What Has the Quinoa Controversy Really Been About?
By Sarah Lecouffe Axtell
Author Tanya Kersens writes in “Quinoa: Is ‘To Buy or Not to Buy’ the Right Question?”,
“...the debate has largely been reduced to the invisible hand of the marketplace, in which the only options for shaping our global food system are driven by (affluent) consumers either buying more or buying less. It’s the same logic that makes us feel like we’ve done our civic duty by buying a pound of fair trade coffee. This isn’t to dismiss the many benefits of fair trade or other forms of ethical consumption, but the so-called quinoa quandary demonstrates the limits of consumption-driven politics. Because whichever way you press the lever (buy more/buy less) there are bound to be negative consequences, particularly for poor farmers in the Global South. To address the problem we have to analyze the system itself, and the very structures that constrain consumer and producer choices.”
Modern industrial agricultural methods and technologies have brought great increases in food production but not without high costs to the Earth and its inhabitants. The purpose of this report is to address the controversy and impacts which have rose out of quinoa's rising popularity as a highly nutritious food. Emanating from the 2011 piece in the The New York Times then in 2013 Can Vegans Stomach the Unpalatable Truth About Quinoa by The Guardian, a flurry of responses arose from mostly Western view based blogs and popular press sources. The main issues raised in the responses were that increased export production of quinoa in Peru and Bolivia is causing social, economic and environmental negative impacts to local farmers. Secondly, most Western sources perpetuated that local quinoa growers were no longer able to afford their staple native food due to global increase in demand and consequent increase in price (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). This was based on Bolivian government reports supposedly showing a decrease in domestic consumption. The main misconceptions originate from the Western presses due to a disregard for the Southern perspective. From these responses we learn that maintaining food security in one place is not solely controlled by foreign consumer choice. A movement towards food sustainability, a look at Andean legislation and the Latin American press perspective increase our understanding of the quinoa controversy. Lastly some questions which were largely left unasked will be posited.
By Sarah Lecouffe Axtell
Author Tanya Kersens writes in “Quinoa: Is ‘To Buy or Not to Buy’ the Right Question?”,
“...the debate has largely been reduced to the invisible hand of the marketplace, in which the only options for shaping our global food system are driven by (affluent) consumers either buying more or buying less. It’s the same logic that makes us feel like we’ve done our civic duty by buying a pound of fair trade coffee. This isn’t to dismiss the many benefits of fair trade or other forms of ethical consumption, but the so-called quinoa quandary demonstrates the limits of consumption-driven politics. Because whichever way you press the lever (buy more/buy less) there are bound to be negative consequences, particularly for poor farmers in the Global South. To address the problem we have to analyze the system itself, and the very structures that constrain consumer and producer choices.”
Modern industrial agricultural methods and technologies have brought great increases in food production but not without high costs to the Earth and its inhabitants. The purpose of this report is to address the controversy and impacts which have rose out of quinoa's rising popularity as a highly nutritious food. Emanating from the 2011 piece in the The New York Times then in 2013 Can Vegans Stomach the Unpalatable Truth About Quinoa by The Guardian, a flurry of responses arose from mostly Western view based blogs and popular press sources. The main issues raised in the responses were that increased export production of quinoa in Peru and Bolivia is causing social, economic and environmental negative impacts to local farmers. Secondly, most Western sources perpetuated that local quinoa growers were no longer able to afford their staple native food due to global increase in demand and consequent increase in price (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). This was based on Bolivian government reports supposedly showing a decrease in domestic consumption. The main misconceptions originate from the Western presses due to a disregard for the Southern perspective. From these responses we learn that maintaining food security in one place is not solely controlled by foreign consumer choice. A movement towards food sustainability, a look at Andean legislation and the Latin American press perspective increase our understanding of the quinoa controversy. Lastly some questions which were largely left unasked will be posited.
