Friday, 9th May 2008
I was hungry
I was hungry …. And you threw away the food.
I was thirsty … and you offered me biofuel
A study released in Great Britain shows that food wastage there amounts to around £600 per family annually! I heard this report during a news bulletin on Classic FM. Several other impressive statistics were given but this one stuck in my mind.
I don’t know of any such study conducting in Malta but I am sure that the level of wastage is high over here as well. Our dustbins the day after occasions such as Christmas would provide a feast for most of the people of the world who suffer hunger.
These examples of waste are part of the scandalous international scenario. On the one hand there is still enough food in the world to feed the global population. According to the FAO the world could feed up to 12 billion people in the future. On the other hand the food situation is worsening day after day.
The statistics of shame
Look at the following examples:
- Wheat prices increased by 130% in the period between March 2007- March 2008.
- Rice prices increased by almost 80% in the period up to 2008.
- Maize prices increased by 35% between March 2007 and March 2008.
- In many countries cereal prices have doubled or tripled over the last year.
- In Haiti the government fell because of this issue and protests have taken place in other countries such as Cameroun, Egypt, and the Philippines…
- In Guatemala, the price of tortillas, a staple food, has risen 30 percent in the past few months.
- Poor Mexicans, who eat nearly a pound of tortillas a day per person, have seen the price double in the past two years. Workers earning the minimum wage of about $4 a day now spend as much as one-third of their earnings on tortillas for the family.
- Inflation last year in Ethiopia was 20 percent, and church workers report more people, especially women, children and the elderly, living on the streets and knocking on church doors for help.
- In Burkina Faso, the prices of staple foods rose between 14 percent and 67 percent. Families now spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food. Unlike past years, this year these price increases are appearing at harvest time, when products are most abundant and prices should be low.
The basic question is: why is there so much starvation when Mother Earth has enough resources to feed all its children?
I will look at just two reasons mentioned while I propose this question for our discussion the question and the answers given.
Cleaner environment and empty stomachs
The emphasis in favour of biofiol has been a cause of food price rises. The US and the EU have been on the forfront of those advocating the use of biofuels as these feuls are environmental friendly and reduce our dependence of fossil feuls. One could easily see that there was a lot of money in this new line of business. Consequently land use was being changed from land for food to land for fuel. A substantial amount of US maize has suddenly “disappeared” as its use was diverted to ethanol production.
According to a news dispatch by Catholic World News‘ Siwa Msangi, a research fellow at the food policy institute, a recent study found that between 25 percent and 33 percent of the increase in food prices between 2000 and 2006 "seems to be driven by the biofuels effect."
The same agency quoted Fr Varghese Mattamana, executive director of Caritas India, the Catholic Church's aid organization, saying "any diversion of land from food or feed production to production of energy biomass will influence food prices, as both compete for the same input."
In a report released in December, the International Food Policy Research Institute warned that "world cereal and energy prices are becoming increasingly linked." Wheat and petroleum prices have tripled since 2000, while corn and rice prices have nearly doubled.
Many countries are suffering a lot. Egypt, for example, is one of the largest cereal importers. Less produce meant higher prices, In Egypt food prices, including subsidized bread, went up by nearly 30% last year. In the Philippines, the government is now looking at some 1.2 million hectares for jatropha production in the southern island of Mindanao operated by the Philippine National Oil Co.-Alternative Fuels Corporation, It is also identifying more than 400,000 hectares of land for private sector investments. (Jatropha curcas is a drought-tolerant non-edible shrub. It produces fruits the size of golf balls which contain oil that can be converted into agrofuels. These developments are expected to negatively impact food production, availability and prices.
On a positive note I add that biofeuls produced in Malta are produced from waste and so are not contributing to this crisis.
The policies of death
La Via Campesina, an international organisation of small farmers, say that neo-liberal policies have destroyed the capacities of countries to feed themselves.
They say that after 14 years of NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreements) Mexico went through a major crisis often dubbed as the “tortilla crisis”. From an exporting country Mexico has become dependent on US maize imports and current imports 30 percent of its maize. Nowadays, while increased amounts of US maize have suddenly been diverted to agro-fuels production, quantities available for the Mexican markets have dropped, provoking price surges.
