Save Food Says Gordon

[VinnieK]

It's often said that when a government talks about cutting back on waste, it has run out of ideas. Usually this refers to bureaucratic inefficiency within government institutions, so it could be taken as a sign of even deeper desperation when the Government in question starts to talk about household waste over which it has even less power to act.

 

Still, I don't think we should make too much of this. His comments are so much paternalistic rhetoric, possibly with the intent of trying to appear like an honest broker who's not just going to lay the blame on EU and US subsidies and tariffs on agricultural produce for their effect on food prices and African development. His tone was horribly misjudged, which we've come to expect from Gordon, and wont have the slightest influence on the upcoming negotiations, but it's not a policy statement - merely the unimaginative posturing of an man who's rapidly losing control and perspective.

[P.K.]

Gordon Broon. Gordon is a moron. He'd be better employed by the army in Iraq, as he is very effective at finding landmines to stand on.

Because telling someone who is facing mortgage arrears, a massively increasing fuel bill and the weekly budget going no where near as far as it used to that not throwing away that out-of-date ready meal is any sort of a solution is close to being prepostorous.

For me there are two points here:

#1 - Brown is not a moron. His stay at the Treasury is supposed to have been one of the best. Apparently he and Balls (I love that!) made a formidable team.

 

#2 - Brown has never been either a great orator or a man of the people.

 

At least when Blair was in charge you knew who was in charge. Plus Blair could get up on his hind legs in front of Joe Public and give a good account of himself. Think Thatcher, Major or Brown would ever try that one? It really demonstrates the gulf between Blair and the other recent encumbents. Now Brown doesn't just decide in a flash of inspiration that to spout off about household waste is a good idea. Anyone who thinks it's his idea really IS a moron. He has teams of toadies behind him allegedly "advising" him. Couple a poor idea with Browns poor delivery and you get the current Mail/Telegraph/Express/Times etc etc brickbats headed his way.

 

The thing is why is he in the job? To me he's a backroom boy, probably one of the best in his party, and that's where he should have stayed. The Labour lot must now be bemoaning the lack of anyone who could have mounted a credible challenge to Brown at that crucial time.

[VinnieK]

#1 - Brown is not a moron. His stay at the Treasury is supposed to have been one of the best. Apparently he and Balls (I love that!) made a formidable team.

 

Brown was fortunate in that his stint as chancellor overlapped with a period of growth and economic recovery that was already getting underway when he took office. Certainly he's done some things right, but his mistakes and errors are numerous, undermining any claim that he's one of the best chancellors the UK has ever had - we've got a massive trade deficit, he sold gold reserves at a low price (just before its value rocketed, in fact), and the regulation system he introduced as Chancellor was half cocked and ensured there was little oversight when the credit crunch hit (leading directly to the run on Northern Rock). He's also managed to snatch away control over the science and research budget away from scientists, with the result that we find funds that should be going to supporting new technologies and investing in new opportunities being snatched at to plug budget shortfalls elsewhere and prop up ailing industries like MG Rover and British nuclear power.

 

In short, Brown has been lucky, and he's due praise for some of his accomplishments, but he's also pissed a lot of this away thanks to his inability to implement his own schemes, a tendency towards misjudging the current situation, and an over reliance on centralization. He may not be a moron, but nor is he the intellectual powerhouse and economic genius people described him as when we were all still giddy and starry eyed about our shiny new government - a steady pair of hands when the going was good, he's since become weak, out of touch, and a bungler par excellence when put under pressure.

[BPs]

Years ago Gordon Brown wished he would be Prime Minister one day.

 

And that one day has been enough.

 

Labour is no longer Labour. They are just a bunch of seedy expense grabbing liars not fit to sit in parliament.

 

Trained by members of Tynwald no doubt.

[gazza]

 

 

"We have got to get the price of food down through cutting the tariffs and subsidies in Europe and America, so we need a world trade deal.