The title “Popular Press Reveals Controversy and Misconceptions Regarding Quinoa and Food Security” is a suited descriptor for the issues raised by Charlotte Ambrozek and Martin Zorrilla in collaboration with Bioversity International. The authors have summarized the recent popular press reviews responding to the recent quinoa boom and provided a much needed general discussion of the issues involved. They surveyed 42 independent blogs and major press-source reactions since 2011 “to understand how the Western world interpreted this complex issue involving malnutrition, commodity markets, land degradation, and globalization” (Ambrozek "Pop. Press").
Ambrozek et al. found that the majority of Western sources presented the quinoa controversy in terms of consumer choice. Each source tended to suggest a binary solution to the complex problem: do not eat quinoa, or eat quinoa. Some sources pointed towards the fact that eating quinoa is more complicated while others suggest growing quinoa locally (the United States) in order to mitigate the negative impacts of Andean production. Overall the Western perspective tended to rely on empirical evidence such as statistics on farmland use and malnutrition data in the Andes, whether accurate or not, to support their claims. The authors found that these sources tended to express a certain worldview or opinion and because of this they neglected pertinent facts in order to expand on other points. Generally there was a total lack of inclusion of the Andean perspective. Articles like The More You Love Quinoa, the More You Hurt Peruvians and Bolivians by the Globe and Mail did not include the Peruvian or Bolivian voice. Most articles referenced other American sources rather than researching Latin American press sources. This is interesting considering it is the Bolivian and Peruvian people who would be the most affected by these issues yet they are not included in the dialogue (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). So why not include the journalists and academic sources from Peru and Bolivia? Its unclear exactly why western bloggers and journalists did not. If they had considered other perspectives they might have explored issues of food sovereignty, Latin American perspectives on the so called controversy, and relevant legislation in Andean countries.
According to the press-sources in Latin America the controversy is not actually very controversial there. Andeans writers are not requesting a global halt on quinoa buying. Some Latin American sources suspect that negative press in West was generated in order to promote local quinoa production in the US. From Ambrozek et al. we also learn that the negative consequences of the quinoa boom are considered an issue of poor policies and lack of market regulation. Unsustainable expansion of mono production and the increased mechanization that accompanies production “has been linked to ecosystem degradation and social conflict, particularly related to land access” (Ambrozek "Pop. Press") and loss of diversity. Unlike the Western press the Latin American sources observed some ways for government action. Some suggestions included expanding programs to increase domestic popularity of quinoa and to increase affordability and access. To mitigate negative outcomes they suggest changing policies to support environmental sustainability, increase collective action and community directed agriculture (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). The authors make the point that these new policies have yet to be fully implemented with the dominant and conflicting forces of the world capitalist system.
With the Western omission of the Andean perspective comes a dismissal of a discussion on food sovereignty and Andean legislation. Bolivia's recent constitution has put food security and sovereignty at the forefront of the agricultural revolution. The current government in Ecuador has made food sovereignty an objective and obligation of the state. These policies can be linked to the growing indigenous social movements of the past few decades. This has included a moving back towards small-scale production based on exchange and communal ownership. The authors however find that the actual implementation of these policies may entail contradictory forces from the industrial capitalist system of production. As Peru has not undertaken progressive agricultural changes like Ecuador and Bolivia in the Peruvian press they did not produce strong opinions on food sovereignty. In all the cases, the actual opinions of indigenous and local peoples who grow, eat, and consider quinoa sacred are seldom considered.
Often it has been observed in news sources that there are high rates of malnutrition amongst quinoa farmers is linked to low domestic quinoa consumption. This factor ties into another recurring misconception in the Western press. Dozens of major news sources stated that it was the increase in price, due to Western demand which explains why Peruvian and Bolivian people do not eat quinoa anymore. Firstly contradictory data has suggested that over the “past four years [domestic consumption] has in fact tripled” (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). It should also be noted that quinoa consumption was low long before the quinoa rose in popularity in the West. Why is that? This is largely in part due to biocultural assimilation that has occurred through the colonial period. Throughout the past 600 years (including decades of nefarious US aid and trade policies) land use systems and ways of exchanging have been disrupted and replaced. This suppression of local peoples worldview, ways of knowing, practices and knowledge systems has far reaching and profound effects that still resonate today. Thus foods like quinoa have been considered “food for the poor” or “indian food”. This explains in part why local consumption of quinoa was low for the past few hundred years. Another consideration which is intertwined with the previous reason is due to the forces of capitalism and globalization. When Andean quinoa farmers make a lot more money from selling quinoa because of high market price, disposable income is spent on a Western lifestyle which includes wheat and rice based food products. This makes sense because colonizers have been impressing this idea as desirable for hundreds of years.
