#someone made the 'vegetable farming involves labour exploitation' which like

[catgirltoes]

You have made an intellectually dishonest argument against veganism! Blocked!

[acti-veg]

The Quinoa Issue

The quinoa objection will be familiar to many vegans, it is one that has been very popular since a particular New York Times article raised concerns about how the price rising price of quinoa has left many Bolivian people, for whom the crop is a staple, unable to afford it. This artical was instantly seized on to promote an anti-vegan agenda, wherein the implication was that the rise in quinoa consumption is the fault of vegans who continue eat the now trendy food. Others recognised that the tiny percentage of vegans worldwide were fairly obviously not responsible for a global boom in sales, but pointed the finger at vegans nonetheless by arguing that vegans care more about the animals than the poor farmers growing their quinoa. There are some glaring problems with this logic right from the offset, and many factual errors in the information used to support it.

Firstly, even if it were true that vegans were starving Bolivian farmers by buying quinoa, this entire argument would still be founded on a tu quoque fallacy. This argument essentially uses a red herring to point the finger back at vegans as opposed to having to defend meat eating, rather than attacking our argument, they have appealed to the idea that we are hypocritical because of our personal consumption habits. Even if these claims were true, this would still not be an effective argument against veganism, it is an argument against us as individuals. It is attacking the idea that we actually follow these values, rather than discussing the merits of the values themselves. If every vegan on earth were a hypocrit, that would not make veganism itself hypocritical, it would just mean that we have all failed in following it’s principles.

The story of the starving Bolivian farmers not being able to afford their own crop hit the news worldwide, and the guilt trip consumers had been taken on as a result did in fact, reach the ears of those being used as a pawn in these anti-vegan arguments; the farmers themselves. Their reaction was curious, to say the least:

“To me, quinoa … is absolutely changing the lives of our regional community of people,” German Nina, a quinoa farmer, said during a conference call organized by Alter Eco Foods, which sells quinoa products that are fair trade certified.”

These stories were still spreading rapidly through western media, mostly spurred on by social media influencers and journalists practically rabid at the idea of having a blunt object to hit vegans and milennials with, both the perceived markets for this product, yet the farmers themselves were telling that the increase in the price of the crop has meant they are making far more money than they were before, and are in a better position because of it. As for not being able to afford their own product, farmers are simply setting aside some of their own crop for personal consumption, as they always have. That farmers would have to buy their own crop back at market value was always a very strange assumption, and one that almost no one spreading this story seems to have stopped to consider. Another study in FoodPolicy concluded, similarly, that even when the price of quinoa had gone up by 400%, quinoa farmers did not have to cut back their consumption.

It is “very good news for small, indigenous farmers,” says Pablo Laguna, an anthropologist who has studied quinoa’s influence on local communities in Bolivia. Quinoa’s popularity, he says, is bringing more income to the southern highlands, traditionally one of the poorest regions in Bolivia.

Contrary to the idea being spread that livelihoods are being ruined by quinoa consumption, the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, has expressed concern that the quinoa boom has been so good for the Bolivian economy that the country should be careful not to rely solely on it as a source of income, since it may one day fall out of favor with westerners. He points out that, far from Bolivians not being able to afford quinoa, domestic consumption of the crop has increased threefold since the “quinoa boom.” In general, growers have greatly benefited from the increased popularity of quinoa.

It is not just insider sources confirmijng this, either. A study from the Towson University Department of Economics found that during the quinoa boom, the welfare and economic situation of both consumers and producers of quinoa in Bolivia increased rapidly as a result of the global increase in demand for quinoa, but it was the growers who benefited most of all. The paper concluded, unambiguously, that “The claim that rising quinoa prices were hurting those who had traditionally produced and consumed it [is] patently false.” Another study in FoodPolicy concluded, similarly, that even when the price of quinoa had gone up by 400%, quinoa farmers did not cut back their consumption.It stands to reason, then, that if quinoa were to become unpopular due to these scare stories, the toll on the economic situation of those whose  livelihood’s are depending on farming it would be catastrophic, and yet these stories persist, and are still especially popular with anti-vegans in particular.

The fact that quinoa which was not produced in Bolivia or Peru is widely available also did not seem to phase it’s attackers. If someone did have real and genuine concerns about the welfare of Bolivian quinoa growers, why not simply purchase quinoa grown in Western Australia, where the crop is becoming increasingly popular? Or even Quinoa grown in North America, a growing enterprise? The truth is that this criticism always had less to do with concern for farmers in Bolivia and more to do with having a convenient reason to reject veganism. That people spreading this nonsense are unaware of what Bolivian farmers themselves are saying is obvious, and it seems reasonable to conclude that this is something they would have spent at least a few minutes researching if their criticisms of quinoa did come from a place of genuine concern.

Now, none of this is to say that there are no problems with quinoa. All high demand crops come with problems, from the potential of worker exploitation, to over-producing leaving land arid, to unequal distribution at home, pesticide use, land clearance- the potential ethical issues are many. What’s more, as we have already established, the price of quinoa is indeed rising, but so is the price of every other staple food in Bolivia. This is a result of several factors, including western demand, widespread droughts and periods of intense flooding. To ignore this wider context in order to use quinoa as an isolated example and to lay the blame for the regional and global problem of inflation of food prices at the door of vegans alone is completely absurd.

