More than just a bean

Usually when I think of soy, I would only imagine soymilk, or soy sauce, or just the little beans that pop out of the plant. I would brush off the idea of eating soy, and just thought it was one of those things healthy people eat, or that salty sauce people put on their Chinese food. I never even imagined I was eating it every day, in almost everything I choose to eat. Patel makes this realization to me, in chapter 7, when exploring the world of soy. Honestly, Stuffed & Starved, has not been one of my favorite reads, and I could not find any relevance to reading it, and only managed to scrape through reading the past six chapters. However, the relevance of this book became clear to me when reading chapter 7, and the many feats of the soybean.
In relation to Patel’s comparison of ingredients to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, soy is that “small amount of the rarest and most magical vitamin of them all” (165). That small amount may lie underneath all of the other bad ingredients in the food, and may not actually help your diet in anyway. Take for example, soy’s use in chocolate, as Patel describes lecithin. Lecithin is “an emulsifier, and additive that makes fats and water mix...it is better suited to the rigours of mass production; as it’s poured through the different machines in the factory” (166). Although, Patel goes on to say that lecithin is not needed in chocolate production anymore, it still turns off the idea of eating chocolate to me now. Just feels like I am adding more poison to my body that will just drag it down more, instead of just munching on a sweet treat. Patel continues to explain that soy is used in meat, margarines, and oils. Soy has “come to occupy a key place in the world food system not because of its taste or flavour, but because of its utility to everyone except the consumer. At best, this means surrendering control over something ingested every day” (166). Soy may seem like a healthier option, if you are actually going to eat the bean, but when soy is used as an oil, and gets mixed into food high in sugars and fats, it can be harmful, in a sense. So much so, that soy is probably included in all of those hard to pronounce ingredients on your favorite candy bar.
Patel has definitely opened up my eyes on the relevance of what food I eat, and has made me become a little more cautious as to what my diet consists of, and where my health is going. Not to say, that the whole world food system is not an issue and not important, but Patel put this into a new relevance for me, as I could see that this issue of food does not only involve those across the world, but also everyone else—anyone who eats food! Patel has stepped it up in this past chapter, as I now have more of an open mind to the food system, and the relevance I have to it.

Stuffed and Starved--Chapters 6 and 7

Patel's Stuffed and Starved is not an easy read. It is difficult on many levels. Difficult because it is chock full of more information than we can synthesize, and much of this information points to difficult realities.
I know that there are some in the class who don't think it is worth their time to read this book and that there are others who feel that it offers them something, despite the difficulty.

How do you see this book's relevance or NOT to your academic discipline or to your own life? If you think there is no relevance, then use the processes of your discipline to critique. For example, bio majors, in science one of the major premises is testing (that your evidence is reliable and can be reproduced)--critique Patel using the scientific method. If you find relevance, then talk about that and use the book to support your view.

from Courtney: hiding behind "freedom"

International trade has opened the floodgates of corporate manipulation. Companies hide their corruption behind the hypnotizing ideal of “freedom,” whose copyright they have bought from governmental officials. Their monetary and power currency causes suffering to any person outside of their elite club. A prime example of their twisted nature comes, not surprisingly, from the former US Secretary of State for Agriculture, Earl Butz, who stated that, “Hungry men listen only to those who have a piece of bread. Food is a tool. It is a weapon in the US negotiating kit.” (Patel, 91) This tool is produced and used at the will of the money-gatherers, formerly referred to as plantation owners, and at the expense of the farmers, formerly referred to as slaves.

Companies like Chiquita Brands and Atria have been able to exploit their producers, and fool their consumers in the name of obscene annual profits and market control. With the “free market” philosophy serving as the cornerstone of modern capitalism and consequently the American Dream, it’s ironic to learn that “settler colonies were made possible because agricultural commercialization in Europe was driving smallholders off the land.” (Patel, 81) This concept, while paradoxical, is not difficult to fathom as one begins to examine the “freedom” that is referred to by governments and international industry. Once the shades are drawn and investigation of such systems can begin, it is plain to see that their freedom only applies to those with lots of money and little respect of human life. Born from the twisted logic of Cecil John Rhodes who stated, “If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialist” (Patel, 84), slavery began to be employed as a means of providing cheap food for the middle class in the hopes that this distraction will dissuade them from demanding equal rights. But like the word freedom, the word cheap is only referring to the monetary expense imposed upon the rich. If they rich and powerful were to consider the human costs of this system, the term would be anything but “cheap.”

