Richard Wilks in the seventh chapter analyses the role politics play on the food that ends up on our plate. Whether we are aware of it, or not, politics and food are profoundly intertwined. Governments have always used food policy as a way to instill their power, to starve and manipulate internal and external enemies. To prove his point, Wilks draws on the effects of globalization imposed by huge core nations on local farmers. Many of them, like the Belize farmers, where there is profitable market, they respond quickly and enthusiastically. However, when being pushed away on the market through the system of subsidization of foreigner goods, many of them quick their farm and find themselves working for these big companies. It is just nonsensical, in my opinion, to have local farmers having to compete with globalization. They will always be destroyed off the market because these core nations are able to subsidize their products, making them cheaper to consume. In class, we have watched a great video called “Life and Debt Jamaica’, which serves as a prime example of the system of subsidization of products on the market. Many foreign products in Jamaica were subsidized …show more content…
He calls out the IMF and the World Bank for being one-sided, profiting only these powerful countries and enabling them more power. He tries to justify his claim with a rhetorical question saying: ‘the IMF and the World Bank were created with only the involvement of these powerful nations. They discussed and installed the system among themselves while countries like Jamaica being on the sideline. Therefore, the question we should ask is, would these people see the benefit of these small countries? Pondering on his claim will not only give us a sense of realization of globalization, but also enlighten us on the unfairness of these nations to control and dominate other countries, and their local farmers, through