The problems of quinoa are shared by just about every other staple crop on earth, and it is curious indeed that we never hear these arguments about corn, wheat, grain or soy from meat eaters, most of which is used as animal feed. Mono-crops used for feeding animals involve some of the most destructive farming practices on earth, with vast swathes of land being deforested for it, and crop pickers being exploited to pick it. Since the animals fed to meat eaters require far more crops to get them to slaughter weight than they will ever give out in meat, a meat eating diet actually requires far more crops, and therefore crop labour, than a vegan diet does. That’s not even factoring in slaughterhouse workers themselves, who are some of the most exploited workers on the planet.

What anti-vegans want to do with arguments like this is to create a false dichotomy, where it is either consume animal products or consume quinoa, when in fact, most of us can be perfectly healthy without consuming either one. That quinoa is eaten by more meat eaters than vegans is beyond question, it appears with meat and fish on menus far more frequently than it appears with vegetables or beans. For those who do have genuine concerns about quinoa though, the conclusion should be obvious. Just don’t eat quinoa. Many people don’t, including many vegans, and if that is done out of ethical concerns then that is perfectly legitimate. What is not legitimate however, is using the problems of quinoa as a justification for eating animals, as if that were the only reasonable option they are left with.

This argument, similar to the myriad of other fallacies thrown at vegans on a regular basis, is nothing more than an attempt to capitalise on very real social and political issues in order to score points against veganism. These points are seldom made with any nuance, analysis or prior research, and are repeated ad nauseum purely because they confirm the existing bias of those spouting them. It is long past time that we genuinely worked towards solving issues of food availability, crop production and the inequalities of our capitalist system, rather than simply using the very people we should be advocating for as mere pawns to support an anti-vegan agenda.

[mahashami]

Silent Movie

The Brief

This brief for this project is to create a 1 min film to communicate the idea that 'FOOD SHOULD COST MORE'. The film must be in black and white and must also not include any words, whether that is spoken or written. You must also produce notes and a blog post to show research, development, storyboards, experimentation and tests. My team for this project includes, Francesca Meloni, Noora Shao, Amber Lewis, and Scott Turner.

Initial Research 

Why should food cost less?

Instead of immediately deciding to form an argument, we used our research initially to look at both sides of the argument:

Fareshare.org.uk. - 8.4 million people in the UK are struggling to afford to eat right now, (this is the same as the entire population of London).

According to a recent report from Cambridge University, a healthy diet costs 3 times that of junk food. ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11149644/Healthy-diet-costs-three-times-that-of-junk-food.html )

Lowering food prices could help to address the class issues in this country and create a more even playing field.

Why should food cost more?

Expensive food would mean less waste is produced. 1.9 million tonnes of food is wasted by food industry every year in the UK.

250,000 tonnes of food that goes to waste each year is edible.

Food being more expensive would encourage self growing food. (fruits and vegetables)

Cheaper food is unethical because of the process of how it ends up on our tables. Grass root, growers, pickers and farmers aren't paid well and are being exploited by big businesses.

Cheap food = exploited workers

Food and drink accounts for 20% of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions.

When food is produced (especially foods like, bananas, coffee, chocolate etc) local farmers must compete with subsidised contracted farms to sell commodities at lower prices, but the only way local farmers can do this is through free labour and have to suffer an unsustainable quality of life.

Why should particular types of food be more expensive?

Sweets and sugar should be more expensive because then this will put people off from buying them and therefore the health of the country as a whole will improve. This can be seen through the implementation of the sugar tax in other countries for example

Mexico introduced a 10 per cent tax on sugary drinks in 2014 and saw a 12 per cent reduction over the first year.

Hungary brought in a tax on the drinks companies and saw a 40 per cent decrease in the amount of sugar in the products. (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1619208/sugar-tax-uk-fizzy-drinks-coke-sugar-cost/)

Meat should be more expensive so that people buy less meat, and then exploiting animals in the industry would go down.

Feedback from Research Presentation for 'Food should be more expensive'

To Have a look at the powerpoint we created for the ‘Food should be more expensive’ research presentation please refer to my USB. The feedback from group we received after presenting our research and potential angle ideas:

Mornings group had case study about how putting up prices in South Africa had a negative effect.

Our idea is very big, and we should try to concentrate more on cost than waste.

We could simplify our idea

Meat costing more would give livestock better conditions.

Specify what foods could be more expensive eg, sugar, sweets

spending more of food- more money for workers - who have more money to spend of food. Spending more money on food (fair-trade) has the ability to break people out of the cycle of poverty.

Friday 5th Crit Feedback

From the feedback  as a group we have decided to reconsider the idea. When we were doing our research we weren't sure if using one particular type of food should be more expensive would be a good angle to take. However now, I think our group are going to head down the angle of if we pay more for (fairtrade) food then we can help workers at the bottom of the chain who struggle to earn a living. 