Ch. 4-5 Stuffed and Starved

Whether it be eating a banana or drinking a cup of tea, I never imagined that these things that I can find at a grocery store for a couple of dollars carried such an intense history. Patel still manages to surprise me with information that absolutely blows my mind and statistics that just makes me think “holy crap”. Sipping a cup of tea, the fact that this warm caffeinated cup had given rise to an entire empire is a thought that never would have crossed my mind. Tea was a pick me up and a nutritional punch to the body made cheap which is ideal for a working person on the go for a long period of time. As consumers however, we want to enjoy our products and thus sugar and milk was introduced to tea by the British. It gave sweetness and hides the bitterness of tea. A warm drink that gave energy for the day that taste delicious, who wouldn’t want that? Unfortunately, tea and sugar were not home grown for the British and obtaining these goods would have to come from another source like China and India for tea and the Caribbean for sugar. Britain had dominion over both of these regions, how lucky! Tea gave urban workers to get through the working day. It truly is “the genealogy of the can of Red Bull”. It amazes me how a simple good of today had such an effect in our history and have such an influence in international trade.
Finding out that a simple banana had such a blood stained history left me appalled. The United Fruit Company had connections with the higher ups and used it for their own benefits. Accusing Arbenz Guzman of becoming a communist because of his plan to buy unused land from the United Fruit Company to give to landless peasants at the price the United Fruit Company declared it to be is way out of line. The United Fruit Company decided to take a sprint past that line and initiated a CIA operation in Guatemala that caused a war took over 200,000 lives. “The complicity of the United Fruit Company in Central American poverty has rarely been acknowledged in the US. It is a history that has been erased.” The fact that such an event has erased from the world is unjust. Companies have the right to make money but taking extreme actions like this is unnecessary. The fact that Guzman was just trying to provide land to the landless makes it all the worse. “Such countries are known not as victims of empire, but as ‘Banana Republics’.” It's going to be tough to cross a Banana Republic store in a mall without feeling a little disgusted from now on.

Reflections: Chapter 4 + 5

Ka'ua Kaholokula

"The law doth punish man or woman

That steals the goose from off the common,

But lets the greater felon loose

That steals the common from the goose,"

thus begins Chapter 4. The impression I am left with this quote alone is two impoverished youths playing an endless game of theft. They both steal from one another until they are left with their own bodies, nothing else. 

Throughout the entire selected chapters, we are given scenarios of people fighting to eat in order to survive. Some in literal wars, some however, try to resist a war. The cost of availability and affordability never seem to match up. Feeding the poor is never easy, too. There are many people living in poverty, so few people actually have the cash to give. A rise in the workers' movement have been impressively difficult too. Unlike in the passive past, the workers were forceful and opinionated which spew things like the Communist Manifesto. In Britain, Chartists were beginning to ask for their own rights and laws. 

By resisting "the poverty of life", it was about time slaves to start resist and revolutionize instead. The Haitian slave uprising ,led by Toussaint L'Ouverture, were off to seize their country as inspired by America's own revolution (87). Although by having slaves helped with making food prices lower, it obviously was not fun for the slaves. The slaves wanted humanity and some equality as expected.

One solution to worker dissatisfaction in Europe was a social contract.In said  contract, it would make sure the levels of hunger and deprivation are met within manageable limits by assuring enough totals of cheap food was accessible. "Without slaves, no sugar, and therefore no food to quiet the industrial worker." (87) It was indeed sort of cheap and an underlying nature at play, but desperation normally calls for desperate measures.

Food distribution is never fully fair as explained in previous chapters of the book. No one has it absolutely better off. Some people yes, may have more options if their wallets are fuller but still due to season and in general availability, we still cannot any single product we desire. Our amounts of choices is the only thing that might vary for each individual. If someone is rich, they might have a choice between 3 apples to afford compared to the poor person, who can afford the bare minimal or if any at all.

