The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Got Rice, Bitch? A.K.A., Recent Food Shortages

SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
edited April 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
An Introduction:
Rice Shortage in Philippines May Mean More Trouble for Arroyo

April 22 (Bloomberg) -- Myrna Lacdao used to eat two meals a day. Now she eats one and gives the rest to her two grandchildren.

Lacdao, 53, shares a 70-square-foot shack in Manila's San Roque shantytown with her husband, two adult children and grandchildren. After the price of rice rose 41 percent in the past year, only the youngsters get three meals a day.

``I just take coffee in the morning and then have lunch at noon,'' said Lacdao, who makes pillow cases for sale to neighbors, contributing to the family's monthly income of 9,000 pesos ($215). ``That's my first and last meal of the day.''
Climbing Price Of Rice Shows In Stores, On Menus
The price of rice is at a 34-year high and on the rise.

Big suppliers like Thailand and Vietnam are cutting back on exports. Figi and the Philippines are seeing supplies so low, citizens are being asked to ration servings. And in the United States, consumers are seeing higher prices on everything from pet food to sushi rice.

"We have rice brand oil that we use to make our tempura crispy. This week it was at $32 and it rose to $52," said Chef Ryo Sakai of Blowfish Sushi Restaurant in San Francisco's Mission district.

Ryo said he is seeing a steady 5% increase in the price of sushi rice. It adds up for a restaurant that serves 300 pounds of rice a week in Bento box lunches and gourmet sushi.

(Includes video)
Rice shortage threatens Asia

TORONTO, Ontario, Canada, Three billion people in Asia are the rice guzzlers of the world and they are facing a supply shortage. Production at about 420 million tons a year has been static for the past four years. In this period about 100 million additional mouths have been added, which are putting a dent in the supply-demand chain.
Prices of rice have shot up 30 percent in the two years from 2005 to 2007 and 40 percent since the middle of last year alone. These have reached a level, like wheat prices -- which are 130 percent up -- that have made governments nervous. India has banned the export of most varieties of rice, except the high-end basmati rice, to conserve as much rice at home as possible. Other rice surplus countries have followed suit. They are scared of shortages at home and the unrest that follows shortages.

So guys, this is starting to get pretty fucking scary. We already had a wheat shortage earlier, and now this. What's going on? Climate change? Overpopulation? Over-industrialization? Ethanol subsidies? It seems like there's a lot of different factors all going on all at once, and a lot of people are really suffering right now. Even if we come up with some sort of band-aid, it probably won't solve the underlying causes.

So, two levels to this thread. First, short term practical food options. I eat a lot of rice, and it's getting harder and harder to find in stores. Wheat prices are going up as well. Suggestions? What's the best way to make the most out of your food budget right now?

Secondly, we should discuss the long term solutions. What do we need to start doing on a worldwide scale in order to fix this? Can something be done? Aren't we all glad that Ron Paul isn't the one in charge of the solution right now?

I was going to joke that atkins might make a sound comeback now that carbs are getting harder to find, but it seems like we're entering into the realm of the Giffen Paradox. As the price of cheap food prices rise, you have less money to spend on the luxury food items. Which may cause demand of the cheap foods to increase. So what do we do?

Schrodinger on
«13456

Posts

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    So guys, this is starting to get pretty fucking scary. We already had a wheat shortage earlier, and now this. What's going on? Climate change? Overpopulation? Over-industrialization? Ethanol subsidies? It seems like there's a lot of different factors all going on all at once, and a lot of people are really suffering right now. Even if we come up with some sort of band-aid, it probably won't solve the underlying causes.
    Maybe. No. No. Probably. Definitely yes. Absolutely.

    GungHo on
  • CraveonCraveon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    We should eat less meat. Every 100 calories in meat cost 700 calories in grains/corn/etc. to produce. If you look at the cost of meat that way it costs the world as a whole 7 times more grain. Meat is the big problem here, not biofuels (even though of course they contribute as well, but not nearly as much as meat). But as long as 95% of the population still deludes themself with the belief they need steak or other meat with every dinner and ham sandwiches for every breakfast and lunch we are basically doomed.

    2384334471_936de59748_o.jpg

    Craveon on
    elegyofemptiness.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    ...

