NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1935. ‘STARVING IN MIDST OF PLENTY’

Northern Advocate, 9 February 1935, Page 8

NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1935. ‘STARVING IN MIDST OF PLENTY’

Registered for transmission through the post as a Newspaper.

The phrase, “starving in the midst of plenty,” has been used on countless occasions in recent years. It is an arresting phrase ; which illustrates a paradox, and, 5 although it has been often used in a spirit of claptrap, it is [ nevertheless of* a character which • must make .responsible people 1 think seriously, of the world.situ- ! ation it envisages. Unquestion- [ ably, it is remarkable that, at/ a time when food is being pro- • ,duced in greater abundance, than . at any period in History, millions 'of people throughout the world should be unable to obtain sustenance in the quantity required for the maintenance of health and strength. While there is an outcry, on the one hand, against over-production of milk, and wheat, and fruit, and other commodities, there is, on the other hand, an ever-growing body of evidence that great masses of the world’s population are either on the verge of starvation or are existing on very short commons. Why is this? Why should food rot upon the ground when it is required to sustain the life of human beings? Answers to these questions are as mimerous as they are varied. The, capitalistic system, under which food is grown and sold for private profit, is generally denounced as the arch-fiend responsible for “starvation in the midst of plenty. ’ ’ The Church Assembly at Westminster has just held a discussion on this problem. The Bishop of London, Dr. Winnington Ingram, a man of lofty ideals and broad humanitarianism, brought it before the Assembly, in the shape of a report on unemployment which he and seven other bishops have framed. “The wilful destruction of the fruits of the earth, and the prevention or restriction of production in the face of need,” says the Bishop of London, “are .virtually acts of sacrilege, because God’s gifts are flung back in His face.” Dr. Ingram, agreeing with those who ; ascribe to capitalism responsibil- ' ity for “starvation in the midst .! of plenty,” condemns the existing financial, industrial and economic system, and demands that it he replaced by a system more adequately expressing moral and j religious principles. The same l thing has been said, times with- j out number, by all sorts and , conditions of people, but its reiteration by a distinguished Bishop of the . Anglican Church must inevitably invest it with weight and importance that can- 1 not he flouted or disregarded. In submitting his report to the As- 1 sembly, the Bishop said he had seen wheat burning in Canada, * and had heard that coffee was burned in Brazil and that bar- t rels of herrings were flung into s the sea, despite the fact that peo- t pie were wanting food. It is, of t course, common knowledge that t

perishable foodstuffs are de- 1 stroyed in order that a market glut, with consequent lowering of prices, may be prevented. Is this not the principle underlying the policy of the British Minister of Agriculture, who wishes to restrict imports of butter and cheese from overseas suppliers in order that the home producers may obtain a price for their products which shall make it possible for them to carry on their industry profitably f If the Home farmer cannot obtain a profitable return for his labour, what then? That is one of the rocks which the opponent of restriction of the output of food must negotiate when he commences his journey down, a tortuous channel. If capitalism, and. all that term comprehends, were swept away, what Avould. take its place? Would the hungry have access to food which existed in abundance? Not, we are afraid, in society as it exists today. Without defending or condemning existing conditions of life and conduct, we think Whangarei experience may be quoted as throwing light upon the question. Can it be contended that foodstuffs are not wasted—wanton destruction may ibe put on one side for the moment —while many families are obliged to live on the most meagre supplies? A few days ago a party who had been fishing off the entrance to the harbour returned to the Town Wharf with 150 schnapper. The party wanted only half-a-dozen fish to satisfy their needs. But what was to be done with the balance? Few of the public "were aware of the catch, which had to be consumed at once or destroyed. Families - in poor circumstances would have relished the fish. But how were they to be supplied? There was no way. Accordingly, the fish had to be destroyed. Capitalism did not enter into this incident, which -is one of m,any that might be quoted. The shme thing is true of fruit and vegetables, which, especially in out-of-the-way places, rot while people “starve in- the midst of plenty.” We have ' mentioned these things in passing merely to show that the sweeping away of the present economic system would not immediately end a condition of affairs which is deplorable. . It. is a sign of an awakening public conscience that action such as that proposed by the Bishop of London, and (adopted by the Assembly, should have been , taken. The -church throughout the world, the Bishop of Jar row’s statement to the contrary, must bestir itself to bring about a better state of society, in which God’s gifts, instead of being filing back in His face, shall be made available for the use of men, women and children of every race and colour. A tremendous task it is. But it must be faced. ' -