Peak Food: Blaming the Victims高峰期的食物：指責受害者
By通過 Nafeez Ahmed nafeez艾哈邁德 | I’ve already written about this in previous posts under the ‘hidden holocaust’ theme, but am prompted to re-address this issue given the way it’s been dealt with by mainstream media and associated ‘experts’. |我已經寫這在以往的職位，根據『隱藏的大屠殺'的主題，但我提示重新正視這個問題給予這樣的的處理，由主流媒體和相關的'專家' 。
In today’s在今天的 Independent 獨立 we see an eye-opening article revealing that amidst what is described as a series of “global food shortages”, a new “government-backed report” shows that “the British public” annually throws away “4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.我們看到大開眼界開放的文章透露，中，什麼是被形容為一系列的“全球糧食短缺” ，一個新的“政府支持的報告”表明， “英國公眾” ，每年拋棄“ 4400000蘋果，香蕉， 1600000 ， 1300000酸奶罐， 660000雞蛋，雞55.0萬， 30.0萬包crisps和440000準備飯菜。 And for the first time government researchers have established that most of the food waste is made up of completely untouched food products – whole chickens and chocolate gateaux that lie uneaten in cupboards and fridges before being discarded” — adding up to “a record £10b” every year.並為第一次，政府的研究人員已經確定，大部分的食物渣滓，是取得了完全原封不動的食物產品-全雞和巧克力G ateaux可整裝待發“對此，在櫥櫃和冰箱前，被丟棄” -加入到“創紀錄的£ 1 0 B條”每年。
And that’s just us Brits.這只是我們英國人。 Imagine what the totals are for the Western world combined: Scary and revealing stuff that makes the word “overconsumption” seem like a gross understatement.試想總數是為西方世界的結合：可怕的，揭示的東西，使單詞“過度”好像總輕描淡寫。
But despite the shock value of such important revelations, I’m increasingly concerned at the way in which the food crisis is being portrayed.但是，儘管休克的價值如此重要的啟示，我越來越關注的是，該以何種方式的糧食危機正在描繪。 The Independent goes on to explain the causes of the food crisis as follows: “… millions of the world’s poor face food shortages caused by rising populations, droughts and increased demand for land for biofuels, which have sparked riots and protests from Haiti to Mauritania, and from Yemen to the Philippines.” 獨立的推移解釋的原因，糧食危機如下： “ … …以百萬計的世界上的窮人，面對糧食短缺所造成的人口的上升，旱災和增加對土地的需求，為生物燃料，已引發暴動和抗議，從海地到毛里塔尼亞，並從也門到菲律賓的“ 。
So the food crisis comes down to three things:因此，糧食危機歸結為三件事：
1) rising populations (presumably not us in the advanced West, but rather those Third World crazies breeding like rabbits despite being so poor) 1 ）人口的上升（假設而不是我們在先進的西方，而是那些第三世界的瘋子一樣，家兔育種儘管既然如此窮人）
2) droughts (which may be exacerbated by climate change but in any case often occur naturally and therefore we purportedly can’t do much about) 2 ）乾旱（可能是因氣候變化而加劇，但在任何情況下往往是自然發生，因此，我們在據稱是不能做的不多）
3) and the drive from energy corporations for investment in biofuels. 3 ）和幹勁，從能源企業的投資在生物燃料。
Indeed, according to the British government’s new chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington speaking at a government conference two months ago:事實上，根據英國政府的新的首席科學顧問，教授約翰beddington出席一個政府會議在兩個月前：
“price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations . “價格上漲，在主食如大米，玉米和小麥將繼續，因為需求增加所造成的人口增長和增加財富，在開發中國家 。 He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate.他還表示， 氣候變化會導致壓力的糧食供應，由於雨量減少，在許多領域和農作物歉收有關氣候。 ‘ The agriculture industry needs to '農業產業化需要
double its food production, using less water than today.’ ” 雙其糧食生產，用較少的水比今天 “ 。
