The Uncomfortable Truth About Quinoa
#21
(01-20-2013, 11:22 AM)Clone Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 10:17 AM)orygunluvr Wrote: You don't read much do you? The land quinoa is grown on is useless otherwise. It's land that is already drought stricken and has poor nutritional value for growing. That's what makes it perfect for quinoa. It has helped small, poor family farmers have a little bit if financial security and be able to afford a few things we take for granted.

But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.

In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there.


I know, let them eat cake.
(sigh)

Read more, due to their unfounded riches the normally poor farmers now are getting westernized in their diets as well as being able to be mechanized in their production. The concerns with that is their bodies aren't used to our diet and there lands depend on the llama doing the work and fertilizing their lands.

But we get it, blame the republicans next. It's all Bushs fault, right? Or the NRA, the Koch brothers, Sarah Palin, the Romney klan, etc. oh, and they do eat cake now, as well as drink Pepsi.
Reply
#22
We'll understand this more when nobody local can afford Dungeness crab anymore because it's all going to Japan. Or, our logs, say.
Reply
#23
(01-20-2013, 11:22 AM)PonderThis Wrote: I googled several stories on it. That's why I told you you were right. I don't just hand those out, you know. Smiling

p.s. I even googled quinoa's growing requirements, and about it being grown experimentally in the northwest and Canada.

They're even looking at Canada next for production. THAT would ruin the current way of life for the people of the Andes. Quite possibly even their old way of life by creating a different source of quinoa, making theirs unneeded.
Reply
#24
(01-20-2013, 11:34 AM)PonderThis Wrote: We'll understand this more when nobody local can afford Dungeness crab anymore because it's all going to Japan. Or, our logs, say.

They aren't eating it because they can't afford it. They quit eating it because they now can afford something else.
Reply
#25
(01-20-2013, 11:30 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:22 AM)Clone Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 10:17 AM)orygunluvr Wrote: You don't read much do you? The land quinoa is grown on is useless otherwise. It's land that is already drought stricken and has poor nutritional value for growing. That's what makes it perfect for quinoa. It has helped small, poor family farmers have a little bit if financial security and be able to afford a few things we take for granted.

But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.

In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there.


I know, let them eat cake.
(sigh)

Read more, due to their unfounded riches the normally poor farmers now are getting westernized in their diets as well as being able to be mechanized in their production. The concerns with that is their bodies aren't used to our diet and there lands depend on the llama doing the work and fertilizing their lands.

But we get it, blame the republicans next. It's all Bushs fault, right? Or the NRA, the Koch brothers, Sarah Palin, the Romney klan, etc. oh, and they do eat cake now, as well as drink Pepsi.



Read more. ...poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper."

But that's okay because the farmers, particularly the ones who already had the money and resources to operate larger farms, are getting richer, while the poor starve.
Reply
#26
(01-20-2013, 11:36 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:34 AM)PonderThis Wrote: We'll understand this more when nobody local can afford Dungeness crab anymore because it's all going to Japan. Or, our logs, say.

They aren't eating it because they can't afford it. They quit eating it because they now can afford something else.

From the article posted:
In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken.
Reply
#27
(01-20-2013, 11:40 AM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:36 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:34 AM)PonderThis Wrote: We'll understand this more when nobody local can afford Dungeness crab anymore because it's all going to Japan. Or, our logs, say.

They aren't eating it because they can't afford it. They quit eating it because they now can afford something else.

From the article posted:
In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken.

Unbelievable, people commenting, or babbling as the case may be on articles they never read or if they did, they didn't or couldn't comprehend because it goes against their preconceived ideas.

Of course there are many other crops that are taking a toll on peoples and the environment; Palm oil and sugar for starters.
Reply
#28
(01-20-2013, 10:03 AM)orygunluvr Wrote: Another consequence of quinoa and the land and the people is that it is providing some financial security for those farmers that had otherwise useless patches of soil.