    While I'm all for Americans eating less meat, what's up with the graph?

    Quid on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Looks like he's trying to say humans aren't omnivores.

    Scooter on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Are you trying to imply that humans are herbivores?

    Fencingsax on
  • CraveonCraveon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    ...

    While I'm all for Americans eating less meat, what's up with the graph?
    Just anticipating. Because I already know ignorant people are gonna come in here and scream that we are carnivores and NEED meat to survive, which is simply untrue. Especially in a Western society where vegetarian and vegan options are so readily and easily available. It has an economic benefit too, since vegetarian and vegan (or at least less meat-intensive) diets are healthier and lead to less heart disease, obesity, etc. with all of their exorbitant associated medical costs.

    Craveon on
    elegyofemptiness.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Actually, the diet with the lowest mortality rate is pescetarianism last I checked.

    Quid on
  • CraveonCraveon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Are you trying to imply that humans are herbivores?

    I am not implying anything, just providing you an overview of the scientific facts with according to which you can form your own assessment and opinion. It is a free country after all.

    The only thing I will say is that you can't be an environmentalist and a meateater at the same time without being a hypocrite in every sense of the word.

    Craveon on
    elegyofemptiness.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    So how do we go about making fruits and vegetables more palettable to the American diet, and which fruits and vegetables do we focus on for the sake of sustainability and nutritional content?

    I'm surprised that the Food Network doesn't have a vegetarian cooking show.

    Schrodinger on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Craveon wrote: »
    The only thing I will say is that you can't be an environmentalist and a meateater at the same time without being a hypocrite in every sense of the word.
    Oh Jesus you're one of the fuckers who gets people like me crazy looks. Die. Die right now you're ruining vegetarianism.

    Quid on
  • FawfulFawful __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    So how do we go about making fruits and vegetables more palettable to the American diet, and which fruits and vegetables do we focus on for the sake of sustainability and nutritional content?
    vegan-pyramid-800x600.jpg

    Fawful on
    hytd.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Craveon wrote: »
    I am not implying anything, just providing you an overview of the scientific facts with according to which you can form your own assessment and opinion. It is a free country after all.

    The only thing I will say is that you can't be an environmentalist and a meateater at the same time without being a hypocrite in every sense of the word.
    So did you just decide that passive aggression and idiocy worked well together, or what?

    Fencingsax on
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    that food pyramid doesn't make sense, because there are more recommended servings of grains than fruits/veggies. so the grains should go at the bottom.

    skippydumptruck on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    "Whole grains bread, rice, pasta, and cereal group. 6-11 servings. Eat generously."

    So what other grains do people recommend? I might stop by Trader Joe's tommorow, should I try Quinoa out and see what that's like?

    Schrodinger on
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator, Administrator admin
    edited April 2008
    Why are quorn products so damn expensive? It works great as meat substitute for most stuff I've used it in, but still costs three times as much as meat.

    Echo on
  • IllyriaIllyria __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Craveon wrote: »
    The only thing I will say is that you can't be an environmentalist and a meateater at the same time without being a hypocrite in every sense of the word.
    Oh Jesus you're one of the fuckers who gets people like me crazy looks. Die. Die right now you're ruining vegetarianism.
    I am neither an environmentalist nor a vegetarian but the question is valid IMO. What are you being an environmentalist for when you consciously eat meat at the same time? The sad little polar bears who will drown when their ice melts? Why feel sorry for their death but not the pig you kill and eat? That just speciesism (sp?) and indeed hypocritical (too strong/biased a word but I don't know how else to say it) by definition. Same if you do it for coming human generations. Why them and not living animal species now? Speciesism again.

    2384339431_9da3b1c9a0_o.jpg

    Illyria on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] alley.jpg
  • djklaydjklay Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Craveon wrote: »
    But as long as 95% of the population still deludes themself with the belief they need steak or other meat with every dinner and ham sandwiches for every breakfast and lunch we are basically doomed.

    What about the population that deludes themselves it's alright to have 5+ kids? I always wondered why we think we have a 'right' to reproduce. Sure I wouldn't want to be the guy that has to say 'no you can't have anymore kids' but seriously, if we're getting into the areas of food shortage maybe it's time to stop popping out those welfare bonus', or sweat shop workers to be (yeah yeah these aren't the only families with large amount of kids but they do make up a majority).