So again, population and economic growth in the ‘developing nations’, plus climate change, are to blame, and can only be addressed by doubling food production using less water (technologically impossible for all intents and purposes, but we’ll come back to that).再次，人口和經濟增長，在'開發中國家' ，加上氣候變化，是咎由自取，只能加以解決增加一倍，糧食生產用較少的水（在技術上是不可能的所有意圖和目的，但我們會回來認為） 。 It’s Them again — too many of Them, wanting More.它的他們再次-太多，他們想更多。
As if to emphasise the point, we hear in the same piece that:好像是為了強調這一點，我們所聽到的，在同一塊：
“Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, said at the conference that the world’s population was expected to grow from 6.2bn today to 9.5bn in less than 50 years’ time. “希拉里本，環境局局長說，在這次會議上指出，世界人口預計將增長從6.2bn今天9.5bn在不到50年的時間。 ‘How are we going to feed everybody?’ he asked .” '我們如何去飼料大家呢？ '他問 “ 。
Only a rhetorical question of course.只是一個修辭的問題，當然。 Sorry to break it t’ya folks, but ‘feeding everybody’ has never really been one of the state’s major concerns.很抱歉，打破它t'ya鄉親，但'餵養大家'從來就沒有真正的一個國家的重大關切。 That’s why “Each tonne of wheat and sugar from the UK is sold on international markets at an average price of 40% and 60% below the cost of production respectively (ie,這就是為什麼“每公噸小麥和糖來自英國出售的是在國際市場上平均售價為40 ％和60 ％ ，低於生產成本分別為（即， it is dumped 這是傾倒 )”, thus undercutting local farmers across the South, who thus lose any semblance of agricultural-independence they may have once had (ie the ability to feed their own people), thus becoming subject to the whims of the global food market, manipulated through speculation in the interests of Northern investors and consumers. ） “ ，從而削弱了當地農民的全國南，誰因此失去了任何的假象農業台獨他們可能曾經有過（即有能力養活自己的人民） ，從而成為受到的衝動全球糧食市場，通過操縱投機在利益的北部投資者和消費者。
But the important point for now is that as far as Hilary Benn is concerned, it’s clear that the cause of the problem is “their” population growth.但重要的一點，現在是，據希拉里本而言，它的明確表示，問題的原因是“他們”人口的增長。
Later in the article, Professor Beddington is cited pointing out that global grain stores are currently at the lowest levels ever, just 40 days from running out.後來在文章中，教授beddington是引述他指出，全球糧食店目前處於歷來最低的水平，只要40天，從不多了。 He again emphasises the question of food production: “I am only nine weeks into the job, so don’t yet have all the answers, but it is clear that science and research to increase the efficiency of agricultural production per unit of land is critical .”他再次強調的問題，糧食生產： “我只有9個星期到工作，所以尚未有所有的答案，但很明顯， 科學和研究以提高其效率，農業生產每單位土地是關鍵 “ 。
According to Beddington, food security is the “elephant in the room” that politicians must face up to quickly.據beddington ，糧食安全是“大象在房間內”的政治家必須面對迅速。 In reality, the “elephant in the room” goes far deeper than the surface issues scratched at lamely by the government, and sits in the heart of global food production .在現實中， “大象在房間內”遠遠超過更深的表面劃傷的問題，在lamely ，由政府和設在的心臟， 全球糧食生產 。 Some of Beddington’s observations show that he is dimly aware of this problem.一些beddington的意見表明，他是dimly意識到這一問題。 He understands that production needs to be increased drastically.他明白生產的需要，必須大幅增加。 But his solution is a technological one, “science and research” in order to maximise “efficiency” so we can produce faster and better to meet escalating global demand.但他的解決方案是一個技術之一， “科學和研究” ，以最大的“效率” ，讓我們可以產生更快，更好地滿足不斷升級的全球需求。 This is unlikely to happen.這是不大可能發生。 Beddington knows it. beddington知道。 Benn knows it.本知道。 The supermarket chains know it.連鎖超級市場知道這一點。