Except that it's taking away the food source from the idigenous people who are not eating anymore because the farming you speak of has made it to expensive. Cheaper junk food has replaced it. So, yes, they still eat, but they have lost something just the same and had to replace it with something less nutritious. Fair trade off?
Reply
#29
(01-20-2013, 11:40 AM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:36 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:34 AM)PonderThis Wrote: We'll understand this more when nobody local can afford Dungeness crab anymore because it's all going to Japan. Or, our logs, say.

They aren't eating it because they can't afford it. They quit eating it because they now can afford something else.

From the article posted:
In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken.

And in the other article from the guardian it says that the Peruvians now have more than they ever have and have been westernized in their diets.
It's amazing that people make off handed comments about something they know no more about than they "gleaned" from a forum.
Reply
#30
It's not that what you are saying OL is untrue, but the ethical questions remain. For you, it seems to be ethically a no brainer. I think it's more complicated than that.
Reply
#31
(01-20-2013, 12:25 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:40 AM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:36 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 11:34 AM)PonderThis Wrote: We'll understand this more when nobody local can afford Dungeness crab anymore because it's all going to Japan. Or, our logs, say.

They aren't eating it because they can't afford it. They quit eating it because they now can afford something else.

From the article posted:
In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken.

And in the other article from the guardian it says that the Peruvians now have more than they ever have and have been westernized in their diets.
It's amazing that people make off handed comments about something they know no more about than they "gleaned" from a forum.


Also, in the article from the Guardian it says:

Quote:Daysi Munoz, who runs a La Paz-based quinoa farming collective, agrees. "As the price has risen quinoa is consumed less and less in Bolivia. It's worth more to them [the producers] to sell it or trade it for pasta and rice. As a result, they're not eating it any more."

Bitter battles are being fought over prime quinoa-growing land. Last February dozens of people were hurt when farmers fought with slings and sticks of dynamite over what was once abandoned land.

Many people who migrated to cities in search of a better life are now returning to their arid homeland to grow royal quinoa, says Mejia. Most land is communally owned, she adds, so "the government needs to set out the boundaries or there will be more conflicts".

...

Meanwhile in the Peruvian capital, Lima, shoppers at food markets complain quinoa is becoming a luxury product. Selling at around 10 Peruvian soles per kg (£2.44) it costs more than chicken (7.8 soles per kg) and four times as much as rice. Official figures show domestic consumption has dropped.

...

Peru's telegenic first lady, Nadine Heredia, is championing a colourful campaign to promote the Andean diet, of which quinoa is a key element, to combat infant malnutrition.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan...-peru-crop
Reply
#32
(01-20-2013, 12:27 PM)Tiamat Wrote: It's not that what you are saying OL is untrue, but the ethical questions remain. For you, it seems to be ethically a no brainer. I think it's more complicated than that.

The guardian produced 2 articles, days apart, that contradict one another. Which one do we lay stake in? Apparently if it isn't the one in the op we are condemned to an eternity of hell and fire.
Reply
#33
(01-20-2013, 12:48 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:27 PM)Tiamat Wrote: It's not that what you are saying OL is untrue, but the ethical questions remain. For you, it seems to be ethically a no brainer. I think it's more complicated than that.

The guardian produced 2 articles, days apart, that contradict one another. Which one do we lay stake in? Apparently if it isn't the one in the op we are condemned to an eternity of hell and fire.


Actually, as I quoted from the article YOU told us to google, both articles say a lot of the same things about how it's hurting the poor.

Your article just also talks about how it's helping farmers, the middle class, and the rich.
Reply
#34
(01-19-2013, 10:21 PM)Clone Wrote:
(01-19-2013, 09:48 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Just discussing this on my other forum. However, I must confess to never having had quinoa. But if you want to eat local what are your parameters? Wheat? Corn? Rice? Are you eating local? I doubt I am.

