Food and politics are and always have been inextricably intertwined. In the beginning, it was man’s ability to plant crops and leave behind the nomadic life that gave us just about everything we now call civilisation, its ills and its benefits. Once we had crops, we had the concept of property. And that led all the way to Marx and Mao.

And food is a political topic because it covers health and human rights: culinary philosopher Michael Symons has pointed out that two most basic human rights are 1) the right to eat and 2) the right to choose what we eat.

More recently, we see even more complex issues at work as food goes global. Let’s run briefly though two of today’s big issues.

Genetic conundrums

On May 23, 2003, President George W Bush urged the use of genetically modified crops in Africa as part of his End Hunger in Africa initiative. He blamed Europe’s “unfounded unscientific fears” of GM foods for hindering efforts to end hunger in Africa.

Bush was not the first president to act as a spokesperson for biotech companies. There is a close relationship between US government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and these companies. Former Monsanto executives have moved into key positions in these two agencies. One such executive, Linda Fisher, moved back and forth from positions at the EPA, Monsanto and, most recently, another key biotech company, DuPont where, at time of writing, she is Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer.

The link between Big Food and politics takes many forms and doesn’t allow questions on small matters such as the good sense of solving the problem of food shortages in Africa by selling expensive seed to poor farmers — seed that does not improve yield or indeed have anything to offer in solving the particular problems of agriculture in the depleted soils of the continent.

The answer to Africa’s or indeed the world’s food woes doesn’t lie in the arms of the large biotech companies. As outlined in the recent report of the (hold your breath) International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, the way forward appears to be the way back: a massive shift of support to small-scale farmers using a diverse range of agro-ecological methods, including organic farming methods and community-based coping strategies such as seed banks and water management are what is required.

The problem is that such solutions, relying on small-scale and local initiatives, offer no bloated profits for agri-business. And agri-business has acted angrily. A total of 58 countries agreed with the findings of this long-term wide-ranging investigation into the way forward for ending poverty and hunger in the world. Three did not: Canada, America and Australia — the two major growers of genetically modified crops, with Australia running after them, having approved the planting of GM canola in NSW and Victoria in 2008.