    As for being a herbivore, my dinner last night says otherwise, according to the dictionary that's enough.

    djklay on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Screw vegans.

    The eggs will just sit there and rot.

    Quid on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Cats don't have enough meat on them to be worth it.

    Fencingsax on
  • IllyriaIllyria __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Screw vegans.

    The eggs will just sit there and rot.
    Lol that's bull and you know it. If they are never produced in the first place they also can't rot. You are talking about grandma's two backyard chickens, the rest of us are talking about the billions of chickens in factory farms.

    Illyria on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] alley.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Illyria wrote: »
    I am neither an environmentalist nor a vegetarian but the question is valid IMO. What are you being an environmentalist for when you consciously eat meat at the same time? The sad little polar bears who will drown when their ice melts? Why feel sorry for their death but not the pig you kill and eat? That just speciesism (sp?) and indeed hypocritical (too strong/biased a word but I don't know how else to say it) by definition. Same if you do it for coming human generations. Why them and not living animal species now? Speciesism again.
    You're making some mighty big assumptions about me here. Care to back them up?

    Quid on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Illyria wrote: »
    I am neither an environmentalist nor a vegetarian but the question is valid IMO. What are you being an environmentalist for when you consciously eat meat at the same time? The sad little polar bears who will drown when their ice melts? Why feel sorry for their death but not the pig you kill and eat?

    Well, the difference is that pigs are raised to be killed, where as polar bears are just minding their own business. If no one ate meat in America anymore, it's not as though the pig farmers would leave their farmers behind and let the pigs roam free.

    Nor should that, as George Orwell could attest to.

    Schrodinger on
  • FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Illyria wrote: »
    Pig and kitty image

    Cats are soft, pigs are yummy. I don't see what is so hard about this. If the situation was reversed where pigs were fun to pet and cats were yummy, well, that's how it rolls. Either way we're still an apex predator, we get to decide.

    Fellhand on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Illyria wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Screw vegans.

    The eggs will just sit there and rot.
    Lol that's bull and you know it. If they are never produced in the first place they also can't rot. You are talking about grandma's two backyard chickens, the rest of us are talking about the billions of chickens in factory farms.
    Seriously, here you go with the assumptions again. When did I advocate factory farming?

    Quid on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    wow, this got offtopic and retarded quick. I love food debates.

    You can make a huge environmental (and personal-health) difference by eating less meat. you don't have to eat none unless you're cripplingly emo or suck at logic like Captain Planet up top.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    To steer this back on topic and away from Craveon and Illyaria's moral-superiority-wank-fest . . .



    I'd think that taking a lot of corn out of the system for ethanol production might be creating shortages and driving up prices - but that's really just a U.S. thing and not something done everywhere.

    Maybe we're finally seeing the impact of U.S. and European subsidies and the reduced production as more and more third-world farmers are driven out of the market. If that's the case, the good news would be that production in the developing world should pick up as it becomes profitable once again - provided that the "solutions" to the current shortage don't screw over farmers through price controls or the like. Of course, farming isn't something you just turn on with a switch and there will be huge delays.

    I'm also wondering if it isn't partly due to growing populations (though I don't really think so). The Green Revolution and the huge increase in grain yields was 30-40 years ago. Apparently those strains of wheat and rice have become slightly less productive, while the earth's population has doubled since then.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Anyway, food shortage causes can be listed as follows:

    1) shittily-run supply-chains and market tomfoolery

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I'm not going to bother addressing both the jackass vegetarians and the jackass meat eaters. You're all jackasses too wrapped up in your beliefs to consider the other's views. That said, Americans eat way way way more meat than necessary. This has lead to factory farming which is not acceptable in my view whether the animal is going to be eaten or not. Everything dies sooner or later, this doesn't make it okay to be cruel to the animals just because they're death results in food for you. That said, eating meat isn't inherantly evil or bad for you or destructive to the environment. Farm animals can be raised humanely and without harming the environment. The sacrifice would be, however, not having a slab of meat with every fucking meal. Which isn't really a sacrifice since that would be better for most people long term anyway.

    Edit: And for thread's sake that's all I'm saying on the matter here.

