A Beginner's Guide to Solving the (Global) Food Crisis

Isn't it a consumer driven market though? One can only move forward at a snail's pace due to it IMO.

E.D.,

Local food is cheaper on the market in developing countries. However in many of them, there is a food deficit, so they have to resort to food import. At this moment, they can afford it less and less.

Biofuel is a great idea, but wrongly implemented (by massively converting food and food resources to fuel use), at the wrong time (just as food commodities' prices were on the move) and for the wrong reason (convert from fossile oil to alternative fuel rather than for the sake of the environment).

I agree with you the farming subsidies were a form of protectionism, and disturbed the balance of the market (certainly once one shifted from a massive overproduction of subsidized US food to a near-depletion of the US food reserves. What else would the markets do but inflate?).

I also agree with you and Brandon that making the developing world independent from food aid, through better and more resistant crops, better agricultural techniques etc..., is the final and only solution. Otherwise, 50 years from now, these countries will still be in trouble.

p.

E.D. Kain, I would agree with much of what you added, if you change the term farmers to agribusiness. American family farms have been vanishing at a rate of about 1,000 per year.

The bulk of the subsidies are paid to four crops and 50% of the total dollars go to 22 of the 435 Congressional Districts. Over 400 commodity crops get zero, 59% of ranchers and farmers get zero.

It is a corporate welfare system that benefits no one but the few like Monsanto, ADM, Cargill etc. Environmental Working Group has a breakdown of the payments that makes it crystal clear.

Brandon, the article has your heart in the right place but some of your assumptions are incorrect.

The farmers in the remote, poor and odd named countries of the world need to be supplied with acceptable quality seeds, fertilizers and soils to help ween foreign countries off of American goods.

The bigger problem faced by the worlds farmers is that subsidies of agribusiness make them unable to compete even in local markets. A perfect example is the dumping of US corn in Mexico.

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) -- Hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged central Mexico City Thursday with their slow-moving tractors, protesting the entry of cheap imported corn from the United States and Canada.

Next is this point which I'm very curious to know the source of. It is not a figure reflected in any research I've done and may be part of the bogus PR that the agribusiness front groups propigate.

These premier quality seeds in poor countries could easily double a nations food output.

While the original Green Revolution did see increased yields from industrial methods and hybrid seeds, the ultimate effect did not reduce hunger or improve the lives of farmers or locals. The conversion from community crops to exports was not of benefit to local communities and the effects of chemicals on clean water supplies and destruction of fishing was a net negative.

You are right that the biofuels and ethanol are net energy losers in addition to their negative impact on food supplies and prices but the problem is with Congress. The policies are designed to feed hungry corporations not people. Analysis of political support for that from conservative CATO.

Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.

At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government.

Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

That's the corny truth about our farm policy, we're paying to see consumers screwed over!!

E.D. Kain, I would agree with much of what you added, if you change the term farmers to agribusiness. American family farms have been vanishing at a rate of about 1,000 per year.

I use "farmers" loosely. Yes, the agribusiness subsidy goes against my view of what free, global markets should be. Just as I feel that outsourcing jobs is a part of free markets, and importing labor is an important part of free markets, I also believe that doing away with protectionism is part of free markets--across the board. No more protectionist policies from any country--do away with farm subsidies and car subsidies and all of that. These things only create illusions and let companies that ought to have faltered, or industries that ought to have gone extinct, hang on long past their allotted time. Life support is not how we should be running our economy.

Globalization is painful but inevitable, and we need to learn how to adapt as an economy. More wealth across the globe (paired with better women's rights, less poverty, a lower childbirth rate) will lead to more prosperity for everyone.

Thank you. I scrolled down looking for this comment. Meat is taking the grain. There are still economic issues to figure out of course; after all the growing of all that grain will still need to be incentivized even without the lucrative meat industry to pay for it. But it is the real answer.

I'll add one you can keep on your great list barrys-rutherford. Check Local Harvest for a database of farm sources that searches by zip code. If you know small farmers have them register to be listed. Vote your dollars and remember every small change has a downstream effect and one by one we can change the world.

Thanks for that Pamela if I lived in the U.S. I woulkd be taking advantage of Local Harvest !

They still eat far less meat than Americans. Don't try to shift the blame to Asians for your own gluttony. That's all on you. Really, we should simply mandate vegetarianism. That would solve the food crisis and global warming at once.

