We subsidise our farmers, and we have done for years. These subsidies mean that they can sell their food more cheaply, and surpluses mena that they do this selling to the Third World. So farmers in Africa and elsewhere can’t afford to grow foodstuffs for their local markets and either go under or start producing cash crops for the West. One little glitch and people end up starving when there is perfectly good agricultural land they could be using mere miles away.

Of course the logical answer would be to cut the subsidies so that European and American farmers would have to compete fairly with those in smaller countries. It wouldn’t be pretty for farmers, and, as usual, it would be the smaller concerns that would suffer more than the agri-businesses, but any industry that is built on such a false foundation is heading for a major crash sooner or later anyway. Better to get it done now than later when the effects will just be worse. It would give them a chance to focus on better quality produce for local markets (this is becoming a theme with me- buy local produce and save the world, okay).

Strangely enough, it was the French- a nation famous for coddling and protecting its farmers- who suggested the removal of subsidies, proposing a multi-lateral agreement between the EU and US. I like the French more and more and would like to apologise for any jokes I may have made about them in the past. Of course, common sense such as this doesn’t get a look in on the world stage, what with Wubble U’s agri-corp backers and Tony’s habit of doing whatever the US wants.