There are some other important concerns often neglected in the “quinoa quandary” discussion. What about the issue of increasing demand for a few varieties that is leading to the displacement of other varieties and crop diversity loss? Or the ensuring cultural loss that amounts from biological degradation? Should the people who grew, selected, maintained and protected quinoa for thousands of years be compensated for their contribution to growing sustainable food system? Is it possible to do so within the industrial capitalist agricultural system? These sorts of questions were not considered in many sources. Whether quinoa production remains primarily in the Andean region or whether production expands around the world, these questions need to be considered in order change the way we relate to our food and to restore balance with the Earth.
Read more on the topic here:
- http://agro.biodiver.se/2014/03/quinoa-misconceptions-unmasked/
- http://www.bioversityinternational.org/uploads/tx_news/Harvesting_quinoa_diversity_with_Payment_for_Agrobiodiversity_Conservation_Services_1664_03.pdf
- http://agro.biodiver.se/2013/01/quinoa-its-still-really-complicated/#comments
References:
Ambrozek, Charlotte and Martin Zorrilla in collaboration with Biodiversity International, Rome. “Popular Press Reveals Controversy and Misconceptions Regarding Quinoa and Food Security” Save eNews, Edition 1 (2014). Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Kerssen, Tanya. “Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question? ALAI, América Latina en Movimiento, 16 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Romero, Simon and Sara Shahriari. ”Quinoa’s Global Success Creates Quandary at Home” New York Times, 19 Mar. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Verner, Amy. "The More You Love Quinoa, The More You Hurt Peruvians and Bolivians" The Globe and Mail, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
Ambrozek et al. found that the majority of Western sources presented the quinoa controversy in terms of consumer choice. Each source tended to suggest a binary solution to the complex problem: do not eat quinoa, or eat quinoa. Some sources pointed towards the fact that eating quinoa is more complicated while others suggest growing quinoa locally (the United States) in order to mitigate the negative impacts of Andean production. Overall the Western perspective tended to rely on empirical evidence such as statistics on farmland use and malnutrition data in the Andes, whether accurate or not, to support their claims. The authors found that these sources tended to express a certain worldview or opinion and because of this they neglected pertinent facts in order to expand on other points. Generally there was a total lack of inclusion of the Andean perspective. Articles like The More You Love Quinoa, the More You Hurt Peruvians and Bolivians by the Globe and Mail did not include the Peruvian or Bolivian voice. Most articles referenced other American sources rather than researching Latin American press sources. This is interesting considering it is the Bolivian and Peruvian people who would be the most affected by these issues yet they are not included in the dialogue (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). So why not include the journalists and academic sources from Peru and Bolivia? Its unclear exactly why western bloggers and journalists did not. If they had considered other perspectives they might have explored issues of food sovereignty, Latin American perspectives on the so called controversy, and relevant legislation in Andean countries.
According to the press-sources in Latin America the controversy is not actually very controversial there. Andeans writers are not requesting a global halt on quinoa buying. Some Latin American sources suspect that negative press in West was generated in order to promote local quinoa production in the US. From Ambrozek et al. we also learn that the negative consequences of the quinoa boom are considered an issue of poor policies and lack of market regulation. Unsustainable expansion of mono production and the increased mechanization that accompanies production “has been linked to ecosystem degradation and social conflict, particularly related to land access” (Ambrozek "Pop. Press") and loss of diversity. Unlike the Western press the Latin American sources observed some ways for government action. Some suggestions included expanding programs to increase domestic popularity of quinoa and to increase affordability and access. To mitigate negative outcomes they suggest changing policies to support environmental sustainability, increase collective action and community directed agriculture (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). The authors make the point that these new policies have yet to be fully implemented with the dominant and conflicting forces of the world capitalist system.
