Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN to Hold Crisis Talks on Food Prices as Riots Hit Mozambique
After violence in Africa and protests in Egypt, Serbia and Pakistan, the UN are to urge action on the rising cost of food
The UN has called an urgent meeting on rising global food prices in an attempt to head off a repeat of the 2008 crisis that sparked riots around the world.
A demonstrator throws a tire on a burning barricade during riots in Maputo, Mozambique, on Wednesday. Police fired rubber bullets and teargas during protests against rising prices. (Reuters) Seven people, including two children, were killed in Mozambique this week during three days of protests triggered
by a rise in the cost of bread. There has also been anger over
increasing prices in Egypt, Serbia and Pakistan, where floods destroyed a
fifth of the country's crops.
The UN's announcement came after Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin extended the country's ban on grain exports. The ban has been partly blamed for a 5% increase in global food prices worldwide over the last two months, hitting their highest level in two years. The price of wheat has had its biggest monthly rise for 37 years. "In the past few weeks, global cereal markets experienced a sudden surge in international wheat prices on concerns over wheat shortages," the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation said.
"The purpose of holding the meeting is for exporting and importing countries to engage in constructive discussions on appropriate reactions to the current market situation."
Agency spokesman Christopher Matthews said the meeting of the inter-governmental committee on grains will be held on 24 September, most likely in Rome. He added a large number of member countries had expressed concern about a possible repeat of the food crisis two years ago. But agency officials and other experts have stressed that conditions are different from 2008, when high oil prices and growing demand for biofuels pushed world food stocks to their lowest levels since 1982.
The tense atmosphere in developing countries, where food costs up to 70% of family income, erupted in Mozambique this week in three days of riots that left seven people dead, hundreds injured and millions of dollars of damage.
"This was the worst rioting I have ever seen in my life, people can really turn very violent and lives are at risk, instead of a peaceful demonstration," said Felizmina Fabia, a resident of the capital, Maputo. As violence continued today, with police firing tear gas and rubber bullets, opposition parties and human rights groups criticised the government, saying it failed to gauge the anger that would be unleashed by the 30% bread price increase and hikes in water and electricity tariffs.
Alice Mabota, head of the Mozambican League of Human Rights, told Portugal's Lusa news agency: "The government underestimated the situation and can't understand or doesn't want to understand that this is a protest against the higher cost of living."
The government-imposed price rise took the cost of a bread roll - the staple of Mozambicans - to 20 US cents (13p) in a country where the average worker earns around $37 (£24) a month.
Egyptians have also protested over food prices in recent months, and analysts have warned that riots could follow the jump in prices in Africa and the Middle East. The trend comes after the global recession already put a squeeze on household budgets and intensified the risk of malnutrition.
In Mauritania in west Africa, rice prices doubled over the first three months of the year, according to the World Food Programme. Over the same period, the price of corn rose 59% in Zimbabwe and 57% in Mozambique.
Niger is suffering severe food shortages and price rises of up to 30%. Save the Children reported last week that the number of severely malnourished children visiting its clinics in Niger has gone up fourfold since the start of the year.
In Russia itself, the price of some essential food products soared 30% in August. Officials have blamed panic buying.
Susannah Nicol, a regional spokeswoman for the World Food Programme (WFP), warned that its operations could soon be affected. "Any food rise means that donations to the WFP will buy less for the hungry and the poor," she said.
In 2007-08, severe food shortages and resulting price rises led to worldwide demonstrations and violence. But analysts say global grain supplies are more abundant this time after bumper harvests in 2008 and 2009.
Daniel Sinnathamby [CORR], regional humanitarian coordinator for Oxfam in southern Africa, said: "There is food around, which was not the case in 2000 and 2003 when production failed. Most countries in the region except Zimbabwe seemed to have had fairly good harvests.
"The question is how does it get around and into the hands of poor people. Governments need to take a look at internal distribution and see who is poor and marginalised."
In June a UN report warned that food prices will rise by up to 40% over the next decade due to growing biofuel production and demand from emerging markets.
- Posted in
58 Comments so far
Show AllThe future is already in Mozambique.
I doubt it the future is in Mozambique, which is well known to be a poorly run country. Brazilians do very well growing food, and export it. Mozambique can if it evolves the way Brazil has done. It is useful to have higher food prices because this encourages farming, and in poor countries the farmers are the poorest sector of the population. This drives people to slums in the cities, where they live miserable lives, and can't grow their own food. Thus this is a temporary situation, as the food prices increase, it will be more profitable to grow food, more food will be grown, less people will be living in slums as they move to the country to grow food.
Growing food for global export and profit removes local and indigenous people from their land base and makes them less self sufficient and poorer. Brazil has lots of slums in the Amazon full of people who were told to relocate "to the country" and farm, then the rainforest soil and ecosystem is ruined and wealthy cattle ranchers move in. So do miners and loggers who murder people for timber and gold - and pimps who exploit displaced and impoverished women and children. No one is moving "to the country". Wealthy land owners grow export crops like soy with modern technology displacing local farmers and driving wages lower. The urban and rural slums are growing larger every day around the world because of this process. This is not "temporary" but has been going on for decades impoverishing millions. One billion people now live in slums.