From this conventional analysis of the food crisis, we are not left with many solutions.從這個常規分析糧食危機，我們不走與很多的解決辦法。 We may, however, pick among the following: 1) the proliferation and prolongation of droughts due to climate change means that we need to slow down our CO2 emissions by introducing ‘market incentives’ (ie big taxes) targeted largely at consumers, who are blamed for having no regard for the size of their individual carbon footprints.我們可能會，不過，挑選其中以下幾點： 1 ）的擴散和延長的乾旱，由於氣候變化意味著我們需要放緩，我們的二氧化碳排放量，引入市場誘因' （即大稅）有針對性的，主要是消費者，誰是指責沒有考慮到的大小，他們對單個碳的腳印。 transfering to alternative renewable energies is, for some odd reason, irrelevant.轉移到其他可再生能源的是，對於一些奇怪的理由，無關宏旨。 2) reducing population growth in developing countries to decrease demand for food (nothing at all to do with 2 ）降低人口增長是在發展中國家，以減少對糧食的需求（什麼都做 NSSM 200 nssm 200 , of course). ，當然） 。 3) go easy on the biofuels (but fail to propose investment in other 3 ）去很容易就生物燃料（但不建議投資於其他 viable alternative energy sources 可行的替代能源 ). ） 。 4) pray day and night that Science will somehow generate a technological miracle of agricultural production. 4 ）祈禱，日夜奮戰，科學將在某種程度上產生一個技術的奇蹟農業生產。
Obviously, none of these ’solutions’ seems to really offer a way out for the food crisis — and that’s because the analysis is fundamentally flawed.很明顯，所有這些解決方案' ，似乎真的提供了一條出路，為糧食危機-這是因為分析是根本站不住腳的。 It’s not completely wrong, it just misses out half the picture, and so comes up with a false diagnosis of what’s actually gone wrong.它不是完全錯誤的，它只是錯過了一半的圖片，所以來了一個虛假的診斷是什麼的，其實亂子。 The result is that the institutions that require urgent re-structuring are being absolved.結果是該機構的迫切需要重新構建現正開脫。 The government, the state, and the network of giant multinational corporations that govern global agribusiness, are excused of any culpability.政府，國家和網絡巨頭跨國公司執政全球農業綜合企業，是免除任何責任。 The cause of the crisis, we keep hearing is, WE, THE PEOPLE!危機的原因，我們不斷聽說是，我們人民的！ It’s the developing nations, who just won’t stop breeding, dammit.它的發展中的國家，誰只是不會停止繁殖， dammit 。 It’s us Western consumers, who won’t stop eating and throwing a third of our food away.這是我們西方消費者，誰也不會停止進食和投擲的三分之一，我們的食物。 It’s everyone except the state-corporate complex that controls the food industry.它的每一個人，除國家企業的複雜的控制食品工業。
I’m not suggesting for a moment that you and I are NOT culpable.我並非暗示一個時刻，你和我都沒有罪責。 Of course we are.我們當然。 We do throw away tonnes, literally, of food.我們扔掉噸，從字面上看，食物。 We do, each of us, have large carbon footprints that we should try to reduce in our own ways.我們做什麼，我們每一個人，有大量的碳足跡，我們應該盡量減少在以自己的方式。 Populations are increasing.人口正不斷增加。 But the question is this: are these factors the fundamental causes of the current global food crisis?但問題是這樣的：是這些因素的根本原因，目前全球的糧食危機呢？ Or are they exacerbating factors that are accentuating and intensifying the impact of the food crisis?他們或惡化的因素是加劇和深化的影響，糧食危機？ Following mainstream news coverage of food shortages, one would be forgiven for believing that rising food prices are all because of you and me, the public, the general consumer.以下主流新聞報導的糧食短缺，一會原諒，以為不斷增加的糧食價格，都是因為你和我，市民，一般消費者。 We have been thoroughly pathologised.我們已徹底pathologised 。 And the British government, with its eye-opening study of how much food the British consumer chucks away without thinking, is complicit in this pathologisation.和英國政府，其眼開放的研究有多少食物，英國消費者夾頭，毋須思想，是共犯在這pathologisation 。
