image by Jennifer Snyder (iwantamonkey on Flickr CC)

The wealthy countries of the West are exporting processed, unhealthy foods to the developing world – and with dire consequences.

The shift towards unhealthy diets – heavy in processed foods, fat, sugar and salt – is not simply a result of an increase in wealth among growing middle classes in the developing world, but a concerted effort by large international corporations to inundate markets with unhealthy, non-locally sourced food.

A UN report authored by Olivier de Schutter reveals how this spells economic death for local farmers.

The real culprit is globalization, facilitated by international trade agreements.

Schutter also cites the example of Mexico which once had a diet described by nutritionists as near perfect but, now has the second highest rates of obesity in the world after the US. The signing of a free trade agreement with the US and Canada saw a massive increase in direct foreign investment in the country’s food processing sector in the 1990s and 2000s making junk food and soft drinks available to a larger number of people.

–The Ecologist

So more maladies like heart disease and diabetes for the developing world, without the advanced health care systems to deal with such increases of obesity-linked diseases.

This is a clear example of how the common, accepted example of economic growth does not actually increase quality of life and in some, extremely important ways, diminishes it.

From a piece I wrote back in 2009 on how traditional, natural, local diets are healthier than the new globalization-fueled diet and (somewhat ironically) how during times of economic hardship healthy diets are more prominent in the developing world, in contrast to what happens in wealthy countries.

In developing countries, the situation is largely reversed. Food markets are less industrialized and more regional, consisting essentially of local produce, with imported and processed foods considered luxuries. In difficult economic times, inhabitants of these countries tend to entrench themselves all the more in traditional models of agriculture, diet and nutrition, which are also intrinsically more environmentally friendly than mass importation and industrialized agriculture. And barring famines and food shortages, those populations often eat more healthily than their counterparts in developed nations. Diets may be less exotic, contain less meat and certainly fewer processed ingredients, but they consist of tried and true foods from local sources, often even homegrown. Selections are also less diverse, because production is localized and imports tend to be fewer and less affordable – contributing to generally healthier lifestyles.

While economic globalization, which favors wealthy Western countries and rich multinational corporations, may enrich certain giant agribusinesses, it is quite literally killing people in the developing world.

Read more in The Ecologist.

See also: Are environmental chemicals making you fat?

photo by Adrian Nier (Flickr CC)

Where to file this: in the ‘so obvious we didn’t need a study to confirm it’ category, or in the ‘wait a second, rich people don’t need to steal and cheat, it’s poor people who are pushed into this kind of behavior’ section?

Bit of both, maybe?

The study suggests that the rich don’t feel that they need to depend on others, so they have no problem burning them. If you think you’ll never need any help from anyone else, why should you help, or even care, about them?

Scott Wiltermuth, a social status researcher at USC’s Marshall School of Business who wasn’t involved in the study, concurs.

He is quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

There is a strong notion that when people don’t have much, they’re really looking out for themselves and they might act unethically. But actually, it’s the upper-class people that are less likely to see that people around them need help — and therefore act unethically.

Personally, I think you need to be unethical to get rich in the first place. At least it sure helps a lot. But the UC Berkeley study concentrates on the reverse: the higher your social status, the worse a person you are.

This research is only the latest from Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, which ‘studies the psychology, sociology, and neuroscience of well-being, and teaches skills that foster a thriving, resilient, and compassionate society.’

Previous research found that poor people are more altruistic and compassionate than the wealthy.

From GGSC’s The Poor Give More article:

Whereas lower-class individuals may give more of their resources away, upper-class individuals may tend to preserve and hold onto their wealth. This differential pattern of giving versus saving among upper- and lower-class people could serve to exacerbate economic inequality in society.

Research also showed that even in tough economic times, those with less share more.

Kind of destroys Ayn Rand’s ‘virtue of selfishness’ theory, doesn’t it?

photo by Bernard Polet (much ado about nothing on Flickr CC)

The diet of the West, high in animal products, fat, salt and sugar, is increasingly associated with wealth and development.

The growing middle and upper classes in China are causing meat consumption to skyrocket in that country. Those with more disposable income in characteristically poor places buy more imported, packaged and processed foods, which all tend to be higher in salt, sugar and fat. Meat becomes more of a staple than a luxury. In contrast, the poor of the developing world generally eat traditional diets that are high in fruit and vegetables.

In the West it’s the opposite. The cheapest food is often the most processed and highest in sugars, salt, fat and chemical additives. Fresh, organic food is as much a status symbol as a way towards good health.

