More than growing, selling and buying
This class (World Food Economy), taught by Ellen McCullough during Spring 2019, focused heavily on the economics of global food and fiber production, trade and consumption. However, I learned about much more than just how food (i.e. meat, vegetables, etc.) and fiber (i.e. grains, wheat, oats, rice, etc.) are grown, sold and bought. I learned that there are complex systems and institutions intertwined with the world food economy, such as varying cultures and thus varying preferences, developed and developing countries, causes and effects of food insecurity, political influences on economies and vice versa, and various relationships between environmental sustainability and food markets.
With all that being said, I’d never really thought about how food markets are both driven by and the driving force of so many different things. For instance, I never considered how culture and tradition affects a country’s agricultural exports and imports, or how a subtle change in the market can indirectly affect a country. For example, China is the second largest beef importer in the world, as beef is the main meat found in Chinese cuisine. Thus, when soybean prices rise, the beef supply decreases (because soybean meal is an important component of cattle feed), and places like China are hit harder than other places that import beef. This is just one example of hundreds in which consumer preferences based on culture are interconnected with the rise and fall of prices. What may seem insignificant to one country or community might heavily impact another, either directly or indirectly.
While I think the complex interconnections within the world food economy are interesting, one of the biggest takeaways I got from this class is that food markets stem from agriculture, and agriculture is the basis of a country’s success (socially, economically and environmentally speaking). In developing countries, there are almost always poor agricultural systems in place, in which unsustainable farming methods and lack of leadership in regard to what to farm and how to farm advantageously are common. Furthermore, since there are no strong trade markets to stimulate the economy, domestic consumers don’t have the means to support each other, and, in turn, are poor. Thus, they spend a significantly larger portion of their income on food (whereas in developed countries, food expenditures account for a relatively small fraction of consumers’ incomes). These factors determine whether people are food secure or food insecure and greatly influence the overall strength and wellbeing of a country/community.
Overall, this class made me realize, once again, that looking at the bigger picture is essential when considering the implications of a particular food market or change within that food market- does that change impact the environment in some way? What are the short-term vs. the long-term impacts? Does it help one group of people but harm another? Does it stimulate the economy? Does it bring people the food they need in an accessible, affordable manner?
Importantly, another question to ask is if there are ways the government can help align the social, economic and environmental spheres of a particular food market? That was a significant aspect of this class- learning about the vast implications of policies. Nonetheless, if there’s anything I learned about policy, it’s that it is an essential tool in the toolkit for change. But, as always, it has to be considered in the context of a bigger picture. That is sustainability at its core- studying one piece of a puzzle while simultaneously studying the puzzle as a whole.
Moving forward, if and when I have the opportunity to influence policy or change something within a complex system, I will definitely look beyond what’s right in front of me.
ARTIFACT
In this group project, I actually did look at a piece of a puzzle while simultaneously looking at the puzzle as a whole (it’s an analysis of the Global Food Security Act from 2016 ):