I read Chris Mosler's article on Thinly Spread about Save The Children's campaign to get David Cameron to lead a worldwide push to end world hunger. The facts and statistics are in the article and if you're still not convinced you should watch the short video below. There are ways you can help which are also detailed in the article. So when you've watched the video and read Chris's post, take a few minutes, if you don't mind, to follow me as I wondered, 'What if we all ate less?'
As I write this I have a mug of coffee and a slice of cake on my desk and it's not my first slice. I'm not writing that to try and be funny. It's actually sad and pathetic that we all cry over the starving children whilst filling our supermarket trolleys with snacks and treats that are far in excess of the calories we need. I was partly inspired by Natasha of The 1970s Diet (fascinating experiment) but it is something I've been thinking about for a long time. If we all ate less would it help the starving children in the developing world?
So I googled: If we all ate less would it reduce world hunger? The articles that came up were all about how vegetarianism (veganism even) is the only solution. I'm not telling you all to give up meat but here are the basic arguments so you know what I found.
1. The amount of grain used to feed dairy and beef cattle uses up the supply grown in the Western World. Rich countries like the USA then have to import grain from e.g. African countries to provide for their needs. The money goes to the developing world but the governments there use it for all sorts of things, not necessarily food. The grain that was exported would have fed their country.
2. The carbon and water used to rear dairy and beef cattle is a big part of the problem of diminishing fossil fuels. I read this in an article published by the UN.
As I said, I'm not telling you to be vegetarian. I'm not talking about the evils of fast food, for that you can read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser (Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 2001). I'm simply talking about the vast amounts of food we consume even in our own homes (and food that we pick up on the go). The snacks we eat in between meals. The portions we serve. The non-stop supply that we graze on continuously throughout the day. As Natasha says - food used to be fuel. There was nothing to eat between meals except a piece of fruit. What we call a snack now is often the size a small meal used to be.
Watch an old TV programme or movie in which a family are sitting down to eat. The main course would be a plate with two slices of cold meat, a couple of small boiled potatoes and a portion of greens or small salad. Add to that a small bowl of soup to start, a bit of pie for pudding, and a cup of tea to wash it all down. Even when I was a child I remember my father carving the chicken into thin slices and one chicken would feed the family of five with leftovers for chicken risotto on Monday night. Nowadays you get your chicken cut into eighths and allow two portions per person.
So what would happen if we all ate less? Would the excess be sent to countries where people are starving? I don't think so. If our demand for food decreased I expect we would start feeding our cattle with our own home-grown grain due to more excess grain and fewer cattle. Eventually we may begin to produce less. At the very least we would not have to import grain from people who don't have enough for themselves.
The lack of waste, the health benefits, the medical resources used to combat obesity related deseases that would be freed up, the moral issues of stuffing our faces whilst children starve... I can only think of good reasons to eat less even if my knowledge of global politics and economics doesn't allow me to give an academic answer or even an educated opinion. I'd be happy to read comments from anyone who 'knows' or even from anyone who just 'feels' like I do.
I'm linking this post to MUMenTUM over at New Mum Online. It's not strictly about my weight loss story and I didn't lose anything this week anyway. However, it is a good post to read if you want some sound reasons to eat less.
As I write this I have a mug of coffee and a slice of cake on my desk and it's not my first slice. I'm not writing that to try and be funny. It's actually sad and pathetic that we all cry over the starving children whilst filling our supermarket trolleys with snacks and treats that are far in excess of the calories we need. I was partly inspired by Natasha of The 1970s Diet (fascinating experiment) but it is something I've been thinking about for a long time. If we all ate less would it help the starving children in the developing world?
So I googled: If we all ate less would it reduce world hunger? The articles that came up were all about how vegetarianism (veganism even) is the only solution. I'm not telling you all to give up meat but here are the basic arguments so you know what I found.
1. The amount of grain used to feed dairy and beef cattle uses up the supply grown in the Western World. Rich countries like the USA then have to import grain from e.g. African countries to provide for their needs. The money goes to the developing world but the governments there use it for all sorts of things, not necessarily food. The grain that was exported would have fed their country.
2. The carbon and water used to rear dairy and beef cattle is a big part of the problem of diminishing fossil fuels. I read this in an article published by the UN.
As I said, I'm not telling you to be vegetarian. I'm not talking about the evils of fast food, for that you can read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser (Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 2001). I'm simply talking about the vast amounts of food we consume even in our own homes (and food that we pick up on the go). The snacks we eat in between meals. The portions we serve. The non-stop supply that we graze on continuously throughout the day. As Natasha says - food used to be fuel. There was nothing to eat between meals except a piece of fruit. What we call a snack now is often the size a small meal used to be.
Watch an old TV programme or movie in which a family are sitting down to eat. The main course would be a plate with two slices of cold meat, a couple of small boiled potatoes and a portion of greens or small salad. Add to that a small bowl of soup to start, a bit of pie for pudding, and a cup of tea to wash it all down. Even when I was a child I remember my father carving the chicken into thin slices and one chicken would feed the family of five with leftovers for chicken risotto on Monday night. Nowadays you get your chicken cut into eighths and allow two portions per person.