    Quid on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Cats don't have enough meat on them to be worth it.
    Seriously. There are so many real answers to that question is you have any idea of what goes into selection of livestock but that's not what it's about. It's about a photo and sentimentality.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Not that it has a ton to do with the subject as a whole, but that "8-10 glasses of water" thing is pretty much not true according to most of the sources I've seen. Apparently it's more useful to drink when you are thirsty.

    durandal4532 on
    We're all in this together
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The recent foodshortage is primarily a result of biofuels. Eating habits have not substantially changed over the last 2 years, certainly not enough to warrant these ridicilous 100-200% price shifts . In fact, if all our crops were used to feed people directly, we'd have enough food to feed roughly 25 billion people (that number came out my newspaper last saturday).

    The foodshortage in the world in general is more of an infrastructure / economy issue (IE we're not willing to pay to get food to these people, and they can't pay for it either, nor are we investing in permanent solutions to solve it, and they aren't able of that either) then a true shortage. There are still fields in europe where farmers get paid not to grow anything, in order to not go over quota.

    That being said, the amount of meat consumed is creating real problems too, primarily enviromental. Argentinia and brazil are clearing huge amounts of rainforest to grow soja...... to feed to our pigs so we can eat it. Cows & Pigs especially create a lot of methane as well, a sizeable contribution to global warming (remember that CH4 is about 100x worse a gas in this respect as CO2). I've heard a contribution percentage of 10% of total for the agricultural indrustry.

    Eating less meat is certainly healthy for most developed countries, especially the US. Eating some meat may be healthier then no meat (and easier, despite all the vegan alternatives, people enjoy meat and it's easyness to prepare, proposing to cut it altogether is a pipedream and more likely to turn everyone against you then to help your cause). Eating less in general is of course a good thing in general, I can't help but wonder how much food is "wasted" in the western world simply by overweight people (50% of the pop. roughly) who eat more then they need each day, regardless of the type of food.

    Farming subsidies in general need to stop, but right now it's a mexican standoff, where every western countries says "The other guy does it, so if we don't, we lose jubz", even though almost everyone acknowledges that it's killing any nonwestern sustained farming efforts, creating crazy pricing situations, and is overall bad for the global economy.

    On the water: Recent research shows that under normal temperature and humidity circumstances, drinking more then 2.5l of fluids (that don't dehydrate like coffee) serves no visible health benefit. Wether this comes from water or other sources has no impact either. Of course, it's impossible to get people to believe such a thing.

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • IllyriaIllyria __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Cats don't have enough meat on them to be worth it.

    China is able to manage that, why aren't we?

    The answer is that it's just culture. Nothing more.

    Illyria on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] alley.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    yeah, that's an old myth. Its surprisingly easy to mistake hunger for thirst though, so swigging a glass of water and waiting 20 minutes before deciding whether you're really hungry is a handy thing to do.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Subsidies sure aren't helping. The Us and Europe have subsidized wheat and corn to the point it's pointless for anyone else to even try to compete.

    nexuscrawler on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Illyria wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Cats don't have enough meat on them to be worth it.

    China is able to manage that, why aren't we?

    The answer is that it's just culture. Nothing more.

    But nobody cares about your stupid offtopic moral absolutism you see

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Here's the article I was reading . . .

    Let them eat dirt?
    Soaring food prices are causing riots in many poor nations. The good news is that there are solutions if the West can muster the political will

    David Olive
    Business Columnist

    It would be inhuman to understate the global food crisis.

    With food prices up as much as 45 per cent since the end of 2006, El Salvador's poor eat about half as much food as they did a year ago. In Haiti, a destitute population is turning increasingly to mud patties made of dirt, oil and sugar, which at least quieten the stomach.

    The food-price inflation shows no sign of abating. Already this year the price of rice, one of the world's most critically important food staples, has increased a staggering 141 per cent. And one particular variety of wheat jumped 25 per cent in a single day during that period.

    For the estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide who live on just $1 to $2 (U.S.) per day, today's severe food inflation means forsaking health care, withdrawing children from school, cutting meat and vegetables from one's diet, and subsisting on cereals alone.

    However modest by Western standards, income levels have steadily risen among the world's poor. But now, what appears to be a sustained increase in food prices threatens to wipe out the meagre gains made by the world's poorest billion people during the past decade of economic growth, according to the head of the World Bank.

