This post is also available in: Spanish
By Kyle Navis, MCC Bolivia.
2013 has been declared the International Year of the Quinoa, by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in conjunction with government of Bolivia, “recognizing the Andean indigenous peoples, who have maintained, controlled, protected and preserved quinoa as food for present and future generations thanks to their traditional knowledge and practices of living well in harmony with mother earth and nature.”
Quinoa is a pseudo-cereal, not actually a grain because it is not a member of the grass family. The quinoa plant’s edible seeds are highly nutritious, gluten-free and with a protein content of around 14%, it is earning more and more plaudits as a kind of “super-food.” Thus the Bolivian government is working to encourage quinoa production as a source of export income and economic growth in the Altiplano, frequently a region of Bolivia that struggles economically.
International Markets
The FAO and Bolivia have certainly encountered some initial successes in their various efforts to improve quinoa’s global profile as demand has increased, and with it, the global price of quinoa. In turn, articles are turning up in a variety of high-profile news outlets such as the Guardian, NPR, and CBC, lamenting the effects of the rising price of quinoa on those who depend on it for nutrition in the producing countries (primarily Peru and Bolivia).
The Guardian’s piece in particular offers a vigorous moral critique about the effects of Global Northerners prizing and eating quinoa. Says author Joanna Blythman:
“…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 fueled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.”
Local Food
The issue of imported junk and even staple foods being cheaper than locally produced and grown is a problem that resonates throughout Latin America. The North American Free Trade Agreement is notorious for wiping out domestic maize production by Mexican and Central American farmers as cheap, government subsidized US corn was dumped on the market. Likewise, the development of monocultures in agriculture is a challenge to food sovereignty as one highly profitable crop encroaches on other crops necessary to maintaining a nutritious diet. Blythman goes on and notes,
“…In the case of quinoa, there’s a ghastly irony when the Andean peasant’s staple grain becomes too expensive at home because it has acquired hero product status among affluent foreigners preoccupied with personal health, animal welfare and reducing their carbon “footprint”. Viewed through a lens of food security, our current enthusiasm for quinoa looks increasingly misplaced.”
Blythman is correct to bring up the question of food security as prices increase in producing countries. How will this affect the countries of origin and their ability to develop domestic production and self-sustainability in food? MCC is also concerned with these questions and in the past year have focused on implementing an agricultural development model throughout Central America that highly emphasizes conservation of resources, nutrients, and soils.
More/better food or higher incomes?
The problem with all of these articles and especially Blythman’s, is that they tend to overlook or turn a blind eye to a highly desired outcome of price increases: farmers are also earning more money for their crops. As Latin America continues to urbanize at enormous rates, rural regions especially deal with the effects of underdevelopment, lack of growth, and inequitable distribution of resources, it is important to remember that the rising price of quinoa represents a success for its farmers and a goal met for those organizations working to support the livelihoods of farmers in rural Bolivia and Peru.
What do you think? Is it better for the price of quinoa to be affordable for the wider population in Bolivia and Peru or for farmers to gain the full benefits of a higher price? Is there another option?
I support the freedom of the farmers to earn as much as they can for their product and see this as an example of success. Those farmers are a positive example to those who are still poor about how it is possible to do better economically. I would never support the idea of those in other countries who want to eat quinoa for whatever reason to stop doing so in order for it to be more affordable for low income people in Bolivia and Peru. Quinoa is a very healthy food and it is an excellent source of protein for vegetarians and vegans who don’t consume meat. Not consuming meat is more humane for animals and results in more food for people and less stress on the environment. Let the market be free and work itself out. That results in the greater good for more in the long run.
I support the freedom of the farmers to earn as much as they can for their product and see this as an example of success. Those farmers are a positive example to those who are still poor about how it is possible to do better economically. I would never support the idea of those in other countries who want to eat quinoa for whatever reason to stop doing so in order for it to be more affordable for low income people in Bolivia and Peru. Quinoa is a very healthy food and it is an excellent source of protein for vegetarians and vegans who don’t consume meat. Not consuming meat is more humane for animals and results in more food for people and less stress on the environment. Let the market be free and work itself out. That results in the greater good for more in the long run.
I’d be interested in learning more about Bolivia’s land reform policies, the government’s emphasis on preserving indigenous ways, and how they tie back to the crop’s rising price. Is there a mechanism in place to ensure the local population’s cheap access to their own resources?
