by Leslie Ann Campbell

Created on: September 16, 2008   Last Updated: December 29, 2011

Don't get me wrong: I love potatoes. I love them mashed, I love them baked, I especially love them fried, and I don't just mean French fried, I mean fried the way momma used to make them with onions cooked in with them. They weren't hash browns, not really, they were fried potatoes. We didn't have them for breakfast, not even Sunday breakfast, we had them for dinner. There never were any leftovers either.

But I have a bit of a problem with the U.N. proclaiming this the Year of the Potato. Excuse me, but doesn't the U.N. have better things to do? How many conflicts or potential conflicts are there going on right now in this world anyway? Besides Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a continued problem with Iran, China, Korean, and Venezuela, and let's not forget the big problem that everyone wants to keep sweeping under the rug: Darfur. It's not the year of the potato in Darfur, you can bet on that.

I know there isn't any harm in declaring this the year of the potato, but what good does it do other than make the potato growers and the Irish happy? Frankly, I find it rather ironic to make this year, of all years, the year to celebrate a vegetable that does not travel all that well when this world has more hungry people now than ever before. Rice, now that's something worth celebrating, as it is easy to transport. Even corn, which can be ground into meal, is better for transportation purposes and hence is more likely to feed the world's poor than the potato. Who's bright idea was this anyway?

While I never could find out where the idea originated from, this whole thing both intrigued and annoyed me enough to motivate me to look further. I believe I have found the answer to why the potato: money. Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization gave an interview in October 2007 where he described what he hoped to achieve in the coming year of the potato. In that interview he stated that the potato was the fourth largest food source and that potato production in developing countries had doubled in the past fifteen years. That news certainly gave me a better attitude about the whole thing; that is, until I read further.

It seems that many of the goals surrounding this project have less to do with applauding the potato, or even directly feeding the hungry, than they do in reducing tariffs. While developing countries probably do need tariffs reduced, I don't like being told I'm getting one thing when I'm really getting another. It's like, here, have a nice, juicy potato, and then when you take a bite you discover that you've been slipped a piece of broccoli.

Of course, I'm not so upset as to stop eating potatoes. In fact, I'm eating them more than ever. For a few years I seldom had them because my husband didn't like them, so, like the good wife I am, I didn't cook them. Now, however, modern technology has bred the "golden" variety of potato which is less starchy and which my husband does like, so potatoes are back on our table again.

I hope it will always be the year of the potato at our house. And I also hope that those people in developing countries find a way to make the potato work for them so that they get enough to eat. But as for the U.N. taking time away from their real duties to designate something which isn't even what they're really getting at; bah! I know it is just politics, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that isn't even cured by extra butter, cheese and sour cream.

Learn more about this author, Leslie Ann Campbell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.