    For the poor in North America, the crisis has so far manifested itself in higher prices for eggs (up 24 per cent in the past year), milk and other dairy products (up 13 per cent) and chicken and other poultry (up almost 7 per cent). Suppliers to food banks in the West are reluctantly passing on price increases of 20 per cent or so. And the food-stamp program in the U.S. is falling even further short of covering the year than was already the case.

    This is a crisis with geopolitical dimensions. Over the past year, some 30 nations have experienced food rioting. That threatens political regimes in countries as varied as Egypt, among the few stabilizing influences in the Middle East, where food prices have doubled in the past two months; Indonesia, home of the world's largest population of Muslims; and Malaysia, whose export of cheap manufactured goods contributes to lower living costs in the West. The Canadian military and humanitarian mission in Afghanistan is undermined by the fact that Afghans now are obliged to spend about half their income on food, up from roughly 10 per cent in 2006.

    "World agriculture has entered a new, unsustainable and politically risky period," Joachim von Braun, head of the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute told The Economist, after G8 finance ministers ended their summit last weekend declaring that global hunger had eclipsed in importance the worldwide credit and climate-change crises they had gathered to discuss.

    There is a consensus among agricultural economists that a 30-year era of cheap food is over.

    In contrast to the localized food shortages of recent decades, caused by weather- or war-related crop failures and supply disruptions, this crisis is marked by shortages of affordable food in scores of nations simultaneously. And this debacle is not tied mostly to floods or civil wars. Instead, it arises from a variety of factors, ranging from food-demand growth in super-charged economies in the developing world, soaring energy, transportation, fertilizer and other farm costs, and the diversion of corn to biofuels production – a new phenomenon described by one international food-aid expert as "a crime against humanity."

    Yet amid those bleak developments are encouraging signs of progress, even in the short term:
    • Progressive agricultural policies over many years have transformed Brazil into an agriculture superpower. It has become a leading exporter of soybeans, sugar, orange juice, chicken and beef.
    • Thailand now leads the world in rice exports and Vietnam has become a net food exporter.
    • Freed from the chronic agricultural mismanagement of the Soviet era, Ukraine is producing more wheat as modern productivity measures kick in.

    And there may be at least some transitory factors at play, such as the prolonged drought in Australia and crop failures in Tanzania, along with suspicions that speculators have fled the crippled financial sector to manipulate prices of agricultural and other commodities for gain.

    Yet fundamental changes are imperative to cope with the inevitable end of a period of artificially low food prices – a period in which agricultural gluts prompted Western governments to pay farmers to plough their crops under.

    For their part, developing-world governments contributed to a globally distorted market with tariff protection and consumer food subsidies.

    The result has been a lack of accurate price signals, the kind that spur more auto production when vehicle prices are strong. By keeping prices artificially low for so long, governments gave farmers no reason to increase production.

    Worse still, the abundance of food globally over the past three decades caused government and private-sector R&D to languish. Just as new drugs tend to lose their efficacy unless constantly re-engineered and upgraded, many miracle seeds of the previous century have lost their potency.

    As examples, The Economist points to IR8, a variety of rice that produced nearly 10 tonnes per hectare for decades after its 1966 introduction. But after eventually, and inevitably, falling victim to disease and pests, IR8 now yields only seven tonnes per hectare. Similarly, cereal-based yields grew by 3 per cent to 6 per cent in developing nations between the 1960s and 1980s. That yield growth is now less than 2 per cent, well below increases in demand.

    Attention is increasingly focused on the world's estimated 450 million "smallholders," developing world farmers who cultivate only a few hectares. Their upside potential for higher crop yields is much greater than that of big-farm operations in the West, which already are committed to advanced cultivation techniques.

    In the absence of liquidity in global capital markets, the World Bank and its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other global institutions need to pump as much as $1 trillion into agricultural economies dominated by smallholders to enable subsistence farmers to acquire the advanced machinery, fertilizer and seeds to increase efficiency and crop yields.

    That's critical not only in Africa, with its preponderance of small farmers, but in China, India, the Philippines and other rapidly growing developing-world economies where extracting higher yields from existing farmland is of crucial importance as urban centres grow and consume ever larger amounts of undeveloped land.