New research has shown that traditional diets, high in fresh produce, also help to fight disease in children, while Western fare actually promotes unhealthy gut bacteria.

From an article in the Economist:

In Africa fibre-rich meals of millet, legumes and other vegetables (enlivened by the occasional termite) fostered a diverse mix of bacteria. European children, who imbibed typically Western doses of sugar, fat and meat, had fewer microbial species.

A study by scientists at the University of Florence in Italy, comparing rural African to European children, sheds some light on why certain inflammatory diseases – such as allergies, bowel diseases, eczema and asthma – are more common in wealthy countries than in poor ones.

From an article in the Chicago Tribune:

The study builds on a body of evidence that human health relies heavily on the trillions of microorganisms living in and on our bodies. Only a fraction cause disease directly — many more help digest food, affect other bacteria and may influence hundreds of biological functions.

There is evidence that obesity is also connected with an imbalance of microbial bacteria in the gut.

Additional resources:

Telegraph – Junk food diet puts children at higher risk of allergies

When the economy suffers, rich countries eat worse, while developing countries often eat better

photo by adopt a negotiator (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

The climate talks in Bonn, Germany are emphasizing cleavages between wealthy and poor nations characterized by mistrust and a clash of priorities.

While the poorest nations are the most vulnerable to droughts, floods, and a rise in sea levels; they have contributed the least causes of climate change.

There are fears that the $30bn (€25bn/23bn) – pledged by wealthy countries to poor nations to help with the effects of climate change at last December’s climate talks in Copenhagen – may not materialize as promised.

From a report in the Guardian:

At a time of economic emergency, when several poor countries are slashing critical health and education budgets to avoid a debt crisis, rich countries are considering saddling them with climate debt for a situation they did not cause and are worst affected by.

–Antonio Hill, Oxfam senior policy adviser

Poor nations are also pushing for a binding climate deal between nations in 2010 at the next annual climate summit in Cancun, Mexico. Wealthy developed nations, along with the BASIC countries, contrastingly, are dragging their feet.

From a Reuters Africa report:

Many rich nations and some major emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil at Bonn talks among senior negotiators from May 31-June 11 reckon that a legally binding deal may have to wait, perhaps until a next meeting in 2011 in South Africa.

The Group of 77, comprised of poor nations like Bangladesh and vulnerable island countries, fear this may be too late.

By Graham Land

Additional resources:

Guardian – Bonn climate talks diary

photo by adopt a negotiator (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

The UN climate talks taking place in Bonn, Germany this week are not proving to be a source of positive news for the global environment.

An binding agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently enough to avoid the risk of runaway global warming and climate change were meant to be the goal of last December’s climate talks in Copenhagen. But according to the outgoing UN climate chief, this will probably take at least 10 more years.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is quoted in an AFP report:

I don’t see the process delivering adequate mitigation targets in the next decade. Over the longer term, I think we will get this issue under control. Having said that, I do believe that it’s a longer journey.

The negotiators in Bonn are now favoring an ‘evolutionary process’ for making progressively deeper emissions cuts. They are also debating climate aid for developing countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. At Copenhagen, rich nations pledged $30bn for this purpose, rising to $100bn after 10 years. It has been decided at the talks that the aid will mostly come in the form of grants, not loans.

Meanwhile, wealthy nations have been the target of criticism from poor countries for trying to ‘cheat’ on their emissions accounting by not including logging, but counting tree planting.

From a report in the Guardian:

According to the Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of more than 500 environment and development groups around the world, the revision of the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) rules would falsely exaggerate emission reductions.

The rich nations attempting to take advantage of this loophole are led by Russia, Australia and the EU countries.

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

Guardian – Bonn climate talks diary

Huffington Post – Update from Bonn: The Crazy Killing of the Kyoto Protocol

photo by Michael Foley Photography (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Here is an extra clip from Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong’s The Stupid Show in which young citizens of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates are interviewed about environmental attitudes in their country.

This could easily just be seen as a typical ‘laugh at the rich kids’ bit of reality TV. There is nothing exclusively Emirati about how these young people feel about environmental issues and how they live their lives. After all, Paris Hilton didn’t become an international star and yes, ‘role model’, for nothing. The ‘greed is good’ mantra didn’t die with legwarmers, hair mousse and other 1980s trappings. Give most kids a huge disposable income and they will use it selfishly and to have fun.

