Dear Editor,
I am prompted to share my thoughts regarding the concerted campaign launched by the Stabroek News to discredit the ‘Grow More Food’ campaign through selective reporting and misrepresentation of farmers’ views.
Once again, the Stabroek News attempts to negatively portray a positive development initiated by the government through the Ministry of Agriculture aimed at ensuring food security and reducing the cost of food for the citizens of this country. Concurrently, farmers would have benefited from numerous export opportunities providing they are consistent with supply and quality.
However, Stabroek News chooses to interview farmers who are planting on a subsistence scale, without any serious intention of tapping into lucrative markets. Aspersions were cast upon the New Guyana Marketing Corporation for not doing enough, but will farmers take an equal blame?
As a consumer of fresh fruits and vegetables, I am pleased to know that Guyana is food secure, and there is an abundance of food and the price is affordable with a steady supply, as prices will only increase if there are marked fluctuations in supply, which a developing country must avoid. The prices for food in Guyana are two pronged; while farmers complain of low prices, household managers and other consumers of food are pleased with the affordability. I am sure when the price increases, consumers will complain and farmers will remain quiet in the background.
Stabroek News and its reporter assigned to discredit the ‘Grow More Food’ campaign need to understand market trends and demands of farm produce and other factors that determine prices. In addition, the interviews should have been broad based to get a general consensus, rather than speaking with a few farmers sitting on the roadside, and driving around to get a photograph of the worst spot on a road.
Further, any grounded individual will tell you that you can never please a farmer; such are farming activities, always changing. Harsh weather conditions are always there, pest and disease are ever present, and market prices will always increase and decrease, etc. Such is the life of farmers, always battling with the elements, and we should respect their hard work and not misrepresent their views twisted to suit one’s own agenda.
I therefore, challenge Stabroek News in the interest of publishing balanced stories and transparency to seek out those farmers who took advantage of the market opportunities and have benefited from the ‘Grow More Food’ campaign and to publish a feature.
Yours faithfully,
Ganesh Singh
Editor’s note
1. We are puzzled by the contradictions in the letter. On the one hand we are accused of “misrepresenting” farmers’ views, and on the other, with respect to low prices Mr Singh says “you can never please a farmer,” and that when farmers “complain,” consumers “are pleased.” He goes on to say: “when the price increases, consumers will complain and farmers will remain quiet…” thereby tacitly acknowledging that prices are currently low.
Furthermore, he writes that aspersions have been cast in our features on the New Guyana Marketing Corporation, and then goes on to ask, “but will farmers take equal blame?” Again by implication he seems to be suggesting that there is a problem with marketing, and that farmers are equally responsible for this.
2. It is simply not the case that we only interviewed farmers who were operating on a “subsistence scale”; they all had upwards of two or three acres, and farming was in nearly all cases their only means of livelihood. Inevitably, therefore, they were concerned about markets.
3. With regard to the allegation that our interviews were not broad based, and that we only spoke to a few farmers sitting by the roadside, the features speak for themselves. We interviewed a number of farmers in a variety of locations, including their farms and homes, and once in Black Bush Polder at the opening of a greenhouse. We covered considerable distances (from the front to the back of Black Bush Polder, for example) to listen to as many farmers as possible.
4. With reference to Mr Singh’s claim that we drove around to get a photo of the worst spot on a road, we can only advise him to visit Black Bush Polder and see the state of all the roads for himself.
5. Mr Singh challenges us in the interest of “balance” to seek out farmers who have taken advantage of market opportunities and do a feature on them. In the interest of “balance,” we began our series with an interview with the Minister of Agriculture, and the second feature included the Minister again, along with the farmers. Deliberately seeking out only those farmers who had taken advantage of the market opportunities and publish a feature on them would not be “balance,” but propaganda. We spoke to farmers randomly, and printed whatever we were told. As such, therefore, we are not the ones with the “agenda.”
6. One of the main objectives of this series of reports is to initiate discussion on whether the Grow More Food campaign was well thought out and has resulted in lower prices for consumers, larger profits for farmers, increased exports and lower imports of food. A rigorous evaluation of these outcomes would require the Ministry of Agriculture to provide detailed information on the annual investment in the campaign, the annual output for each crop targeted, farm and market prices for each item and the amounts exported compared to the years prior to the start of the campaign. Such information is still to be presented and the ministry can rest assured that once made available it will be published and further analysed.