Another examples quoted by Via Campesina comes from Indonesia. In 1992, Indonesian farmers produced enough soya to supply the domestic market. Soya-based tofu and 'tempeh' are an important part of the daily diet throughout the archipelago. Following the neo-liberal doctrine, the country opened its borders to food imports, allowing cheap US soy to flood the market. This destroyed national production. Today, 60% of the soy consumed in Indonesia is imported. Record prices for US soy last January led to a national crisis when the price of 'tempeh' and tofu (the « meat of the poor ») doubled in a few weeks.
According to the FAO the food deficit in West Africa increased by 81% between 1995 and 2004. During the same period cereal imports increased by 102%, sugar imports by 83%, dairy products by 152% and poultry by 500%. However, according to IFAD (2007) the region has the potential to produce sufficient amounts of food.
What do you think?
Many answers have been and are being given besides the two I have just referred to. Some blame corrupt governments in Third World Countries, others blame climate change, still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production; others say that the poor have too many children.
What do you think?
RSS
Comments
I suggest he makes a google search of "factory farming" for a clear example.
After all, Stalin, Pol Pot and Charles Manson were meat-eaters, but of course this says nothing about any other meat eater's character and respect towards other humans. Moreover, it is historically an acknowledged fact that some Catholic popes killed thousands of innocent people through the inquisition. But again, this says nothing about the present pope, nor Fr Joe Borg. I hope that intelligent people will get my point (and will not now say that I am attacking the church).
Mr Zammit now says that he did not say vegetarianism is wrong. However, let me remind him that he wrote that "Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians". If that does not wrongly and illogically imply that vegetarianism is wrong, I don't know what does. But let me concede him this point. Maybe he changed his mind.
As for vegans' moral high-ground, yes, a person who lives a life that guarantees minimal harm to any sentient individual, and who respects all life and seeks to defend the lives and liberty of all sentient animals (including all humans), has a right to claim a moral high-ground. Of course, people who profit (financially or otherwise) from the exploitation of others will obviously say otherwise. But the point of veganism is not to be morally pure. The point is to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering and death to others. The point is not us...it's others. If this is something to be condemned, I stand guilty as charged and will not waste time pleading innocence.
As regards the philosophy of non-harm going contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, since it is Mr Zammit who makes the claim, it is up to him to prove it. As for me, I can't envision Jesus Christ condemning someone who seeks to live a life where one seeks to harm no-one.
Mr Zammit would perhaps also be interested in reading http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-if-myth-that-hitler-was-vegetarian.html
I hope he appreciates the sense of humour, particularly in the picture I chose. The picture itself is perhaps sufficient to make Mr Zammit see that his involving Hitler in the debate was a silly thing to do.
What do you think?
1. “Nazis are humans; X is a human; therefore X is a Nazi.!” Doesn't follow does it. Let me put forward a "nicer" one. "Jesus is a human. I am a human. Therefore I am Jesus.!!!" so please cut the crap about vegetarians being Nazis.
2. Why don't I augur that everyone becomes a vegetarian? Simple my dear Watson. I love meat, fish and cheese. If everyone becomes a vegetarian then even I would become a vegetarian as I am part of "everyone". So, since I don't want to become a vegetarian I don't augur that everyone becomes one.
At Mr. Cassar’s suggestion I have looked at the michaelbluejay website that is supposed to prove Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. The introduction starts with “Welcome to the crazy world of Michael Bluejay”! Unfortunately for Mr. Cassar’s credibility, it just quotes a discredited study of Hitler by Robert Payne. The three most highly acclaimed Hitler biographers are indisputably the historians Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw, and John Toland whose extensive Hitler biographies were written AFTER Payne’s publication, and none of them gave any credence to Payne's unfounded theory. On the contrary, all three concluded that Hitler became a vegetarian. Apart from that, Hitler himself said: “The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat." (January 12, 1942. Section 105: Hitler’s Table Talk). So Mr. Cassar should be man enough to retract.
A 1933 press release issued by the National Socialist German Workers' Party [ NSDAP ] stated inter alia: “The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenceless animals their RIGHTS (Rechte)”. It is not my intention to fully equate contemporary animal "rights" activists with Nazis. Although there are clear parallels (e.g. vivisection), there are distinctions as well (e.g. right to freedom). However, when some animal “rights” activist tries to argue that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentler, more peaceful society, I would point out that the only civilization to officially declare an animal “rights” policy turned out to be more violent against human beings than any before it.