I’d be interested in learning more about Bolivia’s land reform policies, the government’s emphasis on preserving indigenous ways, and how they tie back to the crop’s rising price. Is there a mechanism in place to ensure the local population’s cheap access to their own resources?
@Karen: I also share the same satisfaction at seeing farmers finding success, even while also remaining cautious about the dangers of monocultures. I wouldn’t say I’m quite so optimistic about the market working itself out because of manipulations in the markets, such as the US subsidies I referenced that have terribly affected Mexican and Central American farming industries.
@John: I’ll see what I can find about land reform policies and how they would affect this, although I would note that some of the more recent land reforms largely targeted large landholders whose properties were not being utilized productively, and these properties were more frequently located in the lowland jungle areas, whereas most quinoa production takes place in the highlands, where much growing land is owned communally by various communities (although this doesn’t make it a utopian arrangement, per se). At the moment there is no mechanism to subsidize quinoa prices for the general population (e.g. there are feeding programs for pregnant women and schools that incorporate traditional Bolivian crops), although there are huge subsidies on Bolivan natural gas that are effectively untouchable: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703820904576058071716311988.html
@Karen: I also share the same satisfaction at seeing farmers finding success, even while also remaining cautious about the dangers of monocultures. I wouldn’t say I’m quite so optimistic about the market working itself out because of manipulations in the markets, such as the US subsidies I referenced that have terribly affected Mexican and Central American farming industries.
@John: I’ll see what I can find about land reform policies and how they would affect this, although I would note that some of the more recent land reforms largely targeted large landholders whose properties were not being utilized productively, and these properties were more frequently located in the lowland jungle areas, whereas most quinoa production takes place in the highlands, where much growing land is owned communally by various communities (although this doesn’t make it a utopian arrangement, per se). At the moment there is no mechanism to subsidize quinoa prices for the general population (e.g. there are feeding programs for pregnant women and schools that incorporate traditional Bolivian crops), although there are huge subsidies on Bolivan natural gas that are effectively untouchable: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703820904576058071716311988.html
@John: Just to follow up regarding the land reforms in Bolivia, there was a first wave of significant land reform in the mid-1980s that saw a number of highland-origin people colonizing (that’s the word they use here) the lowlands. The most recent set of reforms in the late-2000s was initiated by the current president and essentially followed two thrusts (I should mention it’s still also very much being worked out and in process): First, the government began enforcing property rights (and lackthereof); so in situations where a landowner had encroached on nextdoor land by building or farming on it, the government has been much more strict about removing those land uses. Second, the government also was/is examining land use–this especially affects large landowners who speculatively buy up huge amounts of land with an eye towards reselling it at a later date and higher price. However, if the government sees that the land is not being productively used, it now reserves the right to confiscate it and give to settlers who are in need of land (whether or not the initial landowner is reimbursed, I am not sure).
I hope that starts to answer your question!
@John: Just to follow up regarding the land reforms in Bolivia, there was a first wave of significant land reform in the mid-1980s that saw a number of highland-origin people colonizing (that’s the word they use here) the lowlands. The most recent set of reforms in the late-2000s was initiated by the current president and essentially followed two thrusts (I should mention it’s still also very much being worked out and in process): First, the government began enforcing property rights (and lackthereof); so in situations where a landowner had encroached on nextdoor land by building or farming on it, the government has been much more strict about removing those land uses. Second, the government also was/is examining land use–this especially affects large landowners who speculatively buy up huge amounts of land with an eye towards reselling it at a later date and higher price. However, if the government sees that the land is not being productively used, it now reserves the right to confiscate it and give to settlers who are in need of land (whether or not the initial landowner is reimbursed, I am not sure).
I hope that starts to answer your question!
Blythman’s judgement may end up a moot point. If world demand for quinoa continues to increase, the crop may be cultivated in other places and with much greater levels of mechanization. Years ago it was assumed that the crop would never flourish outside its Andean highland homeland. But research is underway to adapt it to temperate/tropical regions. Within a few years the bag of quinoa in our larders may raise no more social connotations than does rolled oats or corn today.
Blythman’s judgement may end up a moot point. If world demand for quinoa continues to increase, the crop may be cultivated in other places and with much greater levels of mechanization. Years ago it was assumed that the crop would never flourish outside its Andean highland homeland. But research is underway to adapt it to temperate/tropical regions. Within a few years the bag of quinoa in our larders may raise no more social connotations than does rolled oats or corn today.
[…] 3. The Quinoa Question: Part 1 […]
[…] 3. The Quinoa Question: Part 1 […]