Well said, Revenge Girl. I had responded to braulioherrera on a different story, also mentioning Brazil, as to why it's necessary to look at the whole system or whole country and why Brazil may not be the correct model:
German Military Report: Peak Oil Could Lead to Collapse of Democracy
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/02-7
Time stamp: Alcyon September 4th, 2010 8:59 pm
I answered your point a few minutes ago. And Brazil does show the way. It is a humane socialist system led by Lula da Silva, who has found the proper balance to improve the lives of the poor while at the same time allowing human greed to function in the service of society. It is a much better model, and the proof is in the results - economic growth and more social justice. Countries which are trying to implement central planning via a marxist model are suffering from serious economic depressions.
For example, Venezuela is currently suffering from the worst economy in the world, which is exceptional because the country hasn't suffered a major natural disaster. This country is ruled by an increasingly autocratic regime which borders on fascism - the regime leaders are asphixiating local business and entrepeneurs while at the same time making enormnous business enterprises with foreign multinationals, and reducing the power of the labor unions. They are also running the economy under hyperinflation, thus eroding even more the power of the working class. Given a choice, a rational person has to point to Brazil as a better socialist answer, and Venezuela as the poison no sane person would ever take.
braulioherrera, the question you have to ask is - what are we talking about here? And whose point of view?
Would a person at the lowest economic "bracket" in Brazil be going so gaga over Brazil's "achievements" to the same extent as a similar person in Venezuela? I am not particularly holding Venezuela out as a model - so let's not introduce a needless distraction here. The reason I do not yet cite Venezuela as a model is from considerations of sustainability and its reliance on petroleum exports for the moment. That could change - but its political direction is definitely warranted, given the historically high levels of inequality there.
When people deliberately ignore questions of sustainability, they always draw wrong conclusions based on a short time-frame and by neglecting high levels of inequality. High inequality actually makes a society inefficient, and more equal societies do better on a number of fronts. This has been shown statistically:
"The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett - is a book I recommend.
People also draw wrong conclusions by completely ignoring the amount of input in terms of resources that go into propping up a so-called prosperity. Both capitalists and socialists do this. Brazil's case from a sustainability and an ecological point of view is simply not a model for any country. And similarly based on the level of inequality, it is not a model. At all.
Cuba is one country that is both close to sustainability and having a somewhat decent life - as measured by the Human Development Index - at levels similar to those of Brazil and Venezuela, but slightly higher. Cuba is not yet the perfect model to cite because of considerations of political freedom and freedom of expression - but that can change when people realize that unwittingly their country is turning out to be somewhat of a model for sustainability. Some things can be tweaked and improved - but it's the closest, on this count.
Countries exploiting vast amounts of natural capital - both from within their national borders and from outside - can appear to be prospering. But unless they can show it can be sustained for the next several generations, they cannot be cited as a model.
Brazil's development is sustainable insofar as it has the land and the water to develop its agriculture. Venezuela's model of course is not sustainable, it relies on oil, and of course there are the statistics themselves, which show the economy is crashing at this time, to such an extent it can be considered to be in a depression.
Cuba's model of course is not sustainable, they can't even grow their own food.
Regarding what a poor person feels in Brazil, I suppose the best measure is to see the polling results, which show the people are very supportive of their government. The same can not be said in Venezuela, where the government is reported to be in disfavour due to the poor economy, high crime rate, and overall corruption. But as you said, Venezuela is atypical, it is relying on oil and doing a very poor job even with the wealth it derives from this oil.
As regards the human development index, i consider the lack of freedom in Cuba a complete disqualifier in this case. Evidently the index is flawed if they have missed the point that people don't want to have their lives as if they were serfs, which is what happens to Cubans in that fascist version of society created by the Castros.
Overall, Brazil remains in my mind the best example for sustainable agriculture, it exports, it has a huge and viable biofuels industry, and its economy grows very fast.
braulioherrera, by repeating this lie about Cuba - that "they can't even grow their own food", I think you either show your ignorance or your intention to spread falsehood. Their imports include beef, and that is something that people can do completely without. I suppose they import beef because they mistakenly believe it's part of their "culture", whereas it is just a leftover from the Spanish culture.
I can point to a number of sources to show that Cuban import of food is only a minor component, and that's a result of allocating a part of their agricultural land to grow crops for export. If you search online for "Cuba sustainable agriculture", you can see how many ***practitioners*** of organic farming and permaculture look to or actually flock to Cuba to learn from their experience. It's true that the current development was forced on Cuba, but the people have met the challenge wonderfully.
Brazil is a settler country - so there have always been a lot of natural resources to exploit, and a lot of land. Brazil also has one of the highest levels of inequality in Latin America: it's gini coefficient is 55% (from "Vision of Humanity"). It is like a family coming upon a large inheritance or robbing a bank. They can never be a model for other countries that have evolved under more "natural" conditions. Some sections of the Brazilian economy are indeed efficient and globally competitive. I'm not denying that. And it's true that the Brazilian government tries to address the reality of poverty for a large number of people, but the inequality in the system is blocking faster progress. But the extent of reckless deforestation alone (when the dangers of deforestation have been understood and pointed out) ***DISQUALIFIES*** Brazil from even being mentioned in the context of sustainability.