No, they wouldn't take their land. Why would that even come up? They could even raise livestock if they really felt the desire to do so. They would simply be barred from eating said livestock. This would eliminate the incentive to raise livestock, and instead they would directly sell the plants they grow - instead of feeding that to a cow so that it will eventually become beef.

I doubt you've traveled extensively and seen the hunger that exists in the world, but prioritizing the convenience of a few hunters and farmers in America over the lives of billions of other people it's silly. It's immoral. I'm not a PETA member. I could care less about animals. But when we have the ability to end world hunger and global warming by having more salads - I would really like to see a good argument against doing so.

How is it illogical? You've yet to state such.

I think you'll have a hard time eating meat if restaurants and grocery stores don't serve it. Even if a few hicks still go out and bag some deer - it would still be enough change to fix the problems we face today.

How is it illogical? You've yet to state such.

It's a gross violation of everything Americans hold dear about their freedom. It's wrong to mandate such a thing, though advocating vegetarianism is within anybody's rights.

Better to simply let Billions starve, no?

You mean grocery stores and restaurants would rather be shut down than offer vegetarian dishes? You mean how no one abides by the no smoking in public laws? Further, how would Billions starve when they are now able to eat food that would have gone towards feeding cows?

Sorry Brandon, I know you're young - but making up "facts" is not going to get you anywhere in a debate about what is logical and what is not. You simply like your beef, and are willing to lie to make sure you keep it - no matter who it harms (even yourself).

Protein still needs to come from somewhere, and if we're thinking vegetarian, those sources would be soy, hempseed, buckwheat, et cetera. Eggs and milk too, if those are allowed. At any rate, the same basic problems of supply would persist. The plain and simple of it is that demand for - and more importatntly the ability to pay for - food has risen dramatically, and supply is at a bit of a squeeze at the moment. Simple market economics are to 'blame' here, and nothing but a boost in supply will bring prices back down - though whether they will reach as low as they were is doubtable.

And, by the way, it wasn't by intention to 'blame' anyone earlier.

What's wrong with soy, hempseed, buckwheat, and peanuts? Science forbid people have to take their vitamins in the form of anything other than double cheeseburgers.

At any rate, the same basic problems of supply would persist.

No, they would not. The supply of food would expand eightfold. Unless you believe that 7/8 of the world is starving, this would fix the supply issue. Also, don't ignore the effect it will have on global warming. We would fix the global warming issue without making any other changes in our day to day lives.

Simple market economics are to 'blame' here, and nothing but a boost in supply will bring prices back down - though whether they will reach as low as they were is doubtable.

You mean agriculture subsidies for meat and ethanol are to blame. Few people would be buying meat if they were paying what people in other nations were paying because their governments don't heavily subsidize the prices of that food.

Nothing's wrong with them. I was just noting that they would have the same upwards pressures, if slightly mitigated, on prices that meat already does. More fields go into growing them, which keeps fields from growing rice, wheat and corn, and you still have to contend with higher prices of those foods. Also, I doubt that the meat industry consumes 7/8 of the staples produced. Even if it were, the increase would be dampened still from the need for some of that to be diverted into farming protein.

The effect on global warming is null after about 100 years; methane takes about that long to deteriorate, whereas extra CO2 takes thousands of years to exit.

I can see where removing subsidies on meat makes a lot of sense, but banning it outright 1) wouldn't work to the extent you think it will and 2) would be unnecessarily autocratic.

You think it's illogical because you like your beef.

Stopping people from having sex wouldn't work because that is something that can be done without any government intervention. You want to have sex? Find a willing partner and get it done. Sure, you can eat without government intervention as well - if you choose to live on a farm and butcher your own meat. Considering that 99% of Americans don't do so, my solution would be successful. Even if that 1% of people continued to raise meat for their own uses, the major problem would be solved.

It's as though you're saying that a law must me 100% effective for it to work. In that case, every law we have is a complete failure and we should just abolish them all. We have laws against murder, but people break those laws. I guess we just shouldn't bother having the law at all, right?

Well, I like beef alright, but more compelling to me is that vegetarian diets wreak havoc on my gut.

Actually, I'm not a vegetarian.

93 to 97% of Americans are vegetarian? Since when...?

I would like to think that if most Americans knew they could solve global warming and world hunger by becoming vegetarian, they would do so. I think Americans are stupid, not heartless.