With Bert Schouwenburg
Carlos Amorín
17 | 10 | 2024
Bert Schouwenburg | Photo: Daniel García
Bert is a former British trade union leader from the GMB¹ and an IUF collaborator, who is currently retired, “but active,” as he is quick to tells us in this conversation. He is interested in current affairs, and in Central America in particular, and is a regular reader of this web site. In this interview, Bert discusses some of the contradictions and hypocrisies in the relationship between the North and Latin America.
—You’ve said that in the relationship between Europe and Latin America there is great hypocrisy.
—I’ve said it especially with respect to toxic agrochemicals and pesticides in general, because many of these chemicals that are still being used in agriculture in the South are banned here in the North. Not only that. They are also produced here and exported to other countries. That is not just a great hypocrisy, it also involves a double discourse, because on the one hand, we are asked to care for the environment, and, on the other, these contaminants are being produced and sold.
—Whose double discourse is it?
—Certain companies, but also governments, because in their own countries, they loudly claim to respect the environment, sustainability, and carbon sequestration, but they facilitate the manufacturing and exporting of banned chemicals.
—What is also odd is that many of these toxic agrochemicals are used to produce soybean that is later exported to Europe. It is very contradictory, because while I’m banning such products at home, I then buy what has been grown with them… It’s a bit mad.
—It’s pure hypocrisy. And somewhat suicidal, because that soybean is highly contaminated, and it is also a genetically-modified (GMO) seed, which Europe also prohibits planting. The GMO soybean imported from the South is used as feed for animals and poultry that are destined for mass consumption. Another example of double discourse: the authorization for the use of glyphosate in Europe was extended for another ten years.
—What is the situation of European and British agriculture?
—The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union (EU), so after Brexit it no longer receives the high subsidies that Europe applies to its agriculture. So, this is a huge problem for farmers in the United Kingdom. There are plans to replace them with local subsidies, but it has not yet been decided exactly what is to be done. There is talk about having a subsidy to protect the environment. The UK currently imports nearly 60 percent of the food it needs. So it is quite a difficult situation.
—Why does it have to import 60 percent of its food?
—Probably due to economic reasons, because it is cheaper to import food than to support local producers. In England, it’s a huge problem, because there used to be a system in place whereby rural producers were guaranteed a price. The state purchased everything that farmers produced and then sold it to shops and supermarkets. This made it possible to support farmers and preserve crops in the English countryside. But over the years, during the neoliberal era, that whole system disappeared. Now it’s a free market. It is cheaper to import fruits and vegetables from other countries around the world.
—Isn’t that a serious problem in terms of food sovereignty?
—Exactly. That is the debate that is taking place right now in the United Kingdom; and we have recently elected a new Labor government. But I don’t think it’s going to change much; there’s not much difference between England, the United Kingdom, and the other European countries.
—How has Brexit impacted this?
—We have lost the EU subsidies, but there is no new system, none has been implemented. So it’s difficult for farmers right now, because Brexit happened in 2016, but subsequent governments have failed to replace the European system, or have failed to convert it into a domestic system to protect farmers.