Against the grain; Quinoa

The background on the article is the rise of quinoa, a grain that quickly rose among healthy eating circles as a “complete protein", meaning it has all amino acids thus making meat unnecessary. It tastes as good as rice or oatmeal and pairs well with any cuisine, making it the newest fad much like kale or almond milk. The grain grows best in the South American Andes in Peru where eating the grain helped the local people survive for centuries. While NASA first noticed in 1993 “While no single food can supply all the essential life-sustaining nutrients, quinoa comes as close as any other in the plant or animal kingdom.”, in the last decade, it boomed in American diets, reaching its peak in 2013 when UN called 2013 the “International Year of Quinoa.” However, the issue comes in when the Andes people soon began farming the grain for millions of more consumers and the increase in the price hit the villages hard when they could not afford to buy their food staple, which brings up the question: does increased economic opportunity really help small societies?

Quinoa Farmer in Peru

Slate.com

The price of quinoa tripled to $6-7 a kilogram with the new demand for quinoa from first world countries, which caused a decrease in quinoa consumption in the Andes. However, it’s not as severe as the drop seems—with the new economic opportunity came new spending money for the modernizing Peruvian people. Quinoa stopped being the staple of the farmers because they didn’t need it as a staple. A study by Andrew Stevens at the University of California found that quinoa only accounted for 0.5% of household spending in the region. The incomes of the farmers rose with the new economic opportunity, with quinoa producers suddenly gave them 46% more spending power, which helped out the local non-quinoa economies as demand for more products grew. For every 25% increase in the price of quinoa, average household consumption in the region increased by 1.75%. So in 2013, the Year of Quinoa was benevolent.

Until it wasn’t. See, the demand for quinoa alone doesn’t hurt farmers, but now that other countries started to produce the grain—50 more countries, that is—people don’t need the grain from remote regions in Peru and Bolivia when they can ship it cheaply from places like Colorado, so after the prices rose, prices dropped from $6-7 per kilogram to $2 per kilogram, while the average farmer depends on $2.6 to make a comfortable living. What the article proves is that it isn’t the demand for a foreign “specialty” that hurts small economies, it’s the drop in the demand, especially after so many Peru and Bolivian people jumped on the quinoa popularity train. Food fads cause harm.

The article appeared as a column in The Economist which as the title suggests informs readers with a non-partisan stance about current economic subjects. 

Slate.com