The Global Food Market (VIDEO): Why Do Some Eat Well While Others Starve?

It's baffling that in some parts of the world, there's an oversupply of food, while elsewhere people are suffering from malnourishment. Denis van Waerebeke lays it all out in his infographic video, "How to Feed the World," showing that it all comes down to food dependency, and how a system of imports and exports complicate a process that could be simplified by focusing on the local. Of course it's a little more convoluted than that, but the video explains it in a way that manages to be both digestible and informative.

WATCH:

How to feed the world ? from Denis van Waerebeke on Vimeo.

Comments

[Roguer]

07:40 PM on 03/20/2010

A link to an organization that is addressing world hunger in a sustainable manor, rather than just sending bags of grain, which does nothing to curb malnutrition.

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.3538797/?msource=kwg550&gclid=COvs-bS9yKACFQ8bawodcmDFaA

[entopticon]

08:46 PM on 03/20/2010

That's a great organization. Everyone that I have talked to that has worked with them has raved about what wonderful work they do. Another great organization, that works with them, training their people in land management, is Holistic Management International. They do great work in saving the planet's essential grasslands to sequester carbon and revitalize the soil, as well as helping pastoral people in impoverished areas of the world to develop food security:
http://holisticmanagement.org/n9/about/About.php

[Roguer]

09:32 PM on 03/20/2010

Cool. Thanks. Do you have all these links you have posted bookmarked?

[Roguer]

09:42 PM on 03/20/2010

I was on FB and ran across a farm that was raising grass fed beef on pasture. The farm was recently put into the farmland protection program by deed of conservation easement. The farm will be under yearly visits from the NRCS. They seem to be doing some cool things.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000435079032&ref=profile#!/group.php?gid=189782014539

[Vickster]

12:12 AM on 03/21/2010

I've been contributing to HEIFER for the last two years.

[Roguer]

11:31 AM on 03/18/2010

If you wish to know what the corporate food producers are thinking... follow the link and read...

http://www.foodsystemsinsider.com/Know-Your-Farmer--Know-Your-Food--is-a-joke/2010-03-04/Article_FSI.aspx?oid=997455&fid=FSI&aid=1667

[entopticon]

01:11 PM on 03/18/2010

Yikes. That is some scary, seriously misguided stuff. Massive corporate subsidies for huge agribusiness are great, but investing in raising awareness and infrastructure for small farmers and locally based food economies is a waste?!? That is just unconscionable.

In reality, if most Americans put just a small percentage of their food budget into supporting small scale, local farmers, instead of it all going to the coffers of giant agribusiness, the positive economic impact for towns across the country would be absolutely astronomical.

One of the most profound moments from the last year for me was at a dinner that was a fundraiser for the Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project, featuring the products of several local farms for the dinner. Three generations of the family from Sunburst Trout farms were there, featuring their delicious trout for the dinner. At one point, the oldest member of the family, a conservative 85 year old man, asked for the room's attention, and on the verge of tears, expressed his deep gratitude for the new programs to raise awareness for local foods and farmer's markets. The same programs that the author of the article that Roguer mentioned was berating. It was a heart-wrenching experience.

[ibsteve2u]

05:15 PM on 03/18/2010

The first response to that article was encouraging, though. And correct, too; it is not the producers or the consumers who are the problem - it is the "middlemen".

And not just in food, but everywhere.

[Roguer]

06:50 PM on 03/18/2010

If you are talking about the comment posted by Robert, WV. Thank You.

[Gasparilla]

08:32 PM on 03/17/2010

A big part of the problem is overpopulation. Fifty years ago, the populations of most countries were a fraction of what they are now and most people could at least make a subsistence living on their plot of land. The problem is the number of people skyrocketed and the amount of land available stayed the same. Until we give some recognition to that, then we are not really addressing the problem. [and you cannot address the problem by insisting everyone can move to the US.]

[BOin08]

07:14 PM on 03/17/2010

"move to where the food is!" Sam Kennison

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

04:49 PM on 03/17/2010

The solution is a vegan world.

