The national and global situation at the start of 2017 has been, to say the least, uncertain and tense for everyone. Claiming that the rise in gasoline prices only affects car users is like saying the dollar’s price doesn’t impact us because we’re in Mexico and use the peso. Everything is affected to such an extent that food security and the health of millions may be compromised.
Let me explain: in his now infamous speech about the gasoline price hike (infamous and an inexhaustible source of memes), the president, or whoever writes his speeches, uses arguments with logic as faulty as driving a car on the highway without brakes.
"Maintaining artificial gasoline prices would mean taking resources from the poorest Mexicans to give them to those who have the most. The hard data speaks for itself: 60 million Mexicans, those with the lowest incomes, consume only 15% of the gasoline, while 12 million, 10% of the population with the highest incomes, consume 40% of the gasoline."
It is incredible that at this point the president needs to be told that the gasoline price hike impacts many economic and social spheres, not just those who buy gasoline. Yes, Mr. President, the food and drink on presidential flights, which generate documented expenses of up to 47,000 pesos per person, are also affected by the increase in gasoline prices. Don’t think it will only be more expensive to fill the tank for those 12 million high-income individuals you mention. In terms of food security, it is well established that as oil prices rise, crops and food production are affected. As long as we don’t have cheap energy (or until it runs out), we are forced to redesign our food economy according to what it is: a system that inevitably depends on other systems.
The challenge of food security is that it depends on many factors, including the increase in gasoline prices (for producing, transporting, distributing, and delivering a product to the final consumer, whether fresh or processed). All this, combined with climate change, water scarcity, and uncontrolled urbanization, poses a direct threat to food practices and, therefore, to health.
Research has well documented that when prices change relatively little, consumption decisions remain more or less stable, unless there is a substantial increase. In the case of food, a significant increase is needed for people to change their daily intake. Social psychology also tells us that when these increases occur, middle-class consumers opt for foods they would theoretically have rejected, such as those that are more expensive and less healthy. As paradoxical as this may sound, this is how we behave in times of crisis, not only in Mexico but in many countries. Later, prices continue to rise, and people choose foods that require less oil to produce, transport, preserve, and store. And what are these foods? You guessed it: they are not the freshest, least processed, or most perishable, and therefore, not the most recommended for meeting nutritional requirements.
As it is, our situation is already difficult, and with this, do you really think that poor health and nutrition among the population is a problem that concerns only the negligent individual, regarding what they eat or don’t eat? Lack of austerity in government spending, poor economic planning, and corruption are also reflected in the population’s health status. When we stop thinking in simple cause-and-effect relationships, like the gasoline price hike only affecting those with cars because they buy gasoline, we will begin to awaken as a society that understands every system has interrelated parts, some of which we can control to improve.
Originally published in El Economista
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.