We live in a world capable, in principle, of providing a diverse and healthy diet for all, and yet one quarter of its people suffer from frequent hunger and ill health generated by a diet that is poor in quantity or quality or both. Another quarter of the world’s population eats too much food, food that is often heavy with calories and low on nutrients (colloquially called ‘junk food’). This quarter of the world’s population risks diabetes and all of the other chronic illnesses generated by obesity. In Mexico, for example, 14 per cent of the population have diabetes, and in India, 11 per cent of city-dwellers over 15. In the US it has been estimated that one-third of the children born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes—a truly sad prospect, given that most of this is entirely preventable. Study after study in recent years has come to the conclusion that the single most important factor in human health is diet, and diet is something we can shape.

Cheap food is important to capitalism because it allows wages to be lower (and thus profits to be higher) and yet leave workers with more disposable income available to buy other commodities. For these and other reasons, early in the history of capitalism, the food system became tied to colonialism, where various forms of forced or semi-forced labour were common. After the civil war ended slavery in the US, the domestically-produced food system came to rest primarily on the family farm. But after the Second World War the increasing mechanization and chemicalisation of agriculture favoured larger farms. In the early 1970s the US Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz got Congress to pass a programme of subsidies that rewarded high yields. As a result, the larger the farm and the higher the yield, the larger became the subsidy. Nearly all the subsidies went to large farms, and for a few basic crops: tobacco, cotton, corn, wheat, and eventually soy. Moreover the large farms that could benefit the most from mechanization and chemicalisation became increasingly subservient to the gigantic corporations that supplied the inputs and bought the outputs of these factory farms.

This situation remains essentially unchanged today. In 2005 alone the US government spent over $20 billion in agricultural subsidies (46 per cent of this went for corn production, 23 per cent for cotton, 10 per cent for wheat, and 6 per cent for soybeans). The largest 10 per cent of the farms got 72 per cent of the subsidies and 60 per cent of all farms got no subsidy at all. For the most part, fruit and vegetable crops received no subsidies, and the same could be said for most small and medium sized farms. In short, the subsidy program rewards the large yields that result from very large, highly industrialized farms.

Today, while there are still many family farms in the US, the older mixed family farm that utilized manure from its animals to fertilize the land, and practised crop rotation and other techniques to control pests, has been largely wiped out. The giant capitalist farm of today is dependent on cheap oil and government subsidies. David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University and a globally recognized expert on food systems and energy, has argued that if the entire world adopted the American food system, all known sources of fossil fuel would be exhausted in seven years. At the same time, utilizing such huge amounts of petroleum-based chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) would not only contribute enormously to global warming, but also would make our toxic environment even more toxic.

In this short essay most of my examples come from the US, because, as the most hegemonic capitalist power in the world, it has done the most to shape the global food system. But I don’t want to give the impression that there is one tightly integrated capitalist world food system. Even in the US, capitalism has not entirely subsumed the whole food system, and while there are few places in the world untouched by capitalism, its degree of hegemony may vary a great deal. Still, up to the present, capitalism has been the single strongest force shaping the global food system, and much of that shaping power has flowed outward from the US.

It is scandalous that in the academic world many professors of economics still teach the doctrine of consumer sovereignty when it is so clear that on the contrary, corporations are the far greater sovereign force.

More from: Between obesity & hunger: the capitalist food industry

  1. dreamingdiametrically reblogged this from joshruben
  2. athenagray reblogged this from thepeoplesrecord
  3. lalalaexistence reblogged this from citykidgardens
  4. frigid-prostitute reblogged this from deforestasian
  5. deforestasian reblogged this from sc0tt13b01
  6. sc0tt13b01 reblogged this from notdoingmywork
  7. notdoingmywork reblogged this from tits-are-swell-spectacular
  8. tits-are-swell-spectacular reblogged this from dakotapuma
  9. dakotapuma reblogged this from communityconnects
  10. soyeahso reblogged this from whyhungerconnect
  11. adreeanahh reblogged this from thepeoplesrecord
  12. tumblingintosoc reblogged this from socialformsandsocialtypes
  13. intiligence reblogged this from cosmic-earthchild
  14. cosmic-earthchild reblogged this from cultureofresistance
  15. mastermindofaterriblekind reblogged this from jessthealaskan
  16. jahnnasbrain reblogged this from mapsontheweb
  17. communityconnects reblogged this from whyhungerconnect
  18. paintedgoat reblogged this from citykidgardens
  19. dee-stroy reblogged this from climate-changing
  20. perrylynndavis reblogged this from citykidgardens
  21. citykidgardens reblogged this from whyhungerconnect
  22. utopiafood reblogged this from whyhungerconnect
  23. hucketry reblogged this from monozygote
  24. qsalms reblogged this from fuck-monsanto
  25. coolyourbears reblogged this from cultureofresistance
  26. anxelli reblogged this from cultureofresistance
  27. bwansen reblogged this from elfboi
  28. archetypeofamercurialveneer reblogged this from fightthebinary
  29. boriquageek reblogged this from whyhungerconnect