chpt 4&5 response

Mariel Kamp
Blog text response
CHC 3213/3214
September 8, 2010

Before I started reading this book I never associated politics and food with each other. I never realized how strongly they correlate with each other. I always knew that the government held certain regulations for farmers and fishermen but I have never really taken the time to fully learn about just how strongly politics plays a role in my meals. On page 84 Patel talks about Rhodes’ worries. I think that all 5 points he makes applies to our society today. The book made a very good point, which I strongly agree with. ‘The donation of food aid continues to be a strategic tool in the negotiating of kits of rich and poor countries alike’ (pg. 93). When I read that quote, it made me think of a movie clip we watched. The clip talked about how it looks like we are donating all this great corn mixture to feed all these malnourished people but in reality this mixture has no nutrients or any substance. It is just a front to make it look like we are doing a lot more than we really are. It is great that our country helps out, but I just do not see the point if it is not providing people with what they really need to become nourished again. It seems like just a front to make the United States look like a positive role model.
Chapter 4 also talks about how in the 18th and 19th centuries order to keep everyone happy, which meant cheap food and enough for everyone, that there needed to be slaves and underpaid workers which just is not right. There are no more slaves anymore but we still have so many underpaid farmers, who provide us with our meals and have such an important role in keeping us alive. In order for the farmers to get the recognition and fair pay they deserve I think there needs to be more awareness and this issue needs to be brought up a lot more everyday. Sure not everyone is going to happy about the way the world works, but I think there needs to be a better system in which farms are run, farmer are appreciated and I think that if the government is going to have such a strong role in trading, they should take just as strong a role in farmers rights. If we did not have them we wouldn’t have one of our core elements for living.

From Amber

Reading these two chapters has left me with many different perspectives. Most people have no clue as to what goes on. Patel identifies what really goes on in the global food system and we should all just be thankful and appreciate what we have, because the struggles are major. I’m just highlighting main points that stuck out when reading these chapters.

While reading I found that many countries can join together to create amazing ideas and doings but not all will be acknowledged and some will fall off while, the other gains power. It’s really mind blowing when I think about how multiple countries work together only for something to get little or close to nothing for any of the hard work given. To highlight on one country, Britain has put many countries in the shadow and is now reigning from power.

One other note that caught my attention is how the slaves did labour for it all, “International trade transformed the world and, in it’s high capitalist form.” Although the world is changing and becoming more diverse, issues arise because the entire focus is power and money. Commonly used in the United States as well as European countries, slaves were put to labour, in sake of money. “Slave labour was an integral part of provision of cheap food.”(pg.81)

Also suffering were the poor, numbers became higher and the poor became poorer. Often the poor were farmers and labourers, which were the people who were doing all the work and receiving no profit. So who was benefiting? All hope was lost for most people. “The rural poor found themselves without access to common land” leaving them to do nothing more but labor hoping to survive. Others found ways to survive by working or searching for jobs in the city, which even then didn’t make them enough money to survive unless extra shifts were made.

This stuck to me because, although Britain pretty much gained major power; there was still a handful that were living with pretty much nothing. This shows that money has a huge role and back then if you were landless you were nothing. In fear that the poor would fight back and create war, Rhodes had a plan to avoid this. He figured that if the poor remained happy, peace would be kept, but how was he going to keep the poor happy. The numbers were raising and more and more became hungry. “Other country’s can feed them,” he said. This strikes questions for me. Why isn’t there enough food being made in this country that they have to satisfy the poor with the help of other country’s? Has the drama of the global food system stopped? How can money and power always be the leading issue?

The readings and the information in this book always leaves me with what if things were different and everything were done the correct way so that everyone were happy and healthy. In the end we see that farmers suffer and don’t really benefit from the foods being produced. Its really mind blowing that these things are going on. I’m really disturbed by some of the things read.

Keeping the Slaves Complacent

Jean Teodoro
Julia Van Der Ryn / Lynne LoPresto
CHC3213/3214
09/01/10
Stuffed and Starved Chapter 4-5

The global food system arose pretty much from slavery, and continued after that with “free market capitalism.” Foreign policies and economics were dominated by the west, such as Britain. The only eastern industrialized force has been Japan. All other current third world countries’ backs have built Western superpowers’ economies.

The third world has been deceived by the first world seduction of freedom. It is all a game between the capitalist and the capitalized. Raj Patel has a good example of this: “The solution to worker dissatisfaction in Europe involved blunting the edge of discontent. It involved adhering to an unwritten social contract, keeping levels of hunger and deprivation within manageable limits by making sure enough quantities of cheap food were available” (87). This summarizes “the game,” and how to keep modern-day slaves, peasant workers and the blue-collar workers somewhat satisfied enough to keep working instead of plotting a revolution. This is a way to keep workers’ minds complacent.

