Cotton and Tomato Travels: The Absurdity of World Trade
Heave ho and the horn blows. It’s departure time for another container ship. Port of embarkation: Savannah, Georgia. Destination: Adana, Turkey. About 25 of the containers on this ship are filled with Georgian cotton. Despite the enduring cotton crisis in America, half a million tons of the fiber pass through the port of Savannah each year, representing some 500 million dollars in exports that are shipped to countries around the world, including China, Pakistan and Turkey.
Adana is the nation’s fourth largest city and the centre for the Turkish cotton and textile industries. In this case the American cotton is sent to a factory where it is spun and used to make towels. Great attention is paid to ensure high quality, oh-so-soft and fluffy towels to attract the Turkish shopper… or rather, the American shopper. The towels are packaged and sent to the United States on another container ship. This is crazy!
There are of course the energy and CO2 emissions involved in this to and from tango across the ocean. But even if we put aside such issues in the name of international trade, it cannot be denied that the system is absurd, especially given the fact that Turkey is one of the top ten cotton producers in the world.
The story of the roving Georgian cotton was recently told on national French television, forming one chapter in the larger chronicle of one container ship’s circumnavigation of the globe. It reminded me of another story, that of the traveling tomatoes told in We Feed the World (2005), a film by Austrian director Erwin Wagenhofer. Spanish tomatoes, ripened under the warm southern sun, have long supplied northern European markets. I was an occasional consumer, preferring the Spanish variety to the other widely available option, the tasteless variety grown in rainy Holland. Note: I was, for as it turns out, those tomatoes are not at all sun-ripened.
As shown in Wagenhofer’s film, in southern Spain tomatoes and other vegetables are grown in greenhouses, greenhouses as far as the eye can see and beyond. And not a tree to be found. They are grown using an artificial (read inefficient), irrigation system manned by workers from North and West Africa. The men work long hours and live in makeshift shacks in between the greenhouses. A large percentage of the produce from southern Spain is transported by truck to northern Europe, and a certain percentage is sent to different countries in Africa. Even with the higher production costs in Europe plus the transportation costs, the Spanish tomatoes are sold in Africa at cheaper prices than locally grown tomatoes. Absurd.
Why such absurdities in world trade? Much of the answer lies in subsidies. The devastating effects of first-world subsidized agriculture on markets in the developing world are well known. Subsidized produce is artificially competitive, encourages an increase in production and pushes international market prices down. Local farmers in developing countries cannot compete, and are forced out of business and into poverty. Yet the developed world continues to subsidize its agriculture. Disagreements over reducing subsidies in general and export subsidies in particular, have threatened to jeopardize several rounds of international trade talks over the past years. Both the European Union and the United States remain reluctant to renounce their protectionist measures.
Of course not all subsidies should be abolished. As said a few months ago during a discussion here on Green Options about the US Farm Bill, subsidies should not be paid to the barons of unfair unsustainable trade, the mega agribusinesses, but should fund local organic outfits, thereby encouraging the shift to green sustainable agriculture.
Tags: Agriculture, Big Business, cotton, Developing Nations, Food, Food Production, international trade, organic, Politics, subsidy, trade

October 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
A pedal boat would be the alternative to produce less CO2 perhaps or an underwater railtrack. This is very silly and it is driven by the rules of the open market and of delocalization. Go for the cheapest, dear consumer… Regarding subsidized agriculture we all know how bad the American record is. A very good example is corn. To maintain a very high production, the state regulates the flow and makes sure that food manufacturers shove corn into everything. This results in worsening the obsedity problem of the country. Turning back to the cotton issue discussed here, I think that adopting a civil resistance procedure, we should stop wearing cotton underwear or even any underwear at all (this will also help us save some laundry water). Join the No Underwear for the Planet Movement (woolen underwear is nevertheless allowed in winter provided it is mohair and homemade)
October 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Dear Mr. Tosser,
A pedal boat, what a fine idea! Just one thing: how can you call the market "open" when the topic under discussion here is trade-distorting subsidies?
Best wishes,
Heidi