Why is that the government-backed report discussed in today’s Independent , says nothing about the institutions who are primarily responsible for food wastage, the supermarkets, the multinational food chains?這是為什麼政府支持的報告，討論了在今天的獨立 ，說什麼誰該機構主要負責食物的浪費，超級市場，跨國公司的食物鏈？ If the government is genuinely concerned about food wastage in this country, why won’t they do something about the fact reported by the same newspaper in February, that:如果政府是真正關心糧食浪費在這個國家，為什麼他們會不會做一些有關的事實報導，由同一報紙在二月，即：
“ “ Retailers generate 1.6 million tonnes of food waste each year… 零售商產生160萬噸的食物渣滓，每年… An influential watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), will condemn targets set by the Government’s waste-reduction programme as ‘unambitious and lacking urgency’. 一個有影響力的看門狗，可持續發展委員會署（ SDC ） ， 將譴責的目標，政府所訂的廢物減少計劃，作為' unambitious ，缺乏緊迫感。 It will also say multi-buy promotions are helping to fuel waste and obesity in Britain. 它還將說，多買促銷活動，幫助燃料浪費和肥胖在英國。 Speaking to The Independent on Sunday ahead of the report’s publication on Saturday, Tim Lang, SDC commissioner, said it was ‘ludicrous’ that the Government had not pressured retailers into setting tougher targets to cut waste. 在談到向獨立於週日之前，該報告的出版對週六，添郎，南區區議會專員 ， 說這是'可笑的' ，政府並沒有施加壓力，零售商到設定更嚴格的目標，以削減浪費。
Three years ago, the government-funded Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap) left it up to supermarkets to find voluntary ’solutions to food waste’ in an agreement dubbed the Courtauld Commitment. 三年前，由政府資助的廢物及資源行動計劃（總結）離開了超級市場找到自願的解決方案，以食物渣滓'了一項協議，被稱為courtauld的承諾。 ‘The Government is frankly not using its leverage adequately. '政府是坦白不使用其槓桿充分。 It really should toughen up on Courtauld, which must be enforced because this is ludicrous,’ said Mr Lang, who is also professor of food policy at City University, London. 是否真的要鍛煉了對courtauld ，這必須得到執行，因為這是可笑的， '郎先生說，誰是還教授糧食政策在城市大學，倫敦。
The 18-month study, which found that ‘too many supermarket practices are still unhealthy, unjust and unsustainable’, said Wrap should adopt a ‘more aspirational approach to reducing waste in food retail by setting longer-term targets and [supporting] a culture of zero waste’… 18個月的研究，發現'太多，超市的做法仍然是不健康，不公正和不可持續的' ，說的總結應該採取'更期望的做法，以減少廢物在食品零售設定長遠的目標和[支持]文化零浪費' … …
A separate study by Imperial College for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, found that supermarkets preferred to throw away food that was approaching its sell-by date rather than mark it down in price.” 另一項研究是由帝國學院，該署為環境，食品和農村事務部發現，超級市場，寧願扔掉的食物，這是接近其出售日期，而非馬克下來，在價格“ 。
So three months after being hit over the head by the Sustainable Development Commission, the government’s waste reduction programme completely ignores the warnings that supermarket profit-maximisation policies are not only directly generating billions of pounds of waste by dumping good food, they are encouraging consumers through excessive advertising, multi-buy offers, and refusal to slash prices on older foods, to also buy excess food they don’t need, a third of which they dump in turn.因此， 3個月後，被擊中超過頭部的可持續發展委員會，政府的減少廢物計劃，完全無視警告說，超市的利潤- maximisation政策，不僅直接產生數十億英鎊的廢物傾倒良好的食物，他們是令人鼓舞的消費者通過過多的廣告，多買優惠，並拒絕降價對老年人的食品，還購買過剩的食物他們不需要，其中三分之一，他們轉儲在好轉。 Instead, the government simply blames consumers.反之，政府簡單地歸咎於消費者。 Period.期。