Promises of democracy under free-market capitalism are deceiving: “The slaves mistakenly thought that the words of the American or French Revolutions, which were led in large by the middle classes against the aristocracy, might apply to them, that they too might qualify for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were not, however, the intended audience for this rhetoric, being too poor, too black and too indispensable to the production of food in Europe” (88). Paralleling this quote to today’s times, the same can be said about the American ideal of “making it if you try” or living a true democracy. It is problematic because if one makes it to the top of a social class, then others step down because our system is shaped like a pyramid. In this post-colonial era where the industrial revolution has just planted its feet, the slaves of the past centuries are still pretty much the slaves of today, simply in another form: credit debt and very weak political power. The elite who have established themselves from centuries past have also evolved into billionaires who will do what it takes to keep things the same. The only way to empower the poor and the modern-day slaves is to educate them so that they may find a way to create an uprising.

Corn Isn't What It Used To Be

When I think of corn, I think of corn on Thanksgiving Day. My mom bought it canned (unfortunate, but still very delicious) and she mixes it with some pepper and butter. It is juicy, delicious, and I definitely take an extra spoonful just to satisfy my taste buds. But I never thought of corn as a sweetener that can be even sweeter than sugar. This sweetener is known as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Basically, HFCS is a cheap alternative for food corporations which mean they have two words in their future: KA CHING! But what’s wrong with food corporations making more money? Is it such a crime to make more money in an economy that’s been going downhill? The answer to that is no, food corporations are completely justified in trying to make money. It’s only common sense to resort to a sweetener that costs thirteen cents per pound compared to sugar that costs 29 cents per pound (114). However, although corporations are saving money, the consequences of turning to HFCS rather than sugar are impacting sugar farmers. As more corporations are converting from sugar to HFCS, sugar cane farmers are losing more money which lead to them losing their lands to farm and make money to provide for themselves and their families. In the previous chapters, Patel brings to attention the high suicide rate in farmers because the amount of money they make are not efficient enough for them to continue working as farmers. There is not enough money to provide food for their families and keep the land to grow their respective crops. In this case, HFCS is a direct cause for lessening the profits of sugar farmers which in turn can cause more farmer suicides and loss of land.

I think that the choices corporations make regarding HFCS and sugar are out any individual’s control other than the heads of those respective corporations. In a business and cost-efficient point of view, HFCS would be the best choice because it’s cheap and it provides exactly the same sweetness as sugar for their products. However, when it comes to trying to make the world a better place for food and for people who are struggling to make a living, food corporations have to apply sugar to their foods to make their foods better for consumers and assist the farmers in need of more money to keep their land.

The ultimate problem is that we live in a world full of corporations that are against change. What isn’t broken (in their eyes) doesn’t need to be fixed. In their case, since they’re making money, why should they have to settle for less? The unfortunate truth will always remain: corporate greed will never change.

Frank Menchavez

Chapter 4-5 Reflection

In these last two chapters, Patel explores the hidden truths behind the global food system; what you enjoy eating every day can be taken for granted. If you did not recognize what went into the banana that you’re eating, or all of the drama that was ensued in order for you to be able to drink a nice cup of tea, feel blessed and be grateful.
Patel defines this struggle between the United States and various other countries when he reveals the power gained by companies when consolidation occurs—corporations gain “the ability to change the rules of the game” (107). When companies consolidate and join forces, one will become very powerful, obviously, while other competitors will perish and fall victim. The same ideal goes along with country versus another country, and the gain of food and agricultural freedom. Patel discusses this subject more in detail with the complicity of the United Fruit Company in Central America. In previous years, Central America, in this case, would provide much of the world, especially the United States with fruits and other various foods. With providing this, much impoverishment entailed as more food would be shipped at the cost of the workers and shippers was spent. These “Banana Republics,” as Patel refers them, are hiding the “history of rapacity and violence...” while emphasizing the “...comically inept regimes installed by the export corporations” (101). The United States’ food quality is worsening along with the many third-world countries that are suffering--producing way too much for the United States without any thanks or return in food quality. Corporations are consolidating and working these countries only so far to bring business up “not for any wider social goal, but for profit” (105). This type of corporate ideal, only bring business and relationships further down then they may already be. Producing too much profit sounds like a good thing, but too much can be too bad, and can ensue in a war.
This war could very well be between consumer and corporation, or rather country versus country, or even food versus person. Many more people in this world are becoming poor and without food, as food quality goes down, and the global food battle that continues today. Patel conveys a list of worries that Cecil John Rhodes brings about with the increase in corporation and increase in the trouble with the food battle system. Rhodes worries that “(1) The poor are many, and growing in number; (2) There isn’t enough food to feed them all; (3) If there isn’t enough food to feed them, they will go hungry; (4) If they go hungry, there will be civil war; (5) Other countries have enough food to feed them” (84). Rhodes sums up Patel’s main point of Chapter 4, in this small list. As the food battle continues, food quality will continue to go down—people that can afford food will eat the high sugars, become obese, while those that cannot afford the food become poor and starve. Patel describes this decrease in food quality with expresisng tea that has “become a central part of the working class diet” (79) and has been used as “the original Jolt” (81). People drink it because it is easy, cheap, and fast, much as the world enjoys their food today. With this type of lifestyle of comfort and quickness all in one, food becomes simple and can be eaten anywhere.
Something needs to change in the current global food system. The world needs a wake up call before this economic and food quality decrease becomes worse. Rhodes’ advice needs to be taken seriously and food needs to be appreciated, especially in gratefulness to the countries that produce it. Consolidation needs to make a new stand as countries join together to stop the food battle against those corporations.