Concept and Development

First of all to see storyboards, please refer to my Silent Movie sketchbook.

At first we said we wanted to shoot someone in Sainsbury’s going in to have a look at some fruit and realise that it is £2 for a small punnet of blueberries. They would have a look at the fruit and then go over to the pot noodle to pick It up (thinking it was cheaper), they would then discover that the price has risen and that pot noodle and fruit were expensive. They then head over to the seeds and realise that is much cheaper to buy seeds and grow their own food than have to pay for processed food thats more expensive. The end of the video would be the person just grabbing the seeds. 

After we had our presentation we decided reconsider our initial idea because we felt we were trying to encompass too much. During our feedback, we were told that we can take a more intimate angle rather than trying to communicate the idea of ‘all food’ needing to be more expensive. From this, we decided to go for the stronger angle of making a film about how food should be more expensive to improve the lives of people who are involved in the production of foods like coffee, banana, coffee etc. 

We made a couple of storyboards. The first one was about coffee. We had a person walking to the coffee isle of a shop and then grab a Fair trade coffee and non fairtrade coffee and be shown to be deciding between them. They then take the cheaper option (non fair trade) and head to the till. On the way to the till, they see flashes of how people are treated in communities that aren't fair trade. For example, children using machetes to cut down plants. She would then reach the till and feel so guilty that she couldn't go through with paying for the coffee, so she then goes back.

After discussing this idea, and considering lots of different perspectives on how it could be seen from people watching it, we realised that it might be better to use chocolate as our food source rather than coffee, because we found that with chocolate there are very strong links with child slavery being used in the production of chocolate, as well as chocolate being a treat for children all around the world. We felt it would communicate our idea strongly. 

Tuesday 9th October Crit Feedback 

During this crit we had our tutors Jane and Steven to give feedback. For this crit, we made a mock video to communicates our idea. Here are some comments we received: 

Our mock film would benefit from using sound effects and music. 

We could use the sound of a breaking coco bean or people talking in Sainsbury’s. A layered effect would work really nicely to build up tension in the video we create.

In our footage the man cutting the coco beans complicates the idea that we wanted to highlight about children being highly involved during the production process.

We need to make sure that it is clear that the chocolate that it is chosen is NOT FAIRTRADE and is CHEAPER. 

Test with animation, make test shots and see how they work.

Focus on ideas, create a good idea, no need to produce a final and glossy end video. 

Changes made after Tuesday Crit 

We reconsidered the pacing of the video frames and images, to make the most impact. 

We experimented with and used bits of animation overlayed in our final video to communicate the message clearer.

I spent a lot of time whilst editing the video on finding accurate, and impactful sounds to download from online, such as, the sound of walking on forest debris, also the cracking of nuts (to reflect the cracking of coco beans ), as well as the sound of machinery of a chocolate factory. I also found the noise of a person hacking at a tree, which created a beat because of the repetition of the cutting. This was a good place to start for the sound as I chose to start to play this when we show video footage of children on the Ivory coast. I believe that the foundation of this ‘beat’ created a very strong foundation for a build up to a very tense moment. 

In the final film, we also changed the frame in which Fran is walking through the isles, which was originally followed with the frames of the a young boy walking bare foot through the foliage. We changed this to an edited section where the children are looking directly into the camera. We felt that the walking cut was not appropriate because it suggests that Fran was walking in the footsteps of the child, rather than, this idea that because of Fran, the child has to suffer this life. That’s why we felt that the children looking directly at the camera, almost watching what Fran was about to do is much more impactful.

Feedback from Final Crit - Friday 12th October

What was successful?

Pacing is powerful and impactful.

Animation and graphics were extremely effective. 

Sound layering and juxtaposition of layered film was a strong way of communicating the message. 

Successful in combining live action, animation, and archival footage together.

What could be improved?

We could’ve animated the fairtrade symbol over the top of the picking up of the chocolate of the shelves. 

Could have made more of an effort to not use text. We could’ve tried to communicate in symbols rather than almost cheating by use having words on our chocolate packaging. 

We could have considered showing Fran by the expensive chocolate, to then be able to show how it has positively benefited the people in production of chocolate. 

Would be stronger if we showed the other side of the argument. 

When she picks the chocolote bar of the shelves, she could be contemplating which to buy in her hands, and have more of a comparison, where we see good things that will happen to people in the production at the bottom if buying the fairtrade ( more expensive ) chocolate compared to some of the horrible footage of what happens if you buy non fairtrade (cheap) chocolate. 

What I would change moving forward?

I believe in hindsight that the two strongest angles for this task are paying more money for meat to reduce animal exploitation and pollution as well as paying more for fairtrade food to prevent child labour. If I were to do this project again I would try to consider all the angles and options first before settling on one. I say that because we got a little blindsided by the idea of reducing waste by increasing prices to realise after that actually this was not our strongest idea.

I found that overall, the use of sound in the video was effective. However, practically when I was editing the video, I didnt realise for ages how to add more audio layers so, if I were to do this project again I would definitely use even more sound to create an overwhelming feeling. I would definitely experiment, and test more with the use of sound.