Even though Cuba was originally a settler country, today they are managing with limited resources. From a sustainability point of view, Cuba is the one country cited even by experts as a potential model.
Even the fact that Cuba imports beef proves beyond any doubt that large-scale beef production is simply ***impossible*** without allocating a lot of land, water and animal feed, and the petroleum-based fertilizers to grow this animal feed. I just hope that the Cuban people as a whole realize that they are on the verge of proving something to the world: that a country can indeed survive and thrive by adopting sensible means of production and sensible levels of consumption.
Brazil's economy is growing a lot faster than most other countries'. Farmers' incomes are growing, and this applies to both large and small farmers. Brazil, which used to import food, is a food exporter. The flow of country dwellers to the cities has slowed down. The urban slums grow larger because of organic growth - they have in excess of the optimum 2.1 children per couple.
Growing food for global export is necessary when there are nations which, unlike Brazil, can not feed themselves. It makes people richer, and leads to better lives. Trading is good for the world economy, it allows those who have excess products to sell them, and purchase the things they lack. Trading has been a function carried out by homo sapiens since the upper paleolithic, and trading routes have expanded as humanity spread around the world and technology allowed freer and more efficient trade.
I don't know what your proposal is, since you merely list a litany of misconceptions, which are not based on sound economic fact. It would be good to hear what is your proposed alternative, but I do hope it is not to move us back to the early Paleolithic.
To listen to Wall Street those masters of the universe Brazil is a fabulous place and a place to heavily invest. More hype from Wall Street. And yea we wouldn't want to go back to the paleolithic where we were healthier, less crowded and didn't need to cope with chronic stress.
I strongly suggest that you read alternative reporting.
The indigenous Kaiowá Guarani for example in the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso do Sul are experiencing genocide - denied, violently, their already recognized lands because of the export market for sugar cane for ethanol, soy, cattle - in denial of Constitutional rights to traditional lands, murder - please read some reports...
http://www.cimi.org.br/?system=news&action=read&id=4499&eid=405
also available
Reports 2009/10 harvest: soy sugar cane jatropa
http://www.reporterbrasil.org.br/biofuel/relatorio.php
This model, by the way, is being actively exported to China and African states.
Think deforestation, desertification, impoverishment, abrogations of human rights, rights to due process... then compare the claims you make calculating IN the externalized costs. The picture, I think you will find, becomes very different.
Braulioherrera may have some "economic facts", but I have been to Brazil. In cities, the rich live in mansions with barbed wire covering the high walls. The view from the windows of the maid's quarters is: hillsides covered in what are essentially cardboard boxes where the poor live. An "upscale favela" might have access to polluted water. When there is a fire the police let it burn.
In the rainforest, miners and loggers routinely attack indigenous settlements so there is nobody for the government to "protect". There is a single man living alone in Amazonia for decades: the last of his tribe (in the western state of Rondonia). Ranchers and loggers are closing in on him. Government officials tried to contact him, he answered with an arrow to the chest.
Once again, thanks for the reality check. The reality behind economic statistics can be ugly, and not so difficult to spot at all.
As you say in your posts, those economic models never account for the externalized costs. That lone man I mentioned: his whole tribe was killed off by men wielding guns and chainsaws. The "incentive" for murder is development, which is neither freedom nor trade. Over-development and globalism include theft, genocide and ecocide.
Evidently there are abuses as large more technologically able people encroach on those who lack the technology to oppose invasion. This is the history of the human race. But the majority of the agricultural development in Brazil takes place in lands which are already used for agriculture, and thus your tale, while sad, does not represent what is really happening, an interesting use of entrepreneurial capitalism guided by a government with social interest in mind.
I have read a lot about the Brazilian sugar industry and its use for biofuels. I think it is a good model which should be used by other countries. Evidently it has some problems, and it is only a medium term answer, but it is a much better answer than the subsidized system used in the USA and Europe.
Also, the history of the development of Brazil is not only one of self sufficiency in agriculture, and their ability to export food and biofuels, it is also about the development of a more modern society, with factories and other businesses which are supplied by hydropower, which of course is much more benign than the use of coal or other CO2 causing fuels.
While the development of Brazil does have some problems, they are minor compared to the lack of sustainability we see in places in Africa, where they can't even feed themselves, and where the population continues to increase as if the Earth were Jupiter. As I said, I don't think the future is Mozambique, for those nations which learn to manage themselves properly. And I see Brazil as a much better model than places such as Mozambique, or Venezuela (a basket case which doesn't grow its own food), and Cuba (another basket case which can't grow its own food too).
>>Growing food for global export is necessary when there are nations which, unlike Brazil, can not feed themselves. It makes people richer, and leads to better lives
Ireland suffered its "Great Famine" wherein millions of Irish starved to death or migrated from the country. This while Ireland was a net EXPORTER of food. They followed the model you claim necessary. They grew food for export and sold that food to people with more money. The problem was those growing the food were the distinct minority.