Chapters 4-5

In today’s global food system, we are maximizing the total food production, but decreasing the price. Patel brings up a good point when he asks, at whose expense will the low prices of food come from (76)? As the chapters progress, it starts to reveal those who are deeply affected by this issue. From the example about the production of tea and sugar, “International trade transformed the world and, in its high capitalist form, was premised on a great deal of exploitation, for a wide range of goods, across large parts of the planet. Slave labour was an integral part of the provision of cheap food to European cities” (81). Slaves were not only commonly used in Europe, but also in the United States and South America. This, however, change the reputation of the food industry in today’s world. In the prompt provided, “[…] countries are known not as victims of empire, but as ‘Banana Republics.’ It’s a taint which sullies the reputations of these countries’ citizens, rather than reflecting back on the cause of their improvishment” (101). The usage of African slaves was necessary to ensure an increase in food production, however, as nations become industrialized, they started to import food from other countries. When reflecting on food production, we always blame these countries for their economic methods, but without them, we will not be a thriving nation.

To an extent, most benefits from this global food system. There may be flaws, but they allow protection and support for these countries that we deem as the villain. It is understandable that we trade food with other countries to prevent a chance of a civil war (84). It is also understandable that these country have to develop such extreme methods ensure cheaper food. When determining who suffers the most and benefits individually, farmers seems to be negatively impacted. Our global economy does not produce food to help those in poverty or help us develop a better agricultural environment, but to help us build a support system for the economy in case of bankruptcy (94). In order to maintain economic stability, we have to sacrifice the integrity of these farmers.

text response

“’We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy.’” (p. 98) As Patel references Renato Ruggiero I cannot help but be moved by the statement. Our world is ever changing, growing, and becoming vastly diverse yet power and money seem to be taking over. The global food system is in bad order primarily because of the corruption within our governing systems. Rhodes’ idea was that to keep a community or society intact, outsourcing was the only way. His idea of getting food from other countries better the situation at hand this was because a civil war would inevitably be worse. Soon the outsourcing caught on and goods from other places were the norm. I can see how his points made sense. If the only way to keep from war was to find food elsewhere, what’s the problem? Unfortunately, the problem is greed and money. Money takes a very innocent idea and makes it into a problem. Tea, wheat, corn and many other things turn into a product that does not bring in a profit for the farmer and labor workers, rather turning into a burden. The upsetting part of the situation is only the big corporations get value from these cash crops. The land, workers and culture is greatly impacted and affected in negative ways. They end up having no other option but to allow the big corporations to do what they want. Before global trade, farmers of the community would produce and earn a profit that was sustainable. This is no longer very evident.
Corn has been slowly taking over our nation and what we ingest. “The justification here? That the continued support of corn farmers, and the use of their output, lies in the national interest.” (p. 115) High-fructose corn syrup has turn into a major national interest making it a necessity for the majority of production companies. I think this touches on whose interests are really prevalent. The consumer doesn’t really benefit from all of the production and product contamination. It is just a way to gain money off of a cheap crop. I think it is very upsetting almost every food has high-fructose corn syrup in it, even when all of the research done proving its badness, but it does go back to the “national interest.” The national and global interests need to rethink what sustainability is and produce change or our nation will continue to plummet down hill.

Brooke Thornberry