With the Western omission of the Andean perspective comes a dismissal of a discussion on food sovereignty and Andean legislation. Bolivia's recent constitution has put food security and sovereignty at the forefront of the agricultural revolution. The current government in Ecuador has made food sovereignty an objective and obligation of the state. These policies can be linked to the growing indigenous social movements of the past few decades. This has included a moving back towards small-scale production based on exchange and communal ownership. The authors however find that the actual implementation of these policies may entail contradictory forces from the industrial capitalist system of production. As Peru has not undertaken progressive agricultural changes like Ecuador and Bolivia in the Peruvian press they did not produce strong opinions on food sovereignty. In all the cases, the actual opinions of indigenous and local peoples who grow, eat, and consider quinoa sacred are seldom considered.
Often it has been observed in news sources that there are high rates of malnutrition amongst quinoa farmers is linked to low domestic quinoa consumption. This factor ties into another recurring misconception in the Western press. Dozens of major news sources stated that it was the increase in price, due to Western demand which explains why Peruvian and Bolivian people do not eat quinoa anymore. Firstly contradictory data has suggested that over the “past four years [domestic consumption] has in fact tripled” (Ambrozek "Pop. Press"). It should also be noted that quinoa consumption was low long before the quinoa rose in popularity in the West. Why is that? This is largely in part due to biocultural assimilation that has occurred through the colonial period. Throughout the past 600 years (including decades of nefarious US aid and trade policies) land use systems and ways of exchanging have been disrupted and replaced. This suppression of local peoples worldview, ways of knowing, practices and knowledge systems has far reaching and profound effects that still resonate today. Thus foods like quinoa have been considered “food for the poor” or “indian food”. This explains in part why local consumption of quinoa was low for the past few hundred years. Another consideration which is intertwined with the previous reason is due to the forces of capitalism and globalization. When Andean quinoa farmers make a lot more money from selling quinoa because of high market price, disposable income is spent on a Western lifestyle which includes wheat and rice based food products. This makes sense because colonizers have been impressing this idea as desirable for hundreds of years.
There are some other important concerns often neglected in the “quinoa quandary” discussion. What about the issue of increasing demand for a few varieties that is leading to the displacement of other varieties and crop diversity loss? Or the ensuring cultural loss that amounts from biological degradation? Should the people who grew, selected, maintained and protected quinoa for thousands of years be compensated for their contribution to growing sustainable food system? Is it possible to do so within the industrial capitalist agricultural system? These sorts of questions were not considered in many sources. Whether quinoa production remains primarily in the Andean region or whether production expands around the world, these questions need to be considered in order change the way we relate to our food and to restore balance with the Earth.
Read more on the topic here:
- http://agro.biodiver.se/2014/03/quinoa-misconceptions-unmasked/
- http://www.bioversityinternational.org/uploads/tx_news/Harvesting_quinoa_diversity_with_Payment_for_Agrobiodiversity_Conservation_Services_1664_03.pdf
- http://agro.biodiver.se/2013/01/quinoa-its-still-really-complicated/#comments
References:
Ambrozek, Charlotte and Martin Zorrilla in collaboration with Biodiversity International, Rome. “Popular Press Reveals Controversy and Misconceptions Regarding Quinoa and Food Security” Save eNews, Edition 1 (2014). Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Kerssen, Tanya. “Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question? ALAI, América Latina en Movimiento, 16 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Romero, Simon and Sara Shahriari. ”Quinoa’s Global Success Creates Quandary at Home” New York Times, 19 Mar. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Verner, Amy. "The More You Love Quinoa, The More You Hurt Peruvians and Bolivians" The Globe and Mail, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.