I have some but haven't made it yet.
It's supposed to be really good for me because of the high protein.
Tiamat, I'm just as questioning as you about this.
I don't know what our parameters should be.
I'm just to the point of understanding how it's all going wrong.
I love organic brown rice from the Sacto Valley...that's local, right?
And someone needs to start farming quinoa.
Hmmm...parameters.
I'd have to include California rice and artichokes. Confused
Maybe Idaho potatoes...although there's those great big delicious ones from
Klamath.
Locavore usually means within a hundred mile radius. We are better off than most, but it is still next to impossible year round. Your rice wouldn't qualify, neither would the Idaho potatoes, but Klamath ones would. There has been a movement to grow wheat locally, which Sunstone bakery uses.
Here's 2 links which are connected:
http://www.buylocalrogue.org/

https://www.localfoodmarketplace.com/roguevalley/

And just for the record, Quinoa is nasty stuff. It should be banned. Big Grin
Reply
#35
(01-20-2013, 12:50 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:48 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:27 PM)Tiamat Wrote: It's not that what you are saying OL is untrue, but the ethical questions remain. For you, it seems to be ethically a no brainer. I think it's more complicated than that.

The guardian produced 2 articles, days apart, that contradict one another. Which one do we lay stake in? Apparently if it isn't the one in the op we are condemned to an eternity of hell and fire.


Actually, as I quoted from the article YOU told us to google, both articles say a lot of the same things about how it's hurting the poor.

Your article just also talks about how it's helping farmers, the middle class, and the rich.

No, it says how it has helped the poorest get much needed nutrition from the government because revenue is up, and the poorest of the areas are now able to generate income from growing and selling quinoa.
Reply
#36
(01-20-2013, 01:38 PM)bbqboy Wrote:
(01-19-2013, 10:21 PM)Clone Wrote:
(01-19-2013, 09:48 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Just discussing this on my other forum. However, I must confess to never having had quinoa. But if you want to eat local what are your parameters? Wheat? Corn? Rice? Are you eating local? I doubt I am.

I have some but haven't made it yet.
It's supposed to be really good for me because of the high protein.
Tiamat, I'm just as questioning as you about this.
I don't know what our parameters should be.
I'm just to the point of understanding how it's all going wrong.
I love organic brown rice from the Sacto Valley...that's local, right?
And someone needs to start farming quinoa.
Hmmm...parameters.
I'd have to include California rice and artichokes. Confused
Maybe Idaho potatoes...although there's those great big delicious ones from
Klamath.
Locavore usually means within a hundred mile radius. We are better off than most, but it is still next to impossible year round. Your rice wouldn't qualify, neither would the Idaho potatoes, but Klamath ones would. There has been a movement to grow wheat locally, which Sunstone bakery uses.
Here's 2 links which are connected:
http://www.buylocalrogue.org/

https://www.localfoodmarketplace.com/roguevalley/

And just for the record, Quinoa is nasty stuff. It should be banned. Big Grin

Boy is a chow hound and always has been, he HATES quinoa.
Reply
#37
Smart kid. Like eating gravel.
Reply
#38
(01-20-2013, 01:39 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:50 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:48 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:27 PM)Tiamat Wrote: It's not that what you are saying OL is untrue, but the ethical questions remain. For you, it seems to be ethically a no brainer. I think it's more complicated than that.

The guardian produced 2 articles, days apart, that contradict one another. Which one do we lay stake in? Apparently if it isn't the one in the op we are condemned to an eternity of hell and fire.


Actually, as I quoted from the article YOU told us to google, both articles say a lot of the same things about how it's hurting the poor.

Your article just also talks about how it's helping farmers, the middle class, and the rich.

No, it says how it has helped the poorest get much needed nutrition from the government because revenue is up, and the poorest of the areas are now able to generate income from growing and selling quinoa.


From your article:
Quote:That global demand means less quinoa is being eaten in Bolivia and Peru, the countries of origin, as the price has tripled. There are concerns this could cause malnutrition as producers, who have long relied on the superfood to supplement their meagre diets, would rather sell their entire crop than eat it. The rocketing international price is also creating land disputes.

Quote:Meanwhile in the Peruvian capital, Lima, shoppers at food markets complain quinoa is becoming a luxury product. Selling at around 10 Peruvian soles per kg (£2.44) it costs more than chicken (7.8 soles per kg) and four times as much as rice. Official figures show domestic consumption has dropped.

"Unfortunately in poorer areas they don't have access to products such as quinoa and it's becoming more and more expensive," Peru's vice-minister for agriculture, Juan Rheineck, said at a breakfast for under-fives at the Casa de los Petisos children's home in Lima. The children are fed boiled eggs and quinoa and apple punch, part of a government programme to promote nutritious breakfasts. "That's what we have to avoid, we have to produce better and more," he said.

