This article in last week’s edition of the Guardian discussed the economic implications of rocketing quinoa sales in the Western world.
Quinoa a delectable and nutritious grain that is also high in protein and essential amino acids is touted, in marketing speak, the “miracle grain of the Andes”: it’s portrayed as not only a healthy substitute for meat, but also an ethical one, as the production process does not involve animal mistreatment.
The concern here is the fact that the rising demand for quinoa in first world countries has raised the price of this grain so excessively such that the poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, where quinoa used to their staple food, can no longer afford it. Furthermore, to respond to overseas demand, lands that once produced a range of crops have turned into quinoa monoculture.
This scenario is sadly just another episode in the series of north-south exchange problems, where well-intentioned, yet pseudo-socially conscious consumers inadvertently drive poverty in countries producing their purportedly ethical goods. Other anecdotes include soya and asparagus, the production and consumption of which, rather than helping to save the planet through observing a less-or-no-meat diet, in fact inflicts more damage to the environment.
In my opinions, these stories are perfect examples of how marketing can exacerbate, or worse still, engender economic and social problems. Quinoa, soya and asparagus achieved their popularity in the Western world mainly thanks to effective marketing. In fact, not so long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain unheard of by the rest of the world! Businesses entrepreneurs who discovered the nutrition values of quinoa (or soya or asparagus, for this matter) realized the social trends in the western world, where people are becoming more concerned about their health and conscious about the ethical impact of their consumption, seized the opportunity to market this grain as a product that would satiate not only the consumers’ need to feed, but also their desire to lower their carbon “foodprint”. This marketing strategy successfully identified and took advantage of the characteristics of the macro- environment. However, what is conveniently omitted in any quinoa advertisement or promotion is how its production may negatively affect the quinoa-exporting countries, as mentioned above. After all, if your business is to sell quinoa, as long as there’s a demand for it, and the consumers actually believe that quinoa consumption is ethical, selling and buying quinoa seems to be a mutually “feel-good” and economically beneficial transaction. Unfortunately, the more quinoa is demanded and sold, the more severely unaffordable it will become where it’s grown.
As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, consumers’ ignorance is the main cause for this problem. I don’t expect quinoa-importing companies to mention the environmental and social impact of their purchase in their advertisement to the customers anytime soon. My hope is that the consumers in the Western world will be more informed about this issue. With the knowledge that their quinoa consumption may adversely impact the lives of millions of people in South America, they will be able to make a more conscious purchasing decision. As consumer behaviors shift to a more (truly) ethical direction, companies will feel the need to address and target at the customers’ concerns about equality. “Fair Trade quinoa” may become a common marketing term in time to come.