India went through a number of famines in the same way wherein the British would export food form India to Europe and Britain while millions of Indians starved.
Mali underwent the same wherein the IMF suggested they export food in order to "earn currency and then buy the food they needed for their people with tose revenues. They sufferred famine after famine until they simply refused to follow this "Road to wealth".
The Irish, the Indians, The peoples of Haiti or of Mali are NOT growing wealthier because of all their exports. The reason is Corproations control those lands that grow food and all revenues go into their coffers.
You can not have "Excess resources" to export if your own people are doing without in order to gain that excess. Brazil has millions living in absolute poverty with many poorly fed.
The only Excess resources that were exported from Ireland, India Mali and other countries that folowed your prescription for wealth are those resources stolen form those countries porrest and seized by the richest of those countries in order to line the pockets of a few with 'wealth".
I suggest as a start you review a history of ireland and its famine and how the landlords made millions of pounds in profits EXPORTING food as the people starved.
Then explain how it was the Irish people "prospered" by exporting that food.
Great post, GwNorth.
And I suggest you read about the econommic development in Brazil, and the way poverty is being reduced gradually. I have seen those tales about the differences in Latin America, between the rich and the poor. The best answer to solve these differences is to provide work for the poor, and to help them educate themselves. Education leads to a lower birth rate, and the provision of jobs leads to a job market where the poor can demand higher wages, and form unions. This is a more sensible answer than anything else I have observed.
It is also incredible to see people advocate that countries which have the ability to export food not do so. This is such utter nonsense, I don't even know what else to say. Evidently it is better for a country to grow as much of its own food as possible, but this is not feasible, and this is not the middle ages. Modern commerce and efficient use of resources would tell us that agriculture should be developed for export if this is feasible. And higher food prices are not necessarily bad if they do encourage the people to live in the country, rather than in slums.
The United States exports food to Haiti and Mexico. All it has done is forced millions of people in Haiti amnd Mexico OFF the land.
Haiti was once self sufficient in food. As was El Salavdor. As was Jamaica. They opened up the markets to foreign imports and all the local farmers went under and now they need food form outside to survive.
You have the economics BACKWARDS. By exporting food to those nations local producers are forced off the land. This then creates a surplus of "laborers" that look to make livings in cities or in other countries.
When on looks at economics one can not just measure "Whats good for me".
Which is exactly what you do.
All that subsiidized corn and cotton grown in the USA and exported to third world countries, forces farmers off the lands in those countries.
China now manufactures much of what was once made IN the USA for the market in the USA. Why do you think this makes persons in the USA wealthier?
Given food a necissity..whyis this different for food?
Living is easy with eyes closed....
Yes. And for those who want to see:
Who benefits from all this Affluence and Development?
Answer: The International Bank CEOs who give the loans to the ranchers or timber corporations to hire the goons to kill the natives and clear cut the forests so that Americans can eat fast food burgers filled with chemicals that are illegal in the US and wipe their butts with two-ply toilet paper. Every once and while this is investigated by justice departments covered in mahogany.
Any so called “underdeveloped” country who thinks their people will benefit from this process is just joining the conga line on the Titanic.
I DID IT -- SO CAN YOU
It takes thirty times more land to feed a population that eats dead flesh, then one that eats nothing processed by animals.
It consumes one hundred times more energy to produce junk food and processed food void of nutrition, then whole foods, as grown, with none of the complex carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, bulk or fiber refined out.
So for breakfast I eat fresh fruit over oatmeal. And for dinner lentil stew with natural brown rich and vegetables. Two meals a day, eat nothing between meals and drink lots of water.
Raise a family of five and live 35 years as a vegetarian without spending a penny on doctor bills. I did it so can you.
I would hope that many in "developed countries" take heed of your suggestions.
Meanwhile, what has been missing in the UN approach is a truly effective means of managing (zeroing out) population growth.
Too bad the major religions seem to be more in favor of "retroactive birth control" than in taking the steps necessary to insure that individuals can be no more prolific than to "reproduce themselves".
That said, governments (aka TPTB) also make it far to easy for "insiders" to profit from the misery of others, mostly children.
This is certainly a factor, but would take a tremendous systemic change to implement - either a draconian Chinese-style ban on reproduction, or a realistic solution to the problems that drive overpopulation.
So far the most effective responses to overpopulation have been the education of women, and the provision of a social net that provides retirement, medical care, food, and shelter to the poor.
Certainly the churches have a role in this, but people tend to forget that most of the French and Italians and many Germans are Catholic, too. Reproductive habits follow lines of socioeconomic condition more than those of religion.
I remember a comment from a college professor 50 years ago. He remarked that the best birth control in the world had been invented by Thomas Edison--the electric light. And quite honestly, if people have light at night they engage in activities other than "sleeping". If you are too poor to afford the electicity, or where you live does not have access to electricity your birth rate is going to be higher. I would be willing to bet that the birth rate in Baghdad is higher now than it was before George II decided to get even with the guy who tried to get his daddy.
