Food for Thought

For more than 10 years I have been an agronomist and food-processing technologist in several African countries, India and Indonesia [Oct. 26]. I completely agree that Western countries, development organizations and the Food and Agriculture Organization have neglected small-scale farming in the developing world, destroying rural economies under a growing population (thanks to health programs, better drinking water, etc., where so much of the money went). This is the single most important reason why 50 years of development aid did not work in Africa. But the agricultural policy, the food-aid policy and the trade barriers of the European Union and the U.S. have also done much to damage agriculture in developing countries. As long as these policies are not changed fundamentally, all efforts to develop a global policy for agriculture and food security will be largely wasted. The cause of the threatening food crisis, and its solution, are almost exclusively the responsibility of the West.
René van Slooten, MAARSSEN, THE NETHERLANDS

Giving small farmers seeds, dams and ploughs allows them to improve their lot enough to raise more children, extending the poverty base for yet more generations. India and similar countries face more agricultural crises as family land divisions become ridiculously small. The solution is large-scale, privately owned farming corporations that are legally bound to provide housing, medical, pension and educational facilities for all employees and their families. This lifts the agricultural peasantry into the middle class where they produce fewer, better educated children; it allows larger profits which results in better R&D and farming methods, better forecasting of which crops to plant to meet demand, improved ability to change crops when needed, and better and cheaper transport for harvests to market. If you truly want to end poverty, start by absorbing small landholders into large-scale business.
Joanna Perr, MBABANE, SWAZILAND

A Woman of Many Colors
I was very pleased to read your story "What Women Want Now," but disappointed that amid the well-deserved attention being paid to the American woman, she is continually displayed as white or simply all-encompassing [Oct. 26]. As an African-American woman, I am all too aware that feminism has not been inclusive of the issues of women of color — who have long been heads of household, sole or co-breadwinners, single parents, and caregivers. While many of our white counterparts were fighting for workplace equality, we were already working — as their maids and nannies, as well as outside the domestic sphere. Black, Latina, Asian and American Indian women suffer from discriminatory practices unique to their own sets, and their struggle for equality has been underreported for quite some time. I applaud TIME's vital look at the American woman and challenge you to explore her in all her colorful, varied glory.
Brittany Packnett, HILLCREST HEIGHTS, MD., U.S.

Your article was a welcome report on the progress of women's opportunities. Progress always comes with costs. With the minority choosing to abandon the workforce for their infants, it's fair to say public and private sector policies need also to embrace this change. Otherwise the real cost will be borne by the next generation.
Frank Howard, LONDON

TIME cites the "paradox" that women are still unhappy, even with all their current "equality." Then it states that the poll showed women often contribute to household income yet take on more of the responsibilities for the household, children and sick or elderly parents, while earning 77 cents on the dollar compared with men. Maybe there's a correlation.
Missy L. Haney, LEESVILLE, S.C., U.S.

Miss Understanding?
Re Nancy Gibbs' article, I work at a school in Germany and I'm responsible for a trainee teacher [Oct. 26]. In her first lesson she explained the differences between Ms., Miss and Mrs., a rather dull way to start, I thought. I realized later that this impression was probably due to my own experiences: I never had any problem with being addressed as Miss before my marriage or Mrs. now. I don't identify myself through my marriage but I believe that it is a sign of love to have the same name as the man with whom I intend to spend the rest of my life. I wonder if the problem is really one of a generation older than myself.
Julia Feldmann, UETERSEN, GERMANY