Of course, most young people in the world don’t have massive disposable incomes or access to flashy gas-guzzlers, but countless dream of it. Capitalism encourages this while making it possible for a select few in order to keep the dream alive. What’s shown in this video strikes me as nothing more than one version of the American dream being exported to the affluent UAE. Despite the Arabic music I was hearing the Beach Boys singing ‘Fun fun fun till her daddy took the T-bird away’ in my head while watching Dubai’s young and wild joyride on Dubai’s polluted beaches and openly rationalize about their lifestyle like any good rich kid would.

The Stupid Show – Extras – Report from United Arab Emirates

by Zeina Aboul Hosn

For a look at how the UAE matches up with other countries in terms of both per capita and total carbon emissions from fuel consumption, have a look at this informative graph in the Guardian, which is based on figures from the US Energy Information Administration. The UAE tops the per capita emissions list.

Also check out Franny Armstrong and UK energy and climate change minister Ed Miliband’s live blog from the UK election trail.

by Graham Land

destruction in Niterói; photo from Globovisión (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Heavy rains in the Brazilian state of Rio de Janeiro resulted in flooding and mudslides, killing perhaps hundreds of people. So far at least 107 have died in mudslides in the slums or favelas of Niterói, a city that lies across the bay from the well-known metropolis of Rio de Janeiro city.

This raw video from AFP shows aftermath of the floods and mudslides as well as rescue and clean up efforts. Click on the below link to watch.

Mudslides: Cranes clean debris as rescue workers find new victim

A contrasting image is that of surfers taking advantage of the big waves on the famed Copacabana Beach in Rio. The unusually large swells are afforded by days of the same heavy rains that caused the deadly flooding and mudslides.

Check out this video of post-disaster hodads hanging ten from msnbc.com:

Today Show – Big waves strike coast after Brazil storm

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course, you don’t necessarily have to be wealthy to surf or poor to die in a mudslide, and big-wave surfing being what it is, storms offer rare opportunities. But in a country of vast contrasts, such a juxtaposition of dangerous pleasure seeking with unavoidable tragedy due to poverty is telling of the stark divide between rich and poor that exists in Brazil.

by Graham Land

activists in Bonn; photo by adopt a negotiator (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Copenhagen it’s not, but the first UN climate meetings since December’s disappointment in Denmark began today in Bonn, Germany.

According to a report from BBC News, developing countries are strongly on board with the UN process and would like to see a binding global climate deal under the Kyoto Protocol by the next major summit, which takes place in Mexico in November and December. But political will is lacking in some richer nations, especially the US.

US President Barack Obama’s modest pledge made at Copenhagen to reduce emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 probably does not have the political support to pass the in the US Senate. A presumably weaker bill is currently being worked on by a bipartisan group of senators.

Analyses released since the end of the Copenhagen summit suggest that without further constraints soon, it will be very difficult to keep the rise in average global temperatures since pre-industrial times below 2C, a threshold commonly cited as indicating dangerous climate change.

–BBC News

The major developing nations, or BASIC countries – Brazil, China, India and South Africa – form one major block, while rich developed nations – led by the US – make up another. It was a temporary alliance between these two main blocks that pushed through the frail, non-binding Copenhagen Accord.

But this time around, things are already different. Many developing countries felt left out of the deal making in Copenhagen. An article in the Guardian predicts this group, especially poor African countries, to raise its voice at Bonn.

“There is still considerable anger that a figure of 2C was reached which, if implemented, would effectively consign many vulnerable countries to an intolerable future,” said a spokesman for the least developed group of countries.

–Guardian

Another twist is that the EU may be lending support to the demands of developing nations for further emissions cuts by rich countries under the Kyoto Protocol. The UK has signaled that it will agree so long as developing counties do likewise. This would be contrary to the position of the US, Canada and Japan, who want a completely new agreement. One key difference is that the developing world wants history – industrialization and past emissions – to be taken into account when negotiating a treaty, while wealthy countries prefer to concentrate on future emissions.

From an article in the Telegraph:

Yvo de Boer, head of the UN body in charge of negotiations, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), doubted a legally binding deal would be reached in 2010. He expected the best outcome from Mexico would be if countries agree the basic architecture “so that a year later, you can decide or not decide to turn that into a treaty”. The 2011 meeting is in South Africa.

The Copenhagen Accord set out a plan for rich countries to give $30bn per year – growing to $100bn by 2020 – to developing countries for climate change adaptation. The meetings in Bonn will further discuss such aid plans as well as a system to protect the world’s forests.

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

Adoptanegotiator.org