Give the laboring class a living wage, end their police state slavery and watch their birth rate be same as the middle-class.
yep, i'm with you on this one john; i've been vegetarian and latterly vegan for the past 30 years. no doctor's bills as you say and no allergies due to processed/dairy food as so many people have these days.
i eat twice a day too with pretty much the same as your family and i'm lucky enough to live in a country that produces its own fruits and vegetables.
just look at chimpanzees, our nearest relative and see what they eat..........
humans are not designed to be meat eaters; just look at our teeth, jaws, digestive system.........................
Jeeez!
Compare the dentition of an herbivore - say, a deer, a steer, a donkey. You will find enormous differences between herbivore teeth and those of humans. The molars are structured entirely differently in preparation for all the grinding. As well, ruminants have up to 4 stomachs for processing cellulose and other sugars impossible for humans to digest. A ruminant's kidney is also very different from that of a carnivore, having many chambers.
May I also point out that in order to keep the rest of your family happy about being in the same room or bed with you, you ingest copious amounts of aspergillus niger ferment and probiotic supplements because you can't properly digest the sugars in pulses either.
Humans have sharp scissor-like teeth - incisors - to cut through larger food such as apples and meat. We have high points on our molars for cutting and tearing. We have spiky canines, flatter, but pointy like a dog's or a bear's. Rodents have teeth that regrow to compensate for the fact that the stuff they eat is so hard to cut and chew.
We are omnivores. We evolved from pure vegetarianism many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Look at the Inuit, who eat only meat.
That said, if a vegetarian or vegan diet works for you, oh happy day. It doesn't work for everyone. We may all have descended from an ancestress in the Rift Valley, but 100's of 1000's of years of eveolution have provided us all with variations. That's a good thing, isn't it? Because then, when the grain supply runs out, we carnivore/omnivores can eat our vegan pals.
And please stop the moral superiority around this issue. If your "solution" to the problem of starvation on this planet - which is way bigger than your cuddly little shopping list - consists of patting yourself on the back for preferring plant-based foods, you are part of the problem. It's very facile and superficial of you to believe that the world's food supply politics will be solved by a bunch of granola-munching navel-gazers.
Ever think about the industrial processes you engage when you buy supplements? The simple fact that you need supplements to deal with a veggie diet is an indicator that you are in error. Perhaps you and John Ellis are healthy in spite of your dietary choices. Pehaps you are lucky enough to be healthy irrespective of environmental factors. That's a very difficult thing to sort out.
Probably you will also take the high horse for using biofuels in your car - without observing that those fuels are being grown on heavily-guarded, foreign-owned tracts of land in the middle of countries where people who have been bullied off the family farms are starving by the millions (eg Haiti).
But - keep your myopic little eye on that navel. Lawdy knows how it will change... any time now.
well first, i didn't say i was a donkey or a deer................
and your caustic reply shows your lack of understanding..........
where did i mention moral superiorty?.....................
but now that you mention the fact, meat eaters morals must be so debased that they have no qualms about eating a sentient being that has been locked up and tortured for the entire length of its paltry life in a factory farm, never knowing the sun on its skin or the rudimentary of its life.............
variation is a good thing i agree, but excess is not. and that's what we find today in the excessive world we live in. and if we didn't demand bacon for breakfast, chicken for lunch and beef for dinner, we wouldn't have this excessive amount of animals being tortured and kept under 'unatural' circumstances. in france alone, 200 million animals are slaughtered each year for the consumption of immoral humans...............
humans are overindulging on the suffering of animals...........
it is a proven fact that meat causes cancers............
did you ever hear of a person contracting cancer from eating lettuce?........
fruits and vegetables, give themselves readily for consumption..........they fall from the trees or wait to be pulled from the earth........
a cow, or a chicken, or a duck, or a turkey or a pig doesn't offer up its throat to be slit........................
perhaps you should watch the video 'meet your meat' and then decide whether myself and john ellis are the ones of moral superiority..........
btw, i don't take supplements.............i have no need. i get all the vitamins and minerals i require from my vegetable/fruit diet..........
as for protein, all vegetables have a certain amount of it.............
and please don't insult me with the protein of animals.........
hindus who never eat meat from birth are not dying from lack of it...........
bio fuels to me are like factory farming..............
i notice too you didn't mention our nearest relatives the chimpanzees........
>>redballoon wrote: "Compare the dentition of an herbivore"<<
Yes, indeed, redballoon. Let's compare. Not just the teeth, but some more anatomy as well. As it's late, I'm going to copy some of my post on this topic from an earlier article:
"UN Urges Global Move to Meat and Dairy-Free Diet"
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/02-7
"If humans were truly meant to be carnivores, we would be having sharp, retractable claws (instead of nails on our fingers and toes - that are closer to the hooves of herbivores than to the claws of carnivores). If you look at our teeth, we would be having strong canines and incisors, instead of strong molars (that allow us to chew plant food - you know, like the herbivorous animals do). There's no way we can tear into even a squirrel or a rabbit - assuming you manage to catch them without hunting tools or traps - because our incisors and canines are not strong enough, and our jaws do not open wide enough. We would be lapping up water with our tongues (like cats, dogs, tigers, etc.), instead of sipping water to drink (like most herbivores do while drinking - including horses, cows, deer, etc.). Our night vision would be strong, our sense of smell would be strong, etc., that would allow hunting and scavenging. You mentioned multiple stomach chambers (or something like that) on a different post below. Yes - we differ on that count from the cows, but we do share one thing with the herbivores: our alimentary canal is pretty long - starting from our mouth through the esophagus, stomach, the colon and all the way to the anus - almost seven times our body length, so the plant food can be digested thoroughly. In contrast, the carnivores have *much* shorter alimentary canals, so the undigested meat can be excreted out quickly - otherwise it would start rotting while still inside."