No, Mr. Cassar, I did not say vegetarianism is wrong. What’s wrong is the moral-high-ground claim of some vegetarians who characterize all meat-eaters, and hunters in particular, as "bird-killers," "murderers," and so on, and clearly regard themselves as ethically superior to us meat consumers. Your animal "rights" movement evidently claims ethical superiority, as evidenced by its constant use of the term "cruelty" with regard to hunting. As I said, this morality goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I’m still waiting for you to prove otherwise.
Fr. Joe, would you please tell Victoria Grech whether you detect any “twisted logic” in my comments? If she agrees that according to the Church’s teaching “eating meat is not a sin”, what is she protesting about? Could she describe the “inhumane methods” by which man “is overstepping the boundaries imposed by God”? I expect valid argumentation, not disjointed garbage. Thank you.
Never mind, there's still the little matter of the Champion's League final. Go Chelski!
As for Stalin, it may well have been him who said that whilst one death is a tragedy the death of a million is but a statistic. Says a lot about his disregard for life and the rights of individuals.
Of course, I won't be so naive to say that because Stalin was a meat-eater, all meat eaters disregard the rights of humans. It has to take an Alfred E. Zammit to say something similar, like that vegetarianism is wrong because Hitler was supposedly (he was not) a vegetarian.
See previous blog for details ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
"That Hitler felt some affection to a dog while he felt nothing for millions of Jews only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was."
Was it not Stalin who said that whilst one death is a tragedy the death of a million is but a statistic? One might also observe that it is an axion of the internet that introducing Hitler in the discussion kills it stone dead.
With regards to the Church's position Care for Creation is one of the tenets in its Social Teaching. Man shows his respect for the Creator by his stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of faith. Man is called to protect people and the planet, living faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.This teaching is rooted in the creation narrative in Genesis. When God put Adam in the garden of Eden, he put him there to tend the garden and its animals, as a steward and not as master, to care for them and not to overpower them. God's command regarding man's moral behaviour, the limits of man's autonomy and freedom are laid down. Man always had a free choice. He can determine his own behaviour and own ends by choosing between good and evil. Here though, I am not slotting the vegetarians and the meat-eaters in 'good' and 'evil' categories. Per carita'! All I am saying is that according to the Church's teaching (and I am mentioning the Church since someone brought it up) eating meat is not a sin - it's the manner of man's method of procuring this food - through inhumane methods - that is wrong for he is over-stepping the boundaries imposed by God.
First of all, Hitler was not a vegetarian. See http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
But even if he was, what would it matter. Hitler was an actively anti-smoking. Is smoking to be encouraged just because Hitler opposed it?
Regarding supposedly Nazi animal rights law, any laws in Nazi Germany were NOT animal rights laws. They were animal "welfare" laws that only gave limited protection to a small minority of animals. Non-human animals were still eaten in Nazi Germany. Non-human animals were still forced to work for humans in Nazi Germany. Non-humans were bombed along with humans by Nazi planes. And since humans are animals too (despite protestations from those who still insist - against all scientific evidence - that humans are not animals), Nazis tortured and murdered millions of human animals. How about that for an animal rights policy!
Mr Zammit says that "some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans". Mr Zammit should perhaps note that this type of "animal lovers" are usually animal exploiters themselves, and have no idea on what animal rights really means. Mr Zammit's confusion in this regard is evident when he strangely believes that Hitler could, in someone's wildest imagination, be considered as an "animal rights" person.
Mr Zammit says that Nazi atrocities and hypocritical propaganda is the reason why Fr Borg would say that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. I am sure that Fr Borg is above such silly reasoning. And may I remind Mr Zammit (or perhaps surprise him with the fact) that St Martin De Porres was a vegetarian? Would Mr Zammit say that St Martin De Porres was a Nazi?
That Hitler felt some affection to a dog while he felt nothing for millions of Jews only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was. It says nothing about vegerarianism, even if he really was a vegetarian (something he wasn't). Stalin was a meat eater. So was Charles Manson and Pol Pot. Does this say anything about other meat-eaters? Of course not. Only fools make (il)logical connections where there are none.
Albeit he expresses himself against vegetarianism because it gives him pleasure to eat animals.
I will refrain to comment on his other selective and prejudicial comments so as not to digress into other areas.
