Responding to the Global Food Shortage
This blog was written by a group of five freshmen taking an introductory course with a focus on the rhetoric of food science and politics in the Program of Writing and Rhetoric at Stanford University.
As the world population increases exponentially and the economy fluctuates wildly, the global food shortage is fast becoming one of the most terrifying and seemingly insurmountable crises that humanity has ever faced.
Responses and solutions have been proposed on all sides. The international scientific community has begun to focus a great deal of energy on biotechnology to promote greater crop and livestock productivity; governments are looking to cooperate in the development of legislation that will protect both the agriculture industry and the consumers who depend on its products; non-profit organizations are attempting to interact with those directly affected by the food shortage to develop localized solutions in self-sustainability and agricultural and economic independence.
Despite their efforts towards global solutions, none of these groups is entirely virtuous or altruistic, and each has come under scrutiny both by its counterparts and by the general public. Corruption is a popular accusation—biotechnologists blur the line between scientific innovation and humanitarian/environmentalist ethics, high-level government officials do each other political favors and support legislation that aids their primary campaign donors, and great amounts of money donated to non-profits have been known to mysteriously disappear before they reach their intended beneficiaries.
These flaws in the various systems have fostered quite a bit of cynicism in the public eye, but each of these approaches has its merits. No one is greater than the other two—in fact, the three are arguably codependent. Governments have far more power to officially influence the course of world events than do scientific laboratories or charitable organizations. However, they cannot do so without some degree of public support. This is a strength of non-governmental charity and aid groups, which have the ability to connect with voters in a way that politicians, often more concerned with staying in office than with truly representing the people, cannot. The biotechnology industry, on the other hand, does not have the resources to reach out and implement policy on the ground floor. Instead, it provides one of the tangible solutions put into use by organizations, both governmental and not.
We don’t yet have a specific, proven-effective solution to the global food crisis. Finding one, it seems, will depend on cooperation between these different groups and compromise concerning their various agendas. Such an enormous undertaking will not be solved by one faction alone.
By: Julianne Cirenza, Emily Cohodes, Bojan Milic, Elizabeth Rosen, and Tatum Sohlberg
Comments
Very interesting and balanced post. Since you highlight corruption and mistrust on all sides, do you think that a collaborative solution is possible? What are the benefits of a more radical solution (and what would that radical solution look like)? I also wonder, why should Americans care about the global food shortage, do you think?
Posted by: Julia Bleakney | October 20, 2009 07:21 PM