>>"Look at the Inuit, who eat only meat."<<
It's true, their diet has a much larger share of meat. But I haven't heard of them being cited as role models when it comes to a healthy lifestyle or for sound health in old age. In any case, they are able to live on a largely meat-based diet only if there is a small population and an abundance of animals for hunting. It's as simple as that. The ecological footprint of a meat-based diet is much larger than that of a vegan diet - simply because of eating higher up the food chain. I cannot imagine such a diet being remotely practical in most parts of the world today.
If anything, humans are only "opportunistic meat eaters" like some other animals are, but to call them omnivores would be wrong - as such behavior in nature is exhibited only in times of scarcity of plant food.
>>redballoon September 4th, 2010 6:45 pm wrote: "Compare the dentition of an herbivore - say, a deer, a steer, a donkey. You will find enormous differences between herbivore teeth and those of humans."<<
I find this a pretty audacious but FALSE claim to make. Almost like calling Obama a socialist, and perhaps with the same type of intent to mislead and misinform. I take it as evidence of the meat industry adopting the same tactics of the climate change denial industry, and similar spreading of talking points containing falsehoods to create confusion using "scientific sounding", but bogus arguments.
I'm sorry redballoon, but if you did not intend to deliberately misinform, I hope you'll consider the following. From
"The Comparative Anatomy Of Eating" - by Milton R. Mills, M.D.
www.unwesen.de/pages/veganism/resources/the_comparative_anatomy_of_eating
and also at
www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html
>>"Oral Cavity
Carnivores have a wide mouth opening in relation to their head size. This confers obvious advantages in developing the forces used in seizing, killing and dismembering prey. Facial musculature is reduced since these muscles would hinder a wide gape, and play no part in the animal's preparation of food for swallowing. In all mammalian carnivores, the jaw joint is a simple hinge joint lying in the same plane as the teeth. This type of joint is extremely stable and acts as the pivot point for the "lever arms" formed by the upper and lower jaws. The primary muscle used for operating the jaw in carnivores is the temporalis muscle. This muscle is so massive in carnivores that it accounts for most of the bulk of the sides of the head (when you pet a dog, you are petting its temporalis muscles). The "angle" of the mandible (lower jaw) in carnivores is small. This is because the muscles (masseter and pterygoids) that attach there are of minor importance in these animals. The lower jaw of carnivores cannot move forward, and has very limited side-to-side motion. When the jaw of a carnivore closes, the blade-shaped cheek molars slide past each other to give a slicing motion that is very effective for shearing meat off bone.
The teeth of a carnivore are discretely spaced so as not to trap stringy debris. The incisors are short, pointed and prong-like and are used for grasping and shredding. The canines are greatly elongated and dagger-like for stabbing, tearing and killing prey. The molars (carnassials) are flattened and triangular with jagged edges such that they function like serrated-edged blades. Because of the hinge-type joint, when a carnivore closes its jaw, the cheek teeth come together in a back-to-front fashion giving a smooth cutting motion like the blades on a pair of shears.
The saliva of carnivorous animals does not contain digestive enzymes. When eating, a mammalian carnivore gorges itself rapidly and does not chew its food. Since proteolytic (protein-digesting) enzymes cannot be liberated in the mouth due to the danger of autodigestion (damaging the oral cavity), carnivores do not need to mix their food with saliva; they simply bite off huge chunks of meat and swallow them whole.
According to evolutionary theory, the anatomical features consistent with an herbivorous diet represent a more recently derived condition than that of the carnivore. Herbivorous mammals have well-developed facial musculature, fleshy lips, a relatively small opening into the oral cavity and a thickened, muscular tongue. The lips aid in the movement of food into the mouth and, along with the facial (cheek) musculature and tongue, assist in the chewing of food. In herbivores, the jaw joint has moved to position above the plane of the teeth. Although this type of joint is less stable than the hinge-type joint of the carnivore, it is much more mobile and allows the complex jaw motions needed when chewing plant foods. Additionally, this type of jaw joint allows the upper and lower cheek teeth to come together along the length of the jaw more or less at once when the mouth is closed in order to form grinding platforms. (This type of joint is so important to a plant-eating animal, that it is believed to have evolved at least 15 different times in various plant-eating mammalian species.) The angle of the mandible has expanded to provide a broad area of attachment for the well-developed masseter and pterygoid muscles (these are the major muscles of chewing in plant-eating animals). The temporalis muscle is small and of minor importance. The masseter and pterygoid muscles hold the mandible in a sling-like arrangement and swing the jaw from side-to-side. Accordingly, the lower jaw of plant-eating mammals has a pronounced sideways motion when eating. This lateral movement is necessary for the grinding motion of chewing.
