What does the world actually need most - tobacco which we simply burn, or crops to provide millions with essential food?

Vast areas of fertile land are still being used to grow tobacco - some 4,927,000 tonnes of it in the year 2000.  As we are supposedly trying to reduce smoking in many western countries, it is perhaps surprising that ever more land is being given over to tobacco growing - for instance in the Bandarban agricultural area of Bangladesh, tobacco crops now account for approximately 75% of the farm land, while the country is in perpetual need of more rice and vegetables. Twenty years ago only 15% of the land was used for tobacco....

 

Clearly the attempts to earn from  a cash crop have overwhelmed the logical need to use their land for food production - stupidity within government or simple lack of controls?

 

If only we could ensure that all land used to grow tobacco was made available for growing food crops instead we would improve the health of millions by removing the dangers of smoking and also by having more food to share around...   But the fact is that deforestation to clear more land for tobacco production is making matters worse every year.

 

Such common sense is lacking at government level as well as in industry - tobacco firms could make money in other more beneficial ways and the health services would have fewer patients to treat. 

 

After all, we have the intelligence to understand these issues, we just need to overcome the commercial reluctance of the tobacco industry and the governments that derive huge tax revenues from it.

 

Of course the governments would find other sources of income if they had to and the people who no longer spent large amounts of money on smoking would have more money to spend on other goods and services.  For certain there would be a transitional phase as with any major change, but nothing that cannot be planned for by the companies and governments involved.

 

Government funded health services would be under reduced pressure from the many smoking related illnesses they now have to cope with, further offsetting any reductions in tax revenue from tobacco.

It is surely not beyond the wit of man to see the fundamental benefits to all of us - but at present it does appear to be beyond the willingness of the people in power to take action - which inevitably raises the question 'why'?  Can it really be simple inertia - or are financial incentives still bearing down too strongly for continued growth of tobacco?

 

But at present, we still see far too little food production to feed all of the people adequately - this is especially true for the less devekoped countries where famine and drought account for high mortality rates among children and adults - and those that survive are often too weak to undertake any work, so are utterly dependent upon the charity workers who bring some hope to their communities.

 

If major governments are serious about improving health it is a simple matter to re-structure taxes on the tobacco industry to ensure it becomes more economic to cultivate food crops - and there will then be no reason why the existing tobacco companies cannot diversify into production of rather more essential produce.  If tax changes are not sufficient, why not make the incentives to the tobacco companies more emphatic - give them a 5 year limit in which to change their cultivation from tobacco to food crops we can all benefit from, rather than continue to produce a crop that merely causes harm to billions, pollutes the atmosphere and offers no positives apart from profit - which would be eliminated with simple use of logic.

 

©Rhumour 

July 13th 2010

Edited September 4th 2014