 

 

"

 

 

HaHa hes liveing in cloud nine, how is shopping going right and not wasteing food going to bring the price down it aint,

 

If thay cut the tariffs and subsidies in Europe and America the price will go up not down,

 

the only way price of food will come down is if the price of oil comes down and that aint going to happin,

because that is the reason food has gone up in price

 

and the price off food still needs to go up yet

[gazza]

or we can just let nature take its course

 

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."

 

and i would say in 5-10 years time that run true

[manshimajin]

Not sure what everyone's problem is here?

For me it is the ever more encroaching Nanny State trying to tell people how to live their lives.

 

Instead of letting people reach their own conclusions based on common sense and experience, lecturing them. I understand that one of his pet phrases is 'we feel your pain'...no doubt said after a bad attack of indegestion in Hokkaido judging by that menu!

 

No amount of lecturing people to reduce their fuel consumption worked - but $150 per barrel has got them thinking.

 

Good old Malcolm Fraser in Oz was right when he talked about the impressive self-regulatory effect of the 'hip pocket nerve'. Over and over again the 'ordinary' people have shown themselves to be far more canny than politicians.

[VinnieK]

HaHa hes liveing in cloud nine, how is shopping going right and not wasteing food going to bring the price down it aint,

 

Less waste - bigger food surplus - prices go down

 

If thay cut the tariffs and subsidies in Europe and America the price will go up not down,

The problem is that high tariffs are placed on Africans exporting food to Europe and the US at the same time as both the EU and US subsidises its farmers to the point where they can undercut food brought in from elsewhere (and in some instances export to primarly agricultural countries and undercut them there). At the moment it's very difficult for farmers outside of Europe to compete with those within it, driving down productivity within those nations and hence making shortages and rising prices more likely. This is especially the case when it comes to the price of crops like wheat (which is at an all time high, and effects the price of other foodstuffs, such as meat from animals who are fed using feed made with crops).

 

Basically, the EU and the US (alongside international organizations such as the WTO and IMF) have effectively sabotaged the agriculture of Africa (which was once a net food exporter, and is now an importer) for decades, driving African farmers to the point of destitution, and in this way have contributed in no small measure to the shortages, and hence the rising price of food, we're experiencing today.

 

The basic substance of what Brown is saying is fine: the tone and relevance of his statements are questionable though.

[Gladys]

He may have said it all wrong, but I think he has a point. It pains me to see how much food is wasted, both in our house (put my hands up, but would dearly love a couple of chickens to feed the waste to) and elsewhere. The inventiveness in creating meals out of leftovers borne of post-war rationing is no longer an imperative because food is plentiful and relatively cheap. Does anyone still have a roast chicken on Sunday, cold chicken salad on Monday and chicken carcase soup for a couple of days after that? No, we can buy a fresh chicken for as little as £3, so where is the incentive to eek it out?

 

I have long thought that food is just too cheap and, often, we hear is sold at less than the cost of production. How on earth does that make sense to anyone? How on earth does it make sense to fly perishables from the southern hemisphere for sale all year round as standard unexceptional foodstuffs? Where is the justification for importing fish from Jamaica or Vietnam when the humble mackerel or herring sits along side at prices that could easily allow you to feed them to your cat?

 

When you watch wildlife programmes the narrator often explains the economics of how animals feed themselves in terms of the nutritional value gained from the energy expended; correlate that into most western civilisations and the energy expended (cash) is in inverse proportion to the nutritional value received leading to an over-abundance of nutrition much of which can only go in one place, the bin.

 

But it is much deeper than just consumer waste, we are supplied with waste in mind and it will take a change from the suppliers to really make a difference. Mange tout should be a rare treat, it often coming from places like Zimbabwe (and the justice in the benefit actually brought to the local farm workers is another strand to this debate and probably covered under the thread on the island gaining Fairtrade recognition), whereas our local produce should be our dietary mainstay.

 

Rant over, but I do think Brown has a point and we should cut through the rhetoric to consider the real issues that our wasteful society now faces.