The dentition of herbivores is quite varied depending on the kind of vegetation a particular species is adapted to eat. Although these animals differ in the types and numbers of teeth they posses, the various kinds of teeth when present, share common structural features. The incisors are broad, flattened and spade-like. Canines may be small as in horses, prominent as in hippos, pigs and some primates (these are thought to be used for defense) or absent altogether. The molars, in general, are squared and flattened on top to provide a grinding surface. The molars cannot vertically slide past one another in a shearing/slicing motion, but they do horizontally slide across one another to crush and grind. The surface features of the molars vary depending on the type of plant material the animal eats. The teeth of herbivorous animals are closely grouped so that the incisors form an efficient cropping/biting mechanism, and the upper and lower molars form extended platforms for crushing and grinding. The "walled-in" oral cavity has a lot of potential space that is realized during eating.
These animals carefully and methodically chew their food, pushing the food back and forth into the grinding teeth with the tongue and cheek muscles. This thorough process is necessary to mechanically disrupt plant cell walls in order to release the digestible intracellular contents and ensure thorough mixing of this material with their saliva. This is important because the saliva of plant-eating mammals often contains carbohydrate-digesting enzymes which begin breaking down food molecules while the food is still in the mouth."<<
There is further discussion on the following:
Stomach and Small Intestine
Colon
What About Omnivores?
What About Me?
So please do check out the link(s) to read the rest of the discussion.
And here's a summary chart:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/anatomy_mills.htm
The conclusion is clear: the anatomy of humans is way more close to herbivores, and any linkage with omnivores is clearly a contrived one. Humans evolved as "opportunistic meat eaters" in times of scarcity of plant food - completely different from being "omnivores".
thank you alcyon for posting that link.........i was looking for it and couldn't find it.
We do not have a second stomach, like cows. But we can cook vegetable food to make it digestible.
Joe
Actually, jclientelle, if you read my post above and check out the link(s) there (Alcyon September 5th, 2010 7:10 am), you can see that human anatomy is perfectly suited to eat raw, vegan food - no cooking needed! We a eat different type of plant food, of course. The human digestive system is just right for eating plant food: starting with the digestive enzymes in our saliva, to our teeth designed for chewing our food before swallowing, to a stomach acidity that's just right for plant food, to a long small intestine (10 times the body length), we don't need to cook many vegetables just to make them digestible. Maybe humans have migrated into areas that have various types of vegetables, some of which may need cooking, but it is completely possible to live off raw, vegan food too. And I know someone like that who has a normal, everyday life and others who are making the switch.
All herbivores do not have multiple stomach chambers - so that is not a point of contention at all. In fact, if anything, it should be pointed out that
"Milk is nature's food for a baby calf, who has four stomachs, will double its weight in 47 days and is destined to weigh 300 pounds within a year. ... The Dairy Council tells children: To grow up big and strong, drink lots of milk. The Dairy Council occasionally tells children: The enzyme necessary for digestion of milk is lactase. The Dairy Council never tells children: 20% of Caucasian children and 80% of Black children have no lactase in their intestines." - (From "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins)
Other ethnic groups too have varying levels of lactase deficiency and the resultant lactose intolerance.
In countries like Canada people don't spend a penny on doctor bills, no matter how they eat!
Also, most US males don't see doctors until old age, while I have heard of plenty of vegetarians and vegans getting cancer and dying young. Diet is just one of the factors in determining health.
Over 90% of illness in America is due to a high fat diet, over 50% of calories fat on the average. Average vegetarian is no different in this regard.
Also, most vegetarians in America eat dairy products, eggs, processed foods and junk food.
SaboCat, you have "heard of plenty of vegetarians and vegans getting cancer and dying young"?
Really? I think you are just making this up. :)
I'm not saying that's an impossibility, because certain types of cancer can be a result of exposure to hazardous materials or radiation. But if you are talking of the more common types of cancer, I would really like to know how many exactly you can remember of such "vegetarians and vegans getting cancer and dying young".
John_Ellis, I salute you, man! Seriously! Take good care of your health. Check out vegan dishes from other countries too. If you can eat spicy food, try some simple Indian dishes. I think you deserve to eat more variety.
GENOCIDE BY STARVATION -- WILL IT BACKFIRE?
Up until now the rich have used starvation to genocide away the uneducated laboring class. For the most educated army wins a war and the most educated workforce wins in the global economy.
But at some point in time the educated middle-class will catch on to the reality -- that they are next. Especially in a recession, for the rich will always need a certain amount of laboring class to do the dirty and most undesirable work. Whereas the slave-driver middle-class, when they start to out number the slaves who do the work, guess what do you think will happen next?
No, not "up until now" - to this very day. Look at Gaza, Sudan, Haiti, the plantation nations of Central America and Asia - that's the strategy: toss'em out and starve'em. If they complain, a nice massacre (call'em commies) will tidy things up.
Soylent Green. Monsanto. Cargill, Wall Street, IMF, WB WTO. The food supply is political. After Rome suffered food riots, the senators realized that to keep the population tranquil, all they had to do was make sure bread was cheap and plentiful, and circuses free.