[entopticon]

06:01 PM on 03/17/2010

If you are trying to speed up armageddon, that is indeed the solution, but any effective model of sustainable food production includes animals. Factory farming, both animal and vegetable, are an environmental disaster. Small sustainable farms that include animals actually sequester carbon, and vastly improve the health and vitality of the soil. Farming without animals in the equation turns the soil into a desert wasteland over time.

Veganism is not the answer. Sustainable farms that adapt their practices to the particular ecosystems that they are a part of, which include animals, are the best and only real solution.

As a matter of fact, sustainably pasturing animals is an extremely important aspect of saving our topsoil and fighting global warming. As opposed to row crops and rice, which release enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, pastured grasslands actually sequester massive amounts of carbon while dramatically improving the vitality of the soil.

If you want to curb global warming, eat a hamburger from a grass fed, humanely raised cow:
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/eat_meat_to_help_the_earth_you_grass-hugger

[pammiethekid]

08:54 AM on 03/18/2010

It's nice to see your posts come up on this issue—the well thought-out arguments and links. The best quality blogging that Huff Post offers. Keep at it, you're thanked and fanned.

[guineu]

03:47 PM on 03/18/2010

Believe it or not, I completely agree with this post!

Now, think about what would happen if EVERYONE were to insist on eating ALL of their burgers from grass fed, humanely raised cows. What would happen? McDonald's and Burger King (etc) would be in big trouble and the price of grass fed beef would skyrocket as local, small, organic farmers would be faced with demand they could not satisfy.(*) In the end, through the forces of supply and demand, consumption of meat would necessarily decline, eventually becoming more like a prized condiment at meals. It is my belief that this would be a good thing overall.

However, much like the oil companies cling to fossil fuels, fast food purveyors will not give up their factory farms without considerable pressure. So, if it were to turn out to be true that saturated fats from animal products were best REDUCED in our diets, would this not, in the end, support your vision of the future?

(*) And this wouldn't hurt the small organic farmers either, would it? :-)

[JScott]

07:05 PM on 03/17/2010

The solution is to not have so many humans.

[entopticon]

03:41 PM on 03/17/2010

It started off very interestingly, but the overly-simplistic binary polemics, like dividing the world into north and south, and even worse, meat=bad, grains=good, is an unhealthy, and unproductive way of looking at the complex problems of solving hunger and food sustainability.

Nature doesn't operate in simplified polemics; it is a complex web of ecological relations between climate, plants, and animals, so any model for sustainable agriculture has to be as well. Ironically, the video points out that organic fertilizer is necessary for healthy soil, and synthetic fertilizers, which are made from fossil fuels, are toxic for the environment, but it appears to be willfully ignorant about where organic fertilizer comes from by making the overly simplistic, and seriously misguided argument that eating meat uses grains that would otherwise go to starving people.

And ironically, it talks about the importance of creating local food systems that are adapted to individual environments, then concludes that eating meat keeps people from getting grains that were grown halfway around the world! The logic there is seriously flawed.

What is needed is to help local communities in starving areas develop sustainable farming practices that play to the strengths and weaknesses of their local ecosystems. And as Nicolette Niman said so well, "The most environmentally sustainable food production mimics nature in all its complexity -- and animals are an essential component."

[SallyStrange]

03:12 AM on 03/18/2010

Well said. A very perceptive critique. That caught my eye as well.

Though, if you are going to purchase food from the other side of the globe, I suppose it's better to buy some lentils than a steak.

Really what we need to do is make sure everyone's nutritional essentials are supplied from a relatively local radius.

[JShep]

03:34 PM on 03/17/2010

In most third world countries, the high hunger rates or rampant starvation are primarily due to repressive or inept governments. Until the political situation is resolved, hunger and povery will always exist. Zimbawe is a prime example. For decades it was the breadbasket of Africa, exporting food to other nations. After the takeover by a repressive government its agriculture system collapsed and now it must depend on other nations for its survival. This will never change until it straightens out its government.

[cam7]

01:53 PM on 03/17/2010

This is great!

And....since I cannot subsist on a diet of only lentils....sure wish the author would publish a die t /menu list / shopping list for westerners in developed countries that supports this idea.