    It must seem, with global warming, international terrorism, soaring energy costs and a worldwide credit crisis, that the world at the dawn of the 21st century faces more than its share of larger-than-life spectres. Yet in the current food crisis, it becomes plain how these challenges are related and ultimately curable.

    Greater farm efficiency – more food per hectare – would obviate the need to clear-cut swatches of the planet's rainforest carbon traps. More effective regulation of global financial markets would redirect capital to where it's needed, in the development of lower-cost advanced farm machinery, new generations of disease- and pest-resistant seeds, and the availability of loans to small farms to upgrade their operations with advanced methodology and better irrigation systems.

    The biggest single boost to incomes in the developing world, as foreign-aid experts have long argued, would be less emphasis on grants and loans to poor countries, and instead the removal of Western subsidies and tariffs that block food imports from Africa, Asia and Latin America. More prosperous farming in troubled parts of the world still heavily reliant on farm incomes would curb social unrest and the export of violence.

    That might seem an idealist vision. But there is no compelling alternative.

    In a join-the-dots exercise, it's not difficult to see how paying Nebraska farmers not to produce while denying Mexican maize producers access to the U.S. and French markets discourages developing-world farmers from acquiring the means to boost their production capacity, creating first resentment and ultimately food shortages. That this should coincide with unprecedented soaring costs for fuel and other essentials was unforeseen. But the outlines of the current catastrophe were long evident.

    Today's rampant food-price inflation is yet more evidence that the world's ills are interconnected and leave no part of the planet untouched. Seen as a communal project to lift world incomes through meaningful reform in global agricultural policy, rather than as another necessary exercise in passing the begging bowl on behalf of "failed" nations, the food-inflation crisis is an undisguised opportunity to make the world a more prosperous and thus safer place.

    And no one should have to eat dirt.
    FOOD PRODUCTION FALLS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD . . .

    The average annual growth rate in food production in developing nations has been declining steadily since 1961. By crop:

    WHEAT

    • 1961: 10.5 per cent
    • 1970: 3.7 per cent
    • 1980: 4.9 per cent
    • 1990: 2.0 per cent
    • 2000: 1.5 per cent
    • 2004: 2.1 per cent

    RICE

    • 1961: 4.2 per cent
    • 1970: 2.0 per cent
    • 1980: 3.0 per cent
    • 1990: 1.9 per cent
    • 2000: 0.8 per cent
    • 2004: 1.2 per cent

    CORN

    • 1961: 3.0 per cent
    • 1970: 2.5 per cent
    • 1980: 3.0 per cent
    • 1990: 2.8 per cent
    • 2000: 1.3 per cent
    • 2004: 1.6 per cent

    Source: World Bank

    . . . AS PRICES RISE

    The United Nations food price index:

    • Jan. 2006: 122
    • Dec. 2006: 138
    • June 2007: 155
    • Dec. 2007: 190
    • March 2008: 220

    Source: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

    Andrew_Jay on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    wow, this got offtopic and retarded quick. I love food debates.

    You can make a huge environmental (and personal-health) difference by eating less meat. you don't have to eat none unless you're cripplingly emo or suck at logic like Captain Planet up top.

    Hey Cat, didn't you major in the study of soils or something?

    I remember one of the LSAT questions asked about the whole "eat less meat so that there'll be more grains" deal, and the question asked, "The above statement would be weakened by which of the following responses." I guessed the one saying "If the soil used to grow livestock feed wouldn't work for human feed."

    Anyway, it's an LSAT hypothetical, not a confirmed fact, but what are your thoughts?

    Schrodinger on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    :^:

    as for drought here, its really more that 'drought' is the normal state of the landscape and our farmers have been in denial for 200 years. Its really silly to try growing peaches and cotton on the edge of a desert.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • CraveonCraveon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    To steer this back on topic and away from Craveon and Illyaria's moral-superiority-wank-fest
    You don't have to agree with me on moral grounds. The scientic facts, however, are hard to deny:

    http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

    Craveon on
    elegyofemptiness.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    I eat cage-free eggs and I'm making arrangements with a buddy to be able to kill my own meat. That's the best you're going to get from me.

    ViolentChemistry on
Sign In or Register to comment.