[gazza]

HaHa hes liveing in cloud nine, how is shopping going right and not wasteing food going to bring the price down it aint,

 

Less waste - bigger food surplus - prices go down ,

 

to be honest it really wont make a blind bit of diffrance in the price, there wont be a hugh surplus off food if we all cut back on waste, just aint going to happin

 

 

 

If thay cut the tariffs and subsidies in Europe and America the price will go up not down,

The problem is that high tariffs are placed on Africans exporting food to Europe and the US at the same time as both the EU and US subsidises its farmers to the point where they can undercut food brought in from elsewhere (and in some instances export to primarly agricultural countries and undercut them there). At the moment it's very difficult for farmers outside of Europe to compete with those within it, driving down productivity within those nations and hence making shortages and rising prices more likely. This is especially the case when it comes to the price of crops like wheat (which is at an all time high, and effects the price of other foodstuffs, such as meat from animals who are fed using feed made with crops). ,

 

the reason this is done is to safe guard are own prodution of food, if you end the subsidises in the EU, it will make the food shortage worse, but will affect us more in the EU and the UK,

The reason we have cheap food to start with is because of this,

 

Basically, the EU and the US (alongside international organizations such as the WTO and IMF) have effectively sabotaged the agriculture of Africa (which was once a net food exporter, and is now an importer) for decades, driving African farmers to the point of destitution, and in this way have contributed in no small measure to the shortages, and hence the rising price of food, we're experiencing today.

 

 

The main reason that food has gone up is because of the increase in fuel, the input cost of farming have doubled so the price is riseing, the ones that cant afford to keep going have got out, which is pushing the shortagers worse,

 

the uk now produces less then it did 5 years ago because thay changed the way thay are paid, thay used to get paid to produce food, but because ppl complained that there was a hugh surplus of food, the people in the know changed that

so the farmers were paid to look after the fields not to grow things(bet thay wish thay had that surplus now)

 

And you forgot to say one other main reason for the down turn of food prodution in africa, its not down mostly to them not being able to sell on the open market,

its down to the fact most farms that were run in africa, the ppl have been driven away from them, mostly white ppl have been driven from there land that thay have farmed for years,

 

Militias seized most of Zimbabwe's 4,600 white-owned farms eight years ago under Mugabe's controversial land reform plan. Mugabe said the purpose was to return land to black peasants, but in many cases, the farms went to party loyalists and their relatives who had no skill working the land.

 

Mugabe's land redistribution policies are widely blamed for causing food production and agricultural exports to drop drastically, sending the country into an economic free fall.

 

Zimbabwe militants, mostly war veterans, have forcibly seized at least 60 white-owned farms, apparently on government orders, a farmers' representative said Tuesday

 

the last one is from 2008,

that is just from Zimbabwe, and its been happing all over africa for years,

 

And where has all this land thats been taken from gone to,

in there peoples eyes back to where it belongs the black aficans,

 

so you take farm land from commercial farmers and hand it back to black peasants,

well your going to see the the amount of food produced drop amazingly as these ppl dont have the farming skills to produce on a grand scale, of what thay used to be under commercial farmers be thay black or white run, i dont care

 

one more

thats 2000, so 8 years from now till then,

 

that is the main reason that thay once were a net food exporter, and is now an importer,

not beacuse of subs or tariiffs,

the reason there a net importer is because of the peopel that run africa,

 

if thay cant afford to trade on the open market, then how come thay cant feed themselfs in the first place,

if there importing food then there is room for farmers to grow, but thay dont/cant do that beacuse of the state of africa,

 

the only way to get africa to start being a net exporter again is to sort oyt the peopel that run africa,

till that happins then it stay like it,

 

 

the other main reason for food price riseing is the USA paying farmers to produce grain for bio-ethanol,

this has a better return than food, so most farmers in the USA that can are growing for that now,

 

 

the only real way food will come down in price is if thay have 2 good years of crops on the run to get world stocks back up

as the past 4-5 years have been poor yields, but with the flooding in the USA and drougth in OZ this year that aint going to happin soon,