Don’t penalise Profit, nor Power.不懲罰的利潤，也沒有權力。 Pathologise People. pathologise人。
The corporate-biased law doesn’t help either, because: “The scale of the wastage from supermarkets, food processors, wholesalers and restaurants is公司偏見的法律沒有幫助，因為： “大規模的流失，從超市，食品加工，批發商和餐館 not known 不知道 , because many companies refuse to make their data public, citing commercial confidentiality.” In other words, we don’t even know the real scale of corporate food wastage. ，因為許多公司的垃圾，使他們的數據公開為由，商業機密。 “換句話說，我們甚至不知道真正的規模企業食物的浪費。 Worse, the government regularly does the same thing — here’s an example: “In the past 10 months, the government’s food intervention board更糟的是，政府經常做同樣的事-這是一個例子： “在過去1 0個月，政府的干預糧食局 dumped almost 30,000 tonnes 傾倒近3萬噸 of fresh vegetables and fruit which had been withdrawn from the market to guarantee farm prices.”新鮮蔬菜和水果已撤出市場，以保證農產品價格“ 。
So the problem is far more complex, rooted in a consumerist culture that is tied to a political economy being deliberately sustained by those institutions with the most to gain from this entrenched structure.因此，問題是複雜得多，植根於1消費文化是聯繫在一起的政治經濟正在持續，刻意由這些機構與最從中獲益，這根深蒂固的結構。 The government has no interest in transforming that political economy.政府有沒有興趣在轉變，政治經濟。 So the result is an insistence on inspecting only half the picture, ignoring the role of the global corporate food industry.因此，其結果是，堅持檢查，只有一半的圖片，無視的作用，全球食品工業企業。
Driven by capitalist imperatives for short-term profit maximisation and long-term cost-minimisation, global agribusiness has established an international food production system that is, basically, dying.驅動資本主義所必需的短期盈利及maximisation長期成本減少，全球農業已成立了一個國際食物生產系統是，基本上，死亡。
Most of the Earth’s fertile land is already now being used for food production.大部分的地球肥沃的土地已經是現在被用作糧食生產。 Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2005 reported that “there is now科學家們在威斯康星大學麥迪遜分校在2005年報告說， “現在 little room 餘地不大 for further agricultural expansion.” One of the scientists, Dr Navin Ramankutty, points out: “The real question is, how can we continue to produce food from the land while preventing negative environmental consequences such as deforestation, water pollution and soil erosion?” Or, more bluntly, how are we going to keep producing food if our production-system continues to destroy the very means to produce food?為進一步擴大農業“之一，科學家，醫生納ramankutty ，指出： ”真正的問題是，我們如何能繼續產生的食物從土地，同時防止消極環境後果的，如森林砍伐，水污染和水土流失“ ？或者，更直截了當地說，我們如何去保持生產食品，如果我們的生產系統繼續破壞非常手段產生的食物呢？
It’s not that the Earth can’t produce the food.這並不是說地球上不能生產糧食。 Its that corporate agribusiness can’t produce the food.其認為， 農業產業化企業不能生產糧食。 In fact, as I’ve warned previously, it has been failing to produce the food since the 1990s, during which grain production has事實上，正如我已經警告以前，它一直未能出示食品20世紀90年代以來，在此期間糧食生產 increasingly slowed 越來越放慢 . 。 The frenzied application of fertilisers and other modern agricultural practices served to temporarily escalate production, but simultaneously have intensified soil erosion, destroying in years essential nutrients for crop-growth that take centuries to replace.瘋狂的應用化肥和其他現代農業服務的做法，暫時升級，生產，但同時加劇了水土流失，破壞了在年必需的營養素，為作物生長需數百年來取代。 The imminent peak of world oil production, oil being the chief underpinning for industrial agricultural methods, which is either just round the corner in 2010-ish (or worse, passed in 2005) means that the global corporate food production system is up against its own physical limits.迫在眉睫的高峰期，世界石油產量，石油作為行政的支柱工業，農業的方法，這是剛輪的角落在2010年-原位雜交（或者更糟的是，通過在2005年） ，即全球性公司的糧食生產系統是對自己的物理極限。
