Farmers Must Sell Quinoa

I am always amazed at the one-sided analysis that some journalists adopt in the discussion of trade in goods and especially in agricultural and food items. Joanna Blythman of the Guardian wrote a story on the fact that the global demand for a Peruvian crop known as quinoa is raising prices for the product worldwide. A a supporter of enterprise and trade, I think that this is an unequivocally good thing. However,  the journalist, without stating any other numbers, simply states that the price of quinoa has led to a threefold increase in its price and thereby affected its affordability for Peru's poor people. She attributes the rise in price to the expansion in demand in Europe among health conscious people.

That some households may face difficulty and hunger because the prices of quinoa have risen is not to be taken lightly. However, it is clear that other farmers have gained substantially due to the rise in demand for this crop. Any analysis that fails to account for both the effect on sellers and buyers tells on a part of the story and looks suspiciously reductionist. This blogger would state without equivocation that a big part of the solution in world hunger is not about who consumes what but rather that poorer farmers are affected by inadequate demand for the products that they produce. Peru's quinoa farmers should not have to accept the perverse option of low prices just so that everybody can afford that grain. Indeed, the conclusion fro Joanna that the solution to undernourishment is for all food to be grown a home has little connection to the solution for hunger. Do not blame vegetarians for higher preference for quinoa.