From an article in Foreign Policy:
"In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.
If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world."
Whole article here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/26/attention_whole_foods_shoppers?page=full (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/26/attention_whole_foods_shoppers?page=full)
"Slow" food from boutique farms almost always tastes better, but I agree that you can't expect to feed billions of people using that model. It would work great if the population was about 1/10th the current levels, maybe, and if people didn't live in places where food doesn't grow. Organic, local food is more of a luxury item than a realistic solution to world hunger problems.
This public service announcement brought to you by The Trilateral Commission and Monsanto...
Monsanto: Making your planet greener.
I am sorry but that argument is ridiculous.
Africa has a lot bigger problems than the slow food movement. Corruption, violence and lack of basic infrastructures, to name a few.
QuoteThe Indian government was forced to reform its agricultural policy in the late 1960s when an imbalance in food imports was exacerbated by two years of drought in 1965 and 1966. World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development chipped in assistance to develop high-yield rice and wheat "miracle seeds." These seeds, combined with the Indian government's assistance with modern farm machinery, price incentives and a more efficient food distribution system, resulted in what came to be known as the Green Revolution.
The new seeds and fertilizers worked for many: India's food production rose from 72 million tons in 1965-66 to 152 million tons in 1983-84, eliminating the country's dependence on food grain imports. In addition to their planting the new seeds, farmers' use of chemical fertilizers jumped from 1.1 million tons to more than 12.5 million tons in the first decade of the Green Revolution, and irrigated land grew from 74 million acres in 1965-66 to 111 million acres in 1988-89.
In the late 1980s, however, the Green Revolution began to fall apart as the chemical fertilizers rendered soil infertile. Farmers who had once diversified risk by growing as many as 30 different crops in their fields were dependent upon just one. As the quality of the soil deteriorated, they faced zero yields and an inability to pay their debts. Three years of drought beginning in 2001 further fueled the crisis.
Twenty-five thousand farmers have committed suicide under these circumstances since 1997. In the state of Andhra Pradesh alone, 4,500 farmers have committed suicide in the past seven years. This does not include the number of family members of farmers who have also killed themselves.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicidlinks.html
UL you do not usually strike me as naive. Have you ever seen a feed lot.