Deja vu, deja vu. Keep watching America's Got Talent and pass the Wonderbread. You realize, of course, that the prices of bread and milk are being kept down artificially for the very same reason.
How much of the rise in costs of food is due to farm subsidies and commodities speculation, if any?
Commodities speculation yes, very much so, subsidies no, as they lower prices.
Correct. Our government wants cheap food so that riots like happening now don't happen here. Therefore, it is thought that farm subsidies help to do that.....but they do enrich farmers and farmers abuse them -- especially large corporate farms. Gov. tries to limit farm subsidies by imposing tops but farmers just split up there farms between farmer and his wife or sons or daughters, or corporate farms make two or three corps to get more subsidies. When commodity prices go up, farmers make out like bandits. All states grow some crops so farm subsidies will not go away.
People pay higher taxes because of farm so that should be factored into the price of food, although it would probably be small.
What makes a farm a "corporate farm?" Big? Row crops yield a low profit for acre and are mechanized to improve productivity, so naturally those growing row crops have grown larger. Most of the profit, almost all of it, in the food system does not go to any farmers, nor do farmers have much control over the food system. If any farmers were being enriched, or making out like bandits we would not have a steadily declining number of farmers.
People pay taxes so we can have water, roads, schools and a myriad of other things of public benefit. Why not food? What is the difference?
I favor a massive expansion of the food subsidies. I think all farm land should be public land, and all food production subsidized, and all of the population fed at public expense myself.
Liberals and progressives don't like farmers - there is a stereotype of fat, redneck, Republican voting, gun toting, fundies - and liberals and progressives have upscale gourmet dining preferences and liberals and progressives are largely suburban and divorced from and ignorant about the realities of farming and feeding the population. That is what 90% of the food activism is about.
I am a conservative and a farmer. I have seen first hand how the system is abused. Isn't it funny that conservatives would want to give handouts to farmers? You say liberals are against it, conservatives should be against it, too. Farms are diminishing in numbers because the big boys are getting bigger and bigger and smaller farms are continually being bought by corporate farmers. Why are small farms being bought out by bigger farms? Because farming is so profitable, that's why.
Government policies that enrich farmers have for the most part enabled big farmers to get bigger. Big farms should be limited in the subsidies they receive and the gov. has tried to do that. But, as I stated, the system is abused and abused and abused. When the gov. tried to cap paymens, one of my neighbors create a "shell" corporation, rented half his land from his first corp. and doubled his farm subsidies. If that ain't abuse, what is?
Well, get rid of them then. Everyone here is moving to a vegetarian diet anyway.
The country has lost its collective mind and is heading over the cliff and no doubt there is no stopping that.
Me? I'm sticking with farming, since apparently it is the shortest path to fabulous wealth. Someone needs to let Willie Nelson and the rest of the "save the farms" people in on the news.
Every government system is abused and abused by the wealthy few. But that is OK, we will just get id of government and all of our problems will be solved.
the first link doesn't work for me.........
and ultimately, what can the un do?................
There is nothing to say except, time to wake up and take action. On October 2, 2010 many unions will gather on Washington to protest for better wages and more action by these politicians, we have to unite and have one voice. What is happening in Mozambique is only the start of what is ahead if we do nothing. It is time to walk the walk. I hope to see you all there.
MUST WE EAT DEAD FLESH TO BE HEALTHY?
Redballoon
“You will find enormous differences between
vegetarian animals teeth and those of humans.”
LIGHT
Humans eat mostly cooked foods and many things no other animal eats, such as beans, grains, spinach, beets, potatoes, etc;.
Redballoon
“As well, ruminants have up to 4 stomachs for processing
cellulose and other sugars impossible for humans to digest.”
LIGHT
So perfect is the human digestive system for metabolizing the diet of a pure vegetarian, one who eats nothing processed by man or animal, why, its almost as if it was created by intelligent design.
Redballoon
“May I also point out that in order to keep the rest of your
family happy about being in the same room or bed with you…”
LIGHT
Any change in diet requires two weeks for the digestive system to develop the right enzymes. Suggestions: don’t eat too many nuts and seeds; eat fruit only for breakfast and vegetables only at dinner; eliminate all snacks; eat only two meals and at a set time of the day.
Redballoon
“We are omnivores. We evolved from pure vegetarianism
many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Look at the Inuit,
who eat only meat.”
LIGHT
No religion please. Both evolution and creation are religions as both require blind faith to except.
Redballoon
“The simple fact that you need supplements to deal
with a veggie diet is an indicator that you are in error.”
LIGHT
Over 35 years a vegetarian, raised a family of five and not one penny on food supplements, herbs, drugs or doctor bills.
POOR MAN’S VEGETARIAN
For breakfast eat fresh fruit over oatmeal. Dinner eat lentil stew with natural brown rich and vegetables. Only two meals a day, no snacks and drink only water.
"For breakfast eat fresh fruit over oatmeal. Dinner eat lentil stew with natural brown rich and vegetables. Only two meals a day, no snacks and drink only water."
So, you eat only that - day in and day out?