So what would happen if we all ate less? Would the excess be sent to countries where people are starving? I don't think so. If our demand for food decreased I expect we would start feeding our cattle with our own home-grown grain due to more excess grain and fewer cattle. Eventually we may begin to produce less. At the very least we would not have to import grain from people who don't have enough for themselves.
The lack of waste, the health benefits, the medical resources used to combat obesity related deseases that would be freed up, the moral issues of stuffing our faces whilst children starve... I can only think of good reasons to eat less even if my knowledge of global politics and economics doesn't allow me to give an academic answer or even an educated opinion. I'd be happy to read comments from anyone who 'knows' or even from anyone who just 'feels' like I do.
I'm linking this post to MUMenTUM over at New Mum Online. It's not strictly about my weight loss story and I didn't lose anything this week anyway. However, it is a good post to read if you want some sound reasons to eat less.
What a thought provoking article, thank you so much for writing it. It really does make you stop and think ...the inequality is staggering and it is time something was done about it. I am hoping so hard that David Cameron convenes a hunger summit and that this issue is tackled once and for all. Children should not be dying in a world which produces enough food to feed us all. x
ReplyDeleteGood luck with the campaign, it really is a shameful situation. Thank you for commenting.
DeleteTotally agree - only this morning they were talking about the popularity of 'doggy bags' in restaurants. Really? For goodness sake just serve up less if people can't finish it then there's too much food on the plate in the first place. Its tragic that in this day and age there are people starving and others who have stuffed their faces silly. Thank you for the big up on the blog! No one is starving in the western world let me tell you - hungry may be between your next feed but starving we ain't. xNatasha
ReplyDeleteI know, we have forgotten what is a decent and appropriate amount to eat. Thanks for commenting, your blog really made me think.
DeleteI am just reading a book Animal, Vegetable Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver, and she addresses this in the into to her book. According to her consumers are unwittingly led to buy the inferior forms of food we find on our shelves these days, full of highly processed mass farmed products like soy and corn derivatives. She describes that governments subsidies and large companies dominate the food production industry, so that even if we ate less, it wouldn't make it to the people who need it.
ReplyDeleteIt's a really interesting read and I love her perspective that if we bring food production back into the community we nurture our health, relationships and environment.
She's right Chaya. I read a book called 'The Vegetarian Myth' in which the author (I forget her name) says the only really healthy way to eat is for everyone to have access to or a share in a small holding. With today's world population this is impractical so short of mass genocide of about 4 billion people we're stuck with mass produced food and political agendas. Thanks for your interesting comment.
DeleteYup, we gorge. And it is revolting, truly.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I went vegetarian over a year ago - pretty nigh-on vegan, to be truthful. While I never press my views on other people, it does seem crazy the amount of energy wasted in rearing animals to eat.
But, as you say, our eating less won't feed those who starve. I guess we need to take, on the one hand, a more global view and at the same time a very local view (as your last commentator says). It's very thought-provoking - do hope people read. :) xx
PS - how do you do the reply thingy???
It won't feed those who starve today or even tomorrow but in the long run if we all ate less there would be a more just distribution of the food available. I think. Just the fact that we wouldn't need to import food as we could survive on what we produce wuold mean that developing countries would not be pressurised into exporting food they desperately need to feed themselves. As I said, I'm no economist but it seems logical.
DeleteRe: the reply thing - I changed the comment settings to integrated (or similar word can't remember) at end of the post (rather than the pop-up window) and the reply thing appears - it's a new feature.
DeleteAha! Thank you. Will try to remember next time I do a post..
DeleteConfess I don't eat much at all - but then have shifted my focus away from food for pleasure to food for fuel. No more or less than I need. Smug? Moi? Bite me! :)
Jane you have a right to be smug. If could pinpoint how to get into that mindset you would make millions from the book.
DeleteI know that my children and I are having less red meat in our diet - for health and budget. Hope this little bit helps but guess it needs the majority to reduce our intake for it to make a difference to the third world
ReplyDeletePlate by plate is what I say Becky :)
DeleteA very thought provoking posts, it does really make you stop and think about what you ate today, I am hoping to do a post soon too
ReplyDeleteI can;t even remember all I ate today - which is part of the problem. Looking forward to readung your article.
DeleteBrilliant article... hubby has been saying for ages that cattle farms should work of methane... the problems is the initial outlay and that no one would want to pay it.
DeleteI become very unpopular in my kids school when they raise money to send to africa.
They usually raise up to £1000 and send it through an organisation who takes 1/3 as an admin fee... in the end only about £500 -£600 actually makes it to africa.
Our school sits directly on a border between the mid - low income bracket and the low to no income bracket. We'e lived on both sides since moving into the area... Ive seen allot of children go hungry 2 doors up from where we live, ive seen neglect, cruelty and people beaten to death within sight of our children and neighbours.
£1000 would be far better suited to improving the life of some of the schools pupils/families than being halved and sent to feed a few people for a week.
Hunger in the world has now become too big a problem for just money... it needs genuine REAL help... it needs more than they teach in the schools now.
These things all start with charity in your own community... something you dont get allot of now a days. If another generation is going to solve this problem, they need to be taught to help those closest to them.
There's a lot of truth in what you say Liz. I love your blog and am fascinated by what you and your family are doing. The fact that you have cut your food bills by half is enough of a factor to help most families in the UK.
Delete