Kenneth Cassar insists that eating meat is not necessary for our health, and that hunting birds to eat their meat would be unnecessary. He then goes on to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly". Apart from the fact that a person’s life is not made up only of acts that are necessary, eating meat is pleasurable and acknowledged as one of the good things in life. What the Church means is that one should not be cruel to animals and kill them without a reason. Mr. Cassar, as a vegetarian, is implying that hunting goes against Church doctrine because, according to him, hunting means killing animals unnecessarily. That is his opinion.
There are millions who disagree with him because they are not vegetarians, and I am one of them. If Mr. Cassar were not such a prejudiced anti-hunter, he would agree with Bernard E. Rollin, a staunch defender of animal “rights” and an unlikely supporter of my cause. In “Animal Rights and Human Morality” (p. 51) Rollin writes: “Few cultures have understood animals better or have had more respect for them as ends in themselves than hunting cultures”. In his thesis on hunting ethics, Justin Alexander, a non-hunter, says: “Of all human practices that involve the death of animals, hunting is the most harmonious with nature”. As a dedicated Christian I find hunting morally acceptable and I choose to practise it. If Mr. Cassar cannot see anything positive in hunting and eating meat, that is his prerogative.
I should like to add something that is not so well known. The first country to enact “animal rights” legislation was Nazi Germany. Hitler himself was a vegetarian and a fanatical animal lover who disliked hunting and “poachers” (meaning hunters). “Personally, I cannot see what possible pleasure can be derived from shooting. … I have never fired at a hare in my life. I am neither poacher nor sportsman. … [But] if I excluded poachers from the Party, we should lose the support of entire districts." Source: Hitler’s Table Talk: section 308. 2nd September, 1942.
He felt depressed whenever his dog (an Alsatian named Blondi) was ill, but he did not bat an eyelid when signing the death warrant of some German officer on the front. We should ask why an animal lover could bring himself to plan and sanction the killing of so many millions of fellow humans. The answer is that some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans. The Jewish practice of “kosher” slaughter was declared illegal in Nazi Germany in 1934, and in order to justify his persecution of the Jews, Hitler used graphic films of how Jews slaughtered lambs. Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians.
But ultimately what all this anti-hunting, anti-meat-eating boils down to is a total rejection of the teachings of Christ for whom the human being was the be-all and end-all of His incarnation, who loved all mankind including the Jews, and who enjoyed eating lamb with his disciples, apart from giving them a helping hand at catching fish from the Lake of Galilee. I think the Church, Fr Joe, should pay a little bit more attention to the insidiousness of all the new-fangled ideas creeping into this fair isle of ours.
To say these same conglomerates exert pressure on governments would be a gross understatement – just imagine how electoral campaigns are financed.
So it is a vicious circle, unless consumers consciously evaluate their consumption levels and patterns, and change them to support independent (preferably local) produce, even by paying extra to support such produce and suppliers.
If God had intended us to be vegetarian
She would have made cabbage taste like fillet of steak.
Is pointing out that persistantly posting off-topic comments in other people's blogs is trolling, arrogance? I leave it to other readers to judge for themselves. As for the other unsubstantiated remarks about me, I will not comment, since this would be off-topic. If you have a personal grudge against me, you are free to comment on my blog. I won't censor you.
Now back on topic...
Hunting, like Fr Borg says, can be about eating meat, provided that the hunters eat the birds they kill. I would still insist that eating meat is not necessary for our health, so hunting birds, in this case, would still be unnecessary. Perhaps, here, it is opportune to point out that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2418), it is stated that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly".
Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. Why so? What harm could possibly come to the world if we all became vegetarians? And please don't say that we would be overpopulated with all the animals we would not kill, since the animals most humans eat are not wild animals, but animals whom we specifically overbreed ourselves (which is part of the environmental and waste of resources problem).
It is up to the Editor to invite people he would like to contribute. My position is that the more the merrier. But even if there is no pro-hunting blog I think that hunters are more than amply served. If you look at the top ten of items commented on you will notice that three directly relate to hunting and at least one touches on the subject.
Mr Mifsud Bonnici's off topic comment (he derailed another discussion last week) is symptomatic of certain sections of society who are so blinkered obsessing about their issues, or dare I say, non-issues, that they are totally blind to the plight of others. This is indifference which is worse than having a wrong perception of things. And no, Mr Mifsud Bonnici, I will not reply to your answer if it has anything to do with hunting. Read Fr Joe's blog (for I doubt it very much that you have) and see whether you can contribute to this very valid discussion. If you have anything to say connected to this topic you are most welcome to put in your two euro cents' worth. Other than this, take your cavallo di battaglia elsewhere.