 

the price of fuel needs to stop going up or at least stay where it is for a bit,

or more subs from the goverment

 

the way its going this is only going to get worse before it gets better in the next 5 years, food will keep going up the same as fuel will,

 

for the past couple of decades we have had it easy, cheap food, cheap liveing high wagers

that time has come and gone, it prob wont return for 10-20 maybe more years,

 

maybe we have to think twice about buying that 50in flat screen tv and living the vary good life we have had theses past years

[gazza]

He may have said it all wrong, but I think he has a point. It pains me to see how much food is wasted, both in our house (put my hands up, but would dearly love a couple of chickens to feed the waste to)

 

well u be stopped doing that becasue of all the problems we had in the past, not allowed to feed meat to other animals that may enter the food chain

 

I have long thought that food is just too cheap and, often, we hear is sold at less than the cost of production. How on earth does that make sense to anyone? How on earth does it make sense to fly perishables from the southern hemisphere for sale all year round as standard unexceptional foodstuffs? Where is the justification for importing fish from Jamaica or Vietnam when the humble mackerel or herring sits along side at prices that could easily allow you to feed them to your cat?

 

the reason its cheap is because of subs paid to the farmers,

if you keep food price down you can help keep inflation down, thay then have more cash to spend on white goods, which boost the economy more, and a load of other reason why it does help to keep food price low

[VinnieK]

to be honest it really wont make a blind bit of diffrance in the price, there wont be a hugh surplus off food if we all cut back on waste, just aint going to happin

 

I don't doubt that's probably the case, I just meant I can understand the basic reasoning behind Brown's thinking on this.

 

If thay cut the tariffs and subsidies in Europe and America the price will go up not down,

the reason this is done is to safe guard are own prodution of food, if you end the subsidises in the EU, it will make the food shortage worse, but will affect us more in the EU and the UK,

The reason we have cheap food to start with is because of this,

 

Of course, just cutting subsidies alone would be a nightmare, it has to go hand in hand with investment in agricultural industries elsewhere to improve the quality and amount of their produce. If this had been done decades ago, we might be in a stronger position than we are now - with international competition and surplusses keeping the price down instead of artificially driving them down with subsidies and distorting the market in such a way that's now proving unsustainable.

 

However, I do question your statement that the reasoning behind subsidies are to guard our production of food. Whilst this has indeed been the main selling point of the subsidies, much of the motivation behind them was originally rebuilding Europe's agricultural base which had been shattered by the Second World War, provide employment, and hence help the continent get back on its feet. Europe has long since recovered economically, but the subsidies remain in place; less to protect our source of food, and more to jealously guard one of our industries against outside competition.

 

the uk now produces less then it did 5 years ago because thay changed the way thay are paid, thay used to get paid to produce food, but because ppl complained that there was a hugh surplus of food, the people in the know changed that

so the farmers were paid to look after the fields not to grow things(bet thay wish thay had that surplus now)

 

Aye, that tends to be what happens when there's excessive government intervention in an industry - government is usually slow to react and always has its eye on the short term, so you end up with a series of ridiculous surplusses and shortages, but that's more reason to let the market decide how much is produced, where, and how much its sold for.

 

And you forgot to say one other main reason for the down turn of food prodution in africa, its not down mostly to them not being able to sell on the open market,

its down to the fact most farms that were run in africa, the ppl have been driven away from them, mostly white ppl have been driven from there land that thay have farmed for years,

 

the reason there a net importer is because of the peopel that run africa,

 

This is true in some cases, Zimbabwe being the obvious example, but there are a number of instances where agriculture in Africa has been strangled by international agencies at the behest of the west. The IMF and WTO often insisted on the hurried privatization of many agricultural assets, resulting in them being sold to the highest and not necessarily the best bidder and those assets being run into the ground. Also, these organizations are remarkably hypocritical when it comes to trade liberalization. Take Malawi as an example: whilst subsidies are fine in the West, when the Malawi Government initiated a scheme to subsidise the purchase of fertilizer, the IMF stuck the boot, despite the result being a surplus of maize being produced. Pressure was applied on the government to dismantle the package, and pretty soon that surplus disappeared and famine reared its head.

