Recent Developments Globalization, Agriculture, and Human Geography

Recent Developments: Globalization, Agriculture, and Human Geography A Smaller World Globalization refers to the spread of businesses, products, people, and ideas around the world. Through globalization, films and television programs made in the United States are seen in countries all over the Earth. Fashions from Italy or France become popular in Mexico or Australia, and fresh grapes, berries, and peaches from Chile and Argentina make their way to supermarkets in the United States, Canada, and Europe when those parts of the world are deep in winter. Globalization affects our lives every day, sometimes in ways we do not even perceive. This essay looks at some of the ways that globalization affects agriculture in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Free Trade The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a set of trade liberalization agreements between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, went into effect on January 1, 1994. The following year the United States joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), dedicated to opening up trade among the nations of the world. These agreements had far-reaching impacts on trade between the United States and other nations. Free trade made it easier to export American farm products. For example, agricultural exports from the United States to North America (primarily Canada and Mexico) increased by 39.9 percent between 1994 and 2000. Since that time, they have increased even more. Corn was the largest export by value and increased by 50.6 percent in the same time period (Skorburg 2001). In addition to corn, other important United States exports are live animals (mainly poultry), soybeans, cotton, and fresh fruits and vegetables (Skorburg 2003). Mexico and Canada also found larger markets in the United States for many of their farm products. Fresh vegetables and fruit from Mexico topped the list of products imported, with a 2001 value of $2.25 billion. Canada exported $1.8 billion worth of red meat and $1.5 billion worth of live animals to the United States in the same year (Skorburg 2003). Much of this trade is complementary. That means it does not compete with similar products from the importing country. However, there are important exceptions. Mexico is the country where corn was first domesticated, and corn remains a key component of the country’s diet and culture. But much of Mexico’s corn is produced on tiny farms using ancient techniques. Thus, Mexico’s corn production is much less efficient than the highly mechanized corn farming in the United States. Imports of corn from the United States have driven down the price of corn in Mexico, creating problems for Mexico’s marginal corn producers, many of whom depend on corn both for their family’s subsistence as well as for what little cash income they receive (Weiner 2002). Clearly, not all sectors of Mexican agriculture have benefited from free trade. Recently, cotton subsidies have been criticized for another reason. The governments of countries such as Brazil, Mali, and Burkina Faso complain that subsidized cotton production in countries like the United States keeps cotton prices so low that their farmers, who do not receive subsidies, cannot compete in the market. They say that American farm subsidies make it impossible for them to export cotton and that alternative cash crops will be hard to find. Critics fail to understand why the United States and other developed countries don’t simply let the market decide what farmers grow (Becker 2004; Kristof 2002; Touré and Compaoré 2003). These complaints caused a group of countries, led by Brazil, to file a formal protest with the World Trade Organization in 2003. The following year, the WTO found in favor of the countries that brought the complaint (Economist Global Agenda 2004). The United States has appealed the finding, but the likelihood of success is small. It is too soon to evaluate the impact of the WTO action on United States cotton producers, but it is quite possible it will lead to major changes in the nature of cotton production in the United States. Similar arguments are made about corn subsidies, which make it possible for farmers in the United States to sell corn at reduced prices. The subsidies make it even harder for Mexican farmers to compete against imported American corn (Weiner 2002). Free trade is a part of globalization. Its impacts are different for each country, for different kinds of producers, and with different kinds of crops. However, it seems clear that free trade–related globalization will lead to important shifts in agricultural production in the future. It will be harder for countries like the United States to compensate farmers for high production costs, and inefficient small farmers in countries like Mexico will be forced to change their means of production or quit farming. Biotechnology and Agriculture Recent developments in cellular biology make it possible to engineer plants and animals in ways that have never before been seen. Genes can be transferred from one plant or animal to another to make the gene recipient more useful. For example, most of the corn, soybeans, and cotton grown now in the United States are produced from seed that has been genetically modified (GM) to resist certain kinds of herbicides. Similar techniques make plants poisonous or unpalatable for harmful insects. The United States is by far the world’s leader in use of GM seed, with two-thirds of the world GM crop acreage in 2003 (42.8 million hectares, or 108.7 million acres). The United States was followed by Argentina (13.9 million hectares, or 35.3 million acres), Canada (4.4 million hectares, or 11.2 million acres), Brazil (3.0 million hectares, or 7.6 million acres), and China (2.8 million hectares, or 7.1 million acres). No other country planted more than 400,000 hectares of GM crops. The most important GM crops by area planted in 2003 were soybeans (61 percent), corn (23 percent), cotton (11 percent), and canola (5 percent) (James 2003). Almost as interesting as who has adopted GM crops is the pattern of nonadopters. In Europe, only Spain, Germany, Bulgaria, and Romania produced GM crops in 2002. Portugal, Ukraine, and France were producers but stopped production before 2002 (“Global Area by Country” 2003). This pattern reflects widespread opposition to GM crops among Europeans and others. Many Europeans believe that foods made from GM plants might be unhealthful for consumers. Also, there is evidence that GM genetic material can be transferred to native plants, thus modifying their genetic structure, and that genetic changes that make plants poisonous or unpalatable for insects might upset the natural ecological balance (Weiss 2004). In Africa, some governments have resisted GM crops because of these environmental concerns, but the cost of seed and unsuitable farming techniques may be greater deterrents to their use. Because of resistance to GM crops, many countries refuse to import corn and other GM foods from the United States and other GM adopters. This resistance clearly has an impact on global trade and has inhibited the adoption of GM crops in Europe and elsewhere. Despite the objections of those who resist GM technology, globalization pressures are likely to continue to lead to wider adoption of existing GM crops and to creation of new applications. A GM rice with genes to produce beta carotene (Vitamin A) is being tested. It has the potential to greatly reduce nutritional deficiencies among poor Asians whose diet is made up largely of rice (Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Other crops that are more productive, more nutritious, or resistant to pests and/or disease are under development. If these GM plants are effective, it will be hard to resist their adoption. Conclusion International trade agreements, farm subsidies, and responses to genetic modification technology all have global impacts on agriculture. Some of those impacts are positive, such as making farms more productive or allowing food to be shipped from areas of surplus to places in need. However, globalization of agriculture also has drawbacks. Local farmers may be unable to compete in the international marketplace. Unforeseen consequences of technological innovation may lead to irreversible environmental changes, and even if they do not, the public’s response to innovation may limit its potential for adoption.