convey, many Bolivians are getting fairly wealthy because of the quinoa boom; their standard of living has gone up, and I think they are eating lots of imported junk food because they can now afford to, not because they have no other choice.
Sources:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/does_quinoa_hurt_andean_farmer.php
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/11/29/166155875/quinoa-craze-inspires-north-america-to-start-growing-its-own
Thank you Chris, that was helpful.
ReplyDeleteI feel for the poor people in Peru and Bolivia. America’s demand for crops can be one that supplies will never meet. However only few countries are able to control the supply and demand America has for their cash crops and even then it’s not always successful. Many countries control price by taxes and laws. America’s government has taxes on many imported goodies that come in to the country. However people still buy a lot of imported goodies from other countries even after the taxes. An example of laws that didn’t work out well is India and their onion shortage. Indian had an onion shortage, which left a lot of poor people in India upset. Onions are a popular vegetable in India since many dishes require onions. The lower class couldn’t afforded onions and couldn’t make many dishes. The Indian government tried to control the problem by not exporting the onions. This didn’t work fast enough because the price of onions was still high for many days after the government’s attempt to control the price.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8216963/Curry-crisis-as-India-suffers-onion-shortage.html
This is a pretty tough topic that could be looked at a lot of different ways, all with valid points. I see some of you have discussed different options and how it could, or should be handled. If this crop is so profitable when will different parts of our country or world start to produce it? Are American farmers missing out on a great opportunity? It is unfortunate that this crop is becoming too expensive for the native Bolivians. The article mentions that imported junk food is a cheaper alternative. Have we not seen that in our own county? When is the last time you went to the grocery store and could buy healthy foods cheaper than the junk food. I know I am guilty of this, it is always cheaper and sometimes easier to buy junk food. We also see the prices of produce rise in the eastern parts of our country during the winter months because there is less surplus and things need to be shipped from further south. These countries producing quinoa need to find ways to help the cost of their domestic goods stay affordable for their natives. Possibly raising taxes on some of the imports to help reduce the prices of their domestic goods would help.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is a small snippet of a large problem. As a society, we do not know how to practice moderation. We can never have enough. When we get a taste of something we want more and more and more until producers, if they want to keep up with the demand, are forced to turn to mass production Everything seems to go downhill in the attempt to mass produce. Factory farming has contributed greatly to the destruction of our land, our air, our water, and has introduced unhealthy chemicals into our food. Those who have tried to avoid all of this have turned to products like soy and quinoa as mentioned in the article. Now those alternatives to meat are contributing to many of the same issues plus others, specifically related to quinoa, the damage of the Peruvian and Bolivian culture as well as an increase in impoverished conditions. Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? It seems the only way to avoid any of this would be to grow my own food.
ReplyDeleteThe issues discussed in this essay are one I have come across often in many anthropology and hospitality classes. Though the issues of globalization and large capitalist countries taking advantage of smaller "less developed" countries are not new, they have been gaining more attention and are being faced by a broader more educated public than they have been in the past, which is a major step towards improvement for both sides of the issue. Sustainable development and socially responsible companies are becoming more highly appreciated globally more than ever before. Being sustainable has a social aspect and it includes the preservation of a culture, heritage, language, and customs of the local people as a company develops or expands. Most of the time people ignore this aspect of sustainability and only focus on environmental issues, which leads to situations liked this article highlighted in Peru and Bolivia. I feel that there is no excuse for abusing local communities in 2013, other than greed. NGOs need to empower locals in order to generate governmental change so they are represented, supported, and not taken advantage of. NGOs should focus on educating the locals and training them for the future in order to be able to unitedly have a voice against large exporters and super markets who are currently taking advantage of them. Eventually, the NGOs should be able to leave the community and locals should have the tools, power, and support to make a difference for themselves in the future. Though this is not a definite answer to solving the abuse, it is one possible solution generated by the locals motivation for change in their communities.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is definitely a rising issue, especially in our ever-increasing globalized economy. Many health foods, that also happens to be very expensive come from lesser economically forward communities. Many of our crops and grains come form poorer areas in Africa, South and Central America, and Asia as well. These areas cannot afford the food at the prices that they are sold. In fat, majority of the American population cannot afford to buy these nutritional, vegan sorts of diets. It is definitely a problem that these people who have mastered the way of growing, producing and cooking this food, can no longer afford to eat them anymore. This is a problem of being part of the global village that has become more money focused rather than human-based. Companies do not care for people in the production nations can afford the food or not. The question is now rather or not all this health food is better to eat, rather than eating meat. The more food is in demand, the more it will cost. If meat gets completely put out of the picture, the grains will be even more expensive. We live in a world today that is solely based on economics for the big guys with the big wallets, and majority of our seven billion people don't mater when money talks.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting article in the idea that since affluent consumers find Quinoa as a new super food and health hero, it was become too expensive to those where it was once a staple grain. If the Bolivian government were to take control against the exportation of Quinoa then they would be able to control the high prices. If they controlled the amount being sold within the country and the amount being exported that could eventually lower the price of the grain. If efficient farming methods were adopted, then the growing of this crop by our country as well as others would help this problem greatly. Although we would still import much of this grain from Bolivia, we could offset the high prices by growing some of our own. As a country, our demands for crops are crazy, and are not usual very easy to meet, so taking this step towards farming of Quinoa here would help supply this demand. The fact that those living in Bolivia cannot afford Quinoa could simply be a temporary problem, as long as the proper steps are taken concerning the crop.
ReplyDelete- Virginia MacDougall
While this article does well to point out the problem of rising costs of food and the subsequent hunger and malnutrition due to exportation of foodstuffs to richer foreign markets, it is at best overly selective in assigning blame, and at worst, willfully obfuscatory. Everyone should be concerned with the social impact of their eating habits. My worry here, though, is that you would convince those whose habits are at least marginally more socially conscious to give them up for fear of doing more harm than good, while failing to investigate the impacts of the majority of eaters in the western world, who, likely, are doing per capita a much greater share of the harm. What is the externality, what are the supposed benefits of some artificially enforced alternative. No such argument is advanced here, just the most shoddy sentimentalism. No inquiry into how come "imported junk food" can end up cheaper than a cereal crop. Could it have something to do with US agri-subsidies which go 95% to meat and dairy, with no discrimination against huge, environmentally devastating factory farms?
ReplyDelete