For us to keep eating, it’s true, we have to put an end to our insane overconsumption and wastefulness.為我們繼續吃，它的真實，我們要杜絕我們的瘋狂的過度消費和浪費。 But there are real limits to what the consumer can do within the existing global corporate food system.但也有真正的限制是什麼，消費者可以做的與現有的全球糧食系統的企業。 So we need to turn our attention to that system, and demand that it changes fundamentally, which means, of course, a wholesale transformation of our political economies in ways which rely on renewable energy resources and localised less-intensive but no less successful traditional agricultural practices.因此，我們必須把我們注意這一制度，並要求它從根本上的變化，這意味著，當然，批發轉型，我們的政治經濟體系的方式，依賴於可再生能源資源和局部性的少密集，但沒有不太成功的傳統農業的做法。 We need some kind of grassroots action, which makes our voices impossible to ignore.我們需要某種形式的基層的行動，這使得我們的聲音不可能忽視的問題。 It will take time to develop, to become strong, to gather momentum.這是需要時間的發展，成為強有力的，以收集的勢頭。 But it needs to be done, and now.但它需要做的，和現在。 Because at current rates of declining food production and rising prices, fuelled by unscrupulous market speculation, many, many people are likely to die, not just in the South, but here too.因為在目前的利率下降的糧食生產和價格上漲，助長了不良的市場投機活動，許多，許多人死亡的可能性，不僅在南方，但在這裡太。 And while this death escalates, a few at the helm of the global corporate food industry will reap unprecedented windfall profits from their deaths.而這死亡的升級，有幾個在領導全球企業食品工業將獲得前所未有的意外利潤從他們的死亡。 That’s why real solutions aren’t being put on the table.這就是為什麼真正的解決方案並沒有被提上就座。 Death is regrettable, but when it comes wrapped in £££$$$, it’s not so bad…死亡是令人感到遺憾，但談到裹在£££$$$,它不是那麼差勁…
See More: 看到更多的： World News 世界新聞Have Your Say: Peak Food: Blaming the Victims 你說：繁忙的食物：指責受害者
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週四， 2008年5月8日在下午8時07分，並提交下 General 一般 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- Bush backs modified crops布什支持改良作物
- Despite bumper grain crop, 33 countries in food crisis: UN儘管豐收，糧食作物， 33個國家在糧食危機：聯合國
- Food additives ‘can cause hyperactivity’食品添加劑'可導致動'
- Brown urges G8 action on food scarcity布朗敦促八國集團行動，糧食短缺
- Food Additives as Damaging as Lead食品添加劑的損害作為牽頭
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Officers routinely lied to obtain search warrants人員經常說謊，以取得搜查令
- Will the Mortgage Industry Pay for Its Crimes?將按揭業支付其罪行？
- Judge May Make CIA Torture Memo Public法官可能會使中情局酷刑備忘錄市民
- Roots of surveillance standoff go back decades基層監察對峙回去幾十年
- US deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat美國部署超過4.3萬不適合作戰
- UN suspends aid flights after Burma impounds food聯合國中止援助的航班後，緬甸impounds食物
- BBC kept £106,000 of charity cash英國廣播公司保持10.6萬英鎊的慈善現金
- Peak Food: Blaming the Victims高峰期的食物：指責受害者
- The Challenge Of Modern Slavery挑戰現代奴役
- Ex-MI5 chief warns over detention前軍情五處行政警告以上的拘留
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
