Unintended consequences are a pain, aren’t they? Basically, when rich Westerners decide to import food, this causes a whole raft of problems downstream. So much for free trade – as the article mentions, the globalization of foods has actually made countries on BOTH ends of the trade less secure. Not to mention the specific global trade in quinoa driving the price of a staple grain out of the reach of the poor in Bolivia.
Somehow I doubt that the plight of real human beings starving in a far-away country is going to dent the religious fervor of the vegans, though.
I’m pretty much convinced that the import or export of dietary staples is a moral wrong. Countries should strive to be food-independent so that their people do not have to depend on a good economy and modern technology shipping their food across the globe to avoid starving to death. However, I don’t think that such a policy would be implemented in pretty much any nation, because as Insty says, there are insufficient opportunities for graft/taxation that way. XP