When we consider the price of a meal, rarely, if ever do our minds extend beyond what is paid to the vendor. Very few people know or care enough to place a value on the cost to the environment of the basket of goods tallied up at the cash register or the ready-cooked dishes selected at restaurants for convenience or enjoyment.
Although the continued use of fossil fuels is the highest source of emissions globally, it is also a fact that what we eat and how those foods are sourced can contribute massively to not only our own poor health but the deterioration of the environment. It is now well known that traditional agriculture methods such as, but not limited to, cattle ranching for beef and dairy, fertilisers used in crop production, reducing forests to expand farm-land, and burning fields or crop residue, pollute the environment with methane, nitrous oxide, car-bon dioxide and other emissions. The greenhouse gases emitted are compounded when the food produced is processed and packaged (often in plastic), refrigerated or frozen, then transported thousands of miles away. What makes it worse is when this is done not out of necessity, but for greed and pleasure, and when after all of this much of it ends up in garbage bins.
The financial cost aside, these are serious concerns that should factor into countries’ plans to reduce food imports, particularly those touting moves towards a green economy, like Guyana with our Low Carbon Development Strategy. One of the ways to do this would be to ensure that the citizenry embraces the concept of farm-to-table meals or at the very least knowing where our food comes from and exactly what is in it. This is by no means a new notion. It has been articulated here under slogans like ‘Feed … Ourselves’ and ‘Buy Local’ since the 1970s.
No matter how many times we might have heard it in the past, and likely will again in the future, the idea of consuming locally grown food did not originate in Guyana. Buying local to support communities and the economy, to ensure freshness and quality in what is consumed and to reduce the impact on the environment is practised in much of the developed world. Italy, France, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Australia are some of the countries where consumers understand the assignment and generally espouse it. This occurs not just because it is constantly promoted by their leaders, but also out of a sense of community and pride.
In addition, in several of these countries, farmers are supported by way of financial subsidies linked to production and to offset challenges. There are other measures put in place as well that help farmers balance losses, while allowing retailers and consumers to benefit when a produce glut arises. That this also redounds to a reduction in food waste is icing on the cake and the kind of best practice that ought to be widely adopted.
In Guyana, it would surely benefit small farmers. In this week’s ‘How the Cost of Living is affecting people’ column, Suresh lamented, “… It is hard for me because the farm is not bringing income; the items like pumpkin is not selling. The plantains selling cheap and that can’t pay me because I have like 6-7 workers I usually pay, then I have to hire boat and so, to transport the vegetables.” Then there was Jaideo who complained, “… Our vegetables are not selling now. We selling a pound of plantains for $40… I don’t know why people are not buying plantain. I’m selling squash at a cheaper cost and nobody don’t want to buy it. I have squash until it is left to throw away.” What a shame. They are by no means an anomaly. These same issues are confront-ing other farmers as well. Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, there are families who struggle to serve a single balanced meal every day.
Why is there not a mechanism in place that allows farmers to sell their pumpkins, plantains and squash (or other fruit and vegetables when there’s a glut) for fair prices? The buyer could be a government agency that would then supply school kitchens, public hospitals, prisons and such like. Maybe Guyana needs a food czar to focus solely on addressing these practical and logistical problems.
President Irfaan Ali and Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha have talked up local food production, particularly in the context of the Cari-com 25 by 2025 (now extended to 25 by 30) regional food security initiative. When he announced the extension last month, President Ali spoke of “major investments in infrastructure to support food production” between 2022 and the last quarter of 2024. For his part, Minister Mustapha referenced, “… Guyana, in particular, which has responsibility for agriculture, agriculture diversification, and food security in the Caricom quasi cabinet, has been aggressive in advancing its programme in this regard…” It must be noted, however, that increased food production does not automatically translate to reduced imports as a look at the US Department of Agriculture website revealed.
For 2024, from the US alone, Guyana imported US$10.27 million in eggs and egg products, US$9.89 million in corn, US$8.85 million in dairy products, US$8.63 million in baked goods, US$7.12 million in fresh fruit, US$6.45 million in non-alcoholic beverages excluding fruit juices, and US$5.83 million in condiments and sauces. This totals US$57 million in items, many of which are superfluous, and does not cover the entire list of food imports from that country. And according to the US Department of Agriculture, these exports to Guyana have seen cumulative increases of between 28% to 159% over the last ten years.
When one considers that Guyana also imports food items from other countries several questions arise. Is the government really serious about reducing food imports? What exactly is the policy or strategy being employed here? Or rather, is there one? While there is significant spending on agriculture (the sector received an allocation of $104.6 billion in this year’s budget) the leaching of foreign exchange for purchases that are thoroughly gratuitous does not bode well for the country’s overall economic and environmental health.