Like Fr Joe I listen to Classic FM as background music
But in bed or when I am particularly interested I listen to Radio 4.
This morning there was the usual farming programme and iot dealt with waste and choice.
Supermarkets have been blamed for only presenting perfect specimens of fruit and vegetables whilst a market in Leicester reported as how misshapen or blemished items were not sold. Organic specialists however could get away with spotted items just as you would accept home-grown far from perfect items.
It is eventually the customers who decide and perfect specimens mean pesticides in quantity. At all markets people wait for the end of the day
To pick up leftovers that are perfectly edible.
Large supermarkets in the UK donate surplus goods to charity.
Feast or famine on a world-wide scale is beyond my comprehension but in passing I might observe that Malta being on such a small scale might well concentrate on growing crops of the highest quality for local and tourist sale. Let the islands be noted for good local produce and this would be more effective than the somewhat indifferent publicity campaign for Malta that I see in the UK
@ Dion Borg: Good comment, and on-topic. It makes sense to reduce, if not completely eliminate, meat and dairy products for environmental and health reasons, and for efficient food production, if not for the animals themselves.
The meat industry has gobbled vast areas to grow fodder for animals artificially bred and destined to the slaughterhouses. Notwithstanding that a specific area of land renders more food supply if cultivated for crops intended for human consumption rather than diluted into the meat industry.
Peculiarly the Church seems to have failed to appreciate vegetarianism, however positive steps towards ecology have been noted.
" Some comments by those that oppose it, have shown the general public the form of irrational criticism hunters have to put up with"
And that was just from the birds.
Your last blog "how disgusting, I am a catholic" caused quite a stir due to your comparison to hunting.
I hope my contributions and those of other hunters have not caused you any inconvenience. Personally I was only trying to clear the numerous misconceptions people have about hunting. Some comments by those that oppose it, have shown the general public the form of irrational criticism hunters have to put up with.
As you might have realized the hunting issue is quite a hot topic at the moment. Considering the numerous comments and letters appearing in the Times and the reputation of its bias against hunting I believe the Editor should consider allocating a blog to hunters. Would you support such a request and could you be of any assistance in securing such a request.
Best Regards
Mark
An impassioned plea was issued by Senegal's president to the U.N. to dismantle its Food and Agriculture Organization, calling it an ineffective money-eater that failed to help avert the global food crisis. Ironically, the Rome-based organization known as FAO (a massive building on the outskirts of the city that is the personification of burocracy) is led by a fellow Senegalese national, Jacques Diouf, whom the Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade said he had helped in his selection.
In a statement, President Wade laid the current food crisis squarely at the FAO’s door saying that it "is largely its failure," adding that the FAO is "a money pit largely spent functioning with very few effective operations on the ground."
Wade continued - the FAO's work was "duplicated by others apparently more efficient" and less bogged down by red tape. "I have long called for it (the FAO) to be transferred to Africa, near the 'sick ones' it pretends to care for, because nothing justifies its presence in the developed world," Wade said. "This time, I'm going further: it must be eliminated and its useful assets transferred to FIDA, (the U.N. World Food Program, and the U.N. International Fund for Agricultural Development — known as IFAD, or FIDA in French)
which should become the U.N.'s World Fund for Agricultural Assistance with an obligatory headquarters in Africa, at the heart of the problem."
But an expert at the UN agency who pleaded anonymity told AFP: "At a time of troubles in several countries because of the food crisis, it is easy for governments to scapegoat the FAO." The organisation is "far from perfect, but as the report on governance said, it is indispensable, and if it didn't exist it would have to be invented," he said.
Well, this paraphrasing of the famous Voltaire bon mot is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette’s ‘Let them eat cake.’ If my education serves me right (from movies!), Marie Antoinette was shortly led up the guillotine.
While the bigwigs play insult tennis, the world poor are sinking into more abject poverty. World Bank President Robert Zoellick said two billion people across the world are grappling with high food prices, and 100 million people in poor countries may be pushed deeper into poverty by the crisis.
The problem with decision makers, be they in government, in NGO’s, or church-run agencies, is that sometimes precious time is wasted on finding the right way not to step on important toes. In the mean time the time is ticking for people who need help.
If nothing will make the bile rise in your throat, this news item will:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=564934&in_page_id=1879