Yes, the poor farmers are making more money by selling off their superfood which helps them maintain proper nutrition. They're eating a westernized diet which is also causing concerns of malnutrition.

Then, there are all the poor who AREN'T farmers. They aren't making more money, and they can no longer afford this extremely nutritious food item which was once a staple of their diet.

All of this contributes to harm to these people. Which is the claim both articles make.
Reply
#39
(01-20-2013, 01:48 PM)bbqboy Wrote: Smart kid. Like eating gravel.

Pasty gravel with slime gravy.
Reply
#40
(01-20-2013, 01:56 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 01:39 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:50 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:48 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-20-2013, 12:27 PM)Tiamat Wrote: It's not that what you are saying OL is untrue, but the ethical questions remain. For you, it seems to be ethically a no brainer. I think it's more complicated than that.

The guardian produced 2 articles, days apart, that contradict one another. Which one do we lay stake in? Apparently if it isn't the one in the op we are condemned to an eternity of hell and fire.


Actually, as I quoted from the article YOU told us to google, both articles say a lot of the same things about how it's hurting the poor.

Your article just also talks about how it's helping farmers, the middle class, and the rich.

No, it says how it has helped the poorest get much needed nutrition from the government because revenue is up, and the poorest of the areas are now able to generate income from growing and selling quinoa.


From your article:
Quote:That global demand means less quinoa is being eaten in Bolivia and Peru, the countries of origin, as the price has tripled. There are concerns this could cause malnutrition as producers, who have long relied on the superfood to supplement their meagre diets, would rather sell their entire crop than eat it. The rocketing international price is also creating land disputes.

Quote:Meanwhile in the Peruvian capital, Lima, shoppers at food markets complain quinoa is becoming a luxury product. Selling at around 10 Peruvian soles per kg (£2.44) it costs more than chicken (7.8 soles per kg) and four times as much as rice. Official figures show domestic consumption has dropped.

"Unfortunately in poorer areas they don't have access to products such as quinoa and it's becoming more and more expensive," Peru's vice-minister for agriculture, Juan Rheineck, said at a breakfast for under-fives at the Casa de los Petisos children's home in Lima. The children are fed boiled eggs and quinoa and apple punch, part of a government programme to promote nutritious breakfasts. "That's what we have to avoid, we have to produce better and more," he said.

Yes, the poor farmers are making more money by selling off their superfood which helps them maintain proper nutrition. They're eating a westernized diet which is also causing concerns of malnutrition.

Then, there are all the poor who AREN'T farmers. They aren't making more money, and they can no longer afford this extremely nutritious food item which was once a staple of their diet.

All of this contributes to harm to these people. Which is the claim both articles make.

Also from the article. Or is this the wrong kind of anecdotal evidence?

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/quinoa-brings...the-andes/
Quote:Quinoa brings riches to the Andes

:snip:

Peru’s government cut chronic malnutrition in under-fives nationally to 16.5 percent in 2011 but it is still widely prevalent in poorer Andean regions. According to the World Bank, 27.2 percent of under-fives in Bolivia suffered chronic malnutrition in 2008.

Peru’s telegenic First Lady, Nadine Heredia, is championing a colourful campaign to promote the Andean diet, of which quinoa is a key element, to combat infant malnutrition. In 2012 Peru banked nearly $35 million from quinoa exports, tripling what it earned three years ago. In Bolivia exports tripled to around 23,000 tonnes, contributing some $85 million to the country’s economy, Vásquez said.

But experts say both countries need to boost production to meet the rising external demand and provide the grain at lower prices for internal consumption. Bolivia, which produces nearly half the global supply, says it has given more than $5 million in credits to 70,000 quinoa producers and wants to industrialise production to bring added value rather than just exporting the raw material.

Hydrocarbons and minerals are Bolivia’s two key exports, but Mejia believes if the country aggressively promoted quinoa agriculture “in 10 years it could easily surpass the income from gas and minerals”.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)