 

Certainly there are other factors, including domestic mismanagement and corruption, but some of the blame should be apportioned to both the West's agricultural policies, and the occasional incompetance of international agencies motivated more by ideology than practical consideration.

 

if thay cant afford to trade on the open market, then how come thay cant feed themselfs in the first place,

if there importing food then there is room for farmers to grow, but thay dont/cant do that beacuse of the state of africa,

 

I agree that many African nations desperately need to persue reform (in plenty of areas other than just agriculture), but there's no such thing as the open market. Many African famers can't even sell their produce locally because there's European or American goods on the local shelves at a cheaper price than they can put on their goods thanks to our subsidies and our recent practice of dumping commodities on the African market for less than their cost of production. Also, perhaps if trade were a little fairer, and the prospects of the average African nation better, reform might even come a little easier.

[gazza]

If you ask any farmer if he would like to be paid a sub, or do with out one, 80% would say get rid off them,

because the red tape that is put in place because of this makes it twice as hard to run the companys,

 

if you take subs away, open it up to a open market the public would not be able to feed its self,

if you think food is high now, with an open fair market, the EU would go into melt down,

 

inflation would sore, famine would be wide spread among the poor, and the crime rate would sore,

people think subs are a waste of time, including the farmer, but the realty of it is,

with out them the EU and the UK would/could not cope,

 

the price of food would double even triple overnight, how many could afford £1.50 a pint of milk, the price of grains

would be £300 ton, and so on,

 

the farmers would welcome this as thay could prob make a nice liveing again,

 

but the subsidies remain in place; less to protect our source of food, and more to jealously guard one of our industries against outside competition

 

farming would cripple overnight, as i said above most would enjoy it as better profit margines, but that is after the weak have gone and the strong have survived in farming,

 

what u would find is cheap imports of food being sent to the Uk, like there is allready, brazil beef to name just one,

its cheaper then the uk as it is,

the reason its cheaper is thay have no red tape, there are no regs on what can be feed to cattle, the way there looked after,

this in turn makes it cheaper before you even take wagers and things into accont,

britsh food can be traced back from where it came, down to the last grain it has eaten, that cant be said for most imports,

the reason we have this is because the EU public wants to know that what its eateing is safe and looked after, this cost a lot to do, where brazil beef does not, but like most public people thay prob dont really care if thay will save a couple of pound on the imports,

 

If are farmers reduce in numbers, then we will be in a bad postion, we will have to try and compete on the open market to buy food stuffs, and if there becomes a major shortage of food on the world market, and we cant source our food from there,

where will it come from, first thing ppl will say is, if only we had surpported the farmers we woulden be in this mess

 

with investment in agricultural industries elsewhere to improve the quality and amount of their produce. If this had been done decades ago, we might be in a stronger position than we are now

 

Im keen to know how thay could have investment in agricultural industries,

 

you will find that the UK is was at itrs max of amount of produce a few years ago, the yields are high and the quality is high also as if there not noboody wants to buy them,

the yields are going down now, because to have high yields you need high inputs, and that is just not viable anymore

GM crops will have to be introduced in the EU sooner rather than later, this may ease the problem a little, not a cure but will help a lot

[monasqueen]

Food Problem, what food problem? We've got food a plenty here.

 

Gordon Eats Well at G8

[3v0]

Food Problem, what food problem? We've got food a plenty here.

 

Gordon Eats Well at G8

 

But did he eat it all?

 

Granted it's a little ironic but it isn't really news worthy, when you have a function somewhere generally it involves food, wasn't the talk about not wasting food, not about people should eat less (although alot of them should!)

 

By the way I'm not a GB fan! Just think some "reporters" are daft.