Can
vegans stomach the
unpalatable truth
about quinoa?
Ethical
consumers should be aware poor Bolivians can no longer afford their
staple grain, due to western demand raising prices
16
January, 2013
Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods".
Adventurous
eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls
that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as a credibly
nutritious substitute for meat. Unusual among grains, quinoa has a
high protein content (between 14%-18%), and it contains all those
pesky, yet essential, amino acids needed for good health that can
prove so elusive to vegetarians who prefer not to pop food
supplements.
Sales
took off. Quinoa was, in marketing speak, the "miracle grain of
the Andes", a healthy, right-on, ethical addition to the meat
avoider's larder (no dead animals, just a crop that doesn't feel
pain). Consequently, the price shot up – it has tripled since 2006
– with more rarified black, red and "royal" types
commanding particularly handsome premiums.
But
there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of
quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this
grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in
Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can
no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima,
quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled
by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once
produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.
In
fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging
north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led
consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there. It's beginning to
look like a cautionary tale of how a focus on exporting premium foods
can damage the producer country's food security. Feeding our
apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury
vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus.
Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is
concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water
resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus
labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed
their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream
off the profits. That's the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy
spears on supermarket shelves.
Soya,
a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy
products, is another problematic import, one that drives
environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those
who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying
meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of
deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where
vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way
for huge plantations.
Three
years ago, the pioneering Fife Diet, Europe's biggest local
food-eating project, sowed an experimental crop of quinoa. It failed,
and the experiment has not been repeated. But the attempt at least
recognised the need to strengthen our own food security by lessening
our reliance on imported foods, and looking first and foremost to
what can be grown, or reared, on our doorstep.
In
this respect, omnivores have it easy. Britain excels in producing
meat and dairy foods for them to enjoy. However, a rummage through
the shopping baskets of vegetarians and vegans swiftly clocks up the
food miles, a consequence of their higher dependency on products
imported from faraway places. From tofu and tamari to carob and
chickpeas, the axis of the vegetarian shopping list is heavily skewed
to global.
There
are promising initiatives: one enterprising Norfolk company, for
instance, has just started marketing UK-grown fava beans (the sort
used to make falafel) as a protein-rich alternative to meat. But in
the case of quinoa, there's a ghastly irony when the Andean peasant's
staple grain becomes too expensive at home because it has acquired
hero product status among affluent foreigners preoccupied with
personal health, animal welfare and reducing their carbon
"foodprint". Viewed through a lens of food security, our
current enthusiasm for quinoa looks increasingly misplaced.
•
This
footnote was appended on 17 January 2013. To clarify: while soya is
found in a variety of health products, the majority of production -
97% according to the UN report of 2006 - is used for animal feed.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.