By???? MORE PEOPLE are eating well in the world than ever before. In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that in Britain and many other countries, food is a political topic of limited imporlance. For example, much of the controversy about the Common Agricultural Policy has been about subsidies and tariffs, and not particularly about food as such.
Some of the scares about food safety in Britain have been so intense that eating has seemed more dangerous than ever before. Yet there are more choices about how, what and where to eat, and an industry of 'food pornography' to stimulate the jaded palate and get the goodies whizzing out of the shop and onto your shelves.
There is a well-established view in the British left that an interest in issues of food is a self-indulgent one. This was most notoriously stated by George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier: "One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England."
Orwell's view was not without truth. It could still be said today that there are 'cranky' vegetarians with a disapproving attitude to what other people eat. It is also true that there are animal lovers who will deploy the most militant tactics against experimental laboratories or the shipping of live cattle but who show little interest in the struggles of other human beings against oppression.
Despite all the reasons for not having been interested in food, there are powerful reasons to expect food issues to become more important. They are already a matter of 'life and death' for hundreds of millions of people, especially in Africa.
Although more people are eating well than ever before, there are also more people one bad harvest away from starvation than at any time in history.
Between 1959 and 1990, the world's population increased from 2.5 billion to over 5 billion people. By 2025, United Nations projections suggest it could be 8.5 billion. Much of the expected growth will take place in those which already have the most difficulty with food supply, such as Africa.
'Respectable' commentators say that there is enough food in the world now to feed everyone, and that starvation is a distribution problem. Some of the most optimistic say that the growth in productivity in agriculture can be maintained over the next 25 years so that a population of 8.5 billion can be fed.
There are a number of problems with this view. One is that it rests on assurances that new technical solutions can be tound to allow the output of food to grow faster than ever before. Enormous growth in the past falsified the expectations of the Malthusians in the 19th century or the Club of Rome of the early 1970s. However confidence by itself will not feed 2.5 billion people. In some areas, agriculture will be affected by population pressures, limited walth. and pollution. For example, Egypt draws a considerable amount of water from the Nile, and is threatened by the wish of neighbours upstream to do the same. Shell is unpopular with the Ogonis 1n Nigeria partly because of the leaking and discharge of oil ruining ground and water. If global warming and significant climate change are taking place as a result of reckless develop. ment and use of resources, there could be severe consequences for food production. At least, atmosphere is heat- exploitation of Third World workers. ing. up, the weather can be expected to get more violently unpredictable. Events such as the extremely destructive tropical storm in Nicaragua and Honduras and the floods in China this year are likely to be repeated more often. Some. such as apologists for major oil companies and a few self-styled 'living Marxists', maintain that answers can easily be found to these problems, if they exist. If their complacency is unjustified,. there are billions more people than before to suffer the consequences. Many 'greens' would agree with the above theses. However Marxists have something distinctive to add -there is a central problem with the ownership of the means of producnon, not to mention distribution and exchange. The capitalist market is anarchic, because each firm is more interested in its own profit than the productivity and organisation of the whole system. Ownership has become more and more concentrated. This can be seen in the spread of brands and 'supermarketisation' - it really does make a difference that people want Weetabix and baked beans in Mirpur or to eat Big Macs in Moscow. It makes it harder for local and unbranded Tame the TWO-THIRDS of the world's banana trade is controlled by the "Wild Bunch" - three giant multinational companies, Del Monte, Chiquita if the and Dole, whose profits are built on the Some, such as apologists for major oil companies and a products to comfew self-styled living pete.
The companies Marxists', maintain promoting brands that answers can want the customer easily be found to be able to find the same product wherever they are, so this implies increasing standardisation of production. The past century has seen a major shift on a world scale from subsisterice farming and peasant production to cash crops and capitalist agriculture. Vast numbers remain dependent on subsistence agriculture and surrounding quasi-feudal social relations. On the other hand there is an inexorable momentum to the spread of capitalist relations. The cheap Cornflakes in the raw. It all looks idyllic: but how many nasty chemicals and modified genes lurk beneath the surface? metal tool replaces its laboriously made wooden predecessor. The tractor enables work to be done with a fraction of the time and effort. However they demand respectively a small surplus and a large surplus followed by a flow to market sufficient to replace the tool or service the machine. Such changes therefore increase the pressure to produce for wider markets rather than for local ones or for subsistence. Capitalist food producers not ultimately interested in feeding people. The scandal of the campaign to get mothers in poor semi-colonial countries to use formula baby milk, regardless of suitability or affordability, is an extreme case of this.
Farmers switching to cash crops may start growing green beans to ship halfway round the world to sell in your supermarket the next day, or cut flowers or tobacco if those are more viable. If former agricultural labourers in nearby villages or the slums of growing cities cannot afford to buy food at prices to compete with production for Europe or North America, that's too bad.
Generally the major food companies are reckless about environmental costs, except so far as they cause bad publicity. The sustainability of particular methods is a secondary issue.
Although it is likely that some of the opposition to genetically-modified food is exaggerated, the concern that the companies using are careless of some of the consequences is justified.
One striking example of the character of the changes which confront us is the so-called 'Terminator' gene, currently in development. Improved varieties of plant (with higher yields or other characteristics) will grow normally, but produce seed which will not germinate. Farmers will have to buy new seed every year rather than collecting their own.
Some genetic manipulation may lead to unforeseen side-effects. These might include transfer to other strains and species, destruction or proliferation of particular feeders in the field, and effects on people who eat them.
More certainly, the genetic diversity of varieties will be reduced even further, and the production of seed for commercial use will be in the hands of a few multinational companies. Clearly the aim of companies like Monsanto is also to tie seed more closely to other products, like herbicides and pesticides.
The challenge to socialists is to find ways of addressing these issue which don't simply moralistically tell working-class people that they should be prepared to spend more on good quality food.
There are genuine issues about choice, and the control ordinary people have over what they eat. There are democratic questions about how monopolistic food companies buy the ear of government or even have representatives inside it, like David Sainsbury. Issues of safety affect not only the quality of food but also the conditions of those who work in the industries. Capitalism's reckless anarchy threatens the continuity of supply. The use of new techniques may pose new hazards to the environment. Billions of workers in the debt-ridden countries of the so-called "Third World' may have to handle some of the dangers that have been exported. They face an uncertain livelihood, and may lack both income and land for decent food for themselves. The merits of a planned rather than hoping for the market to sort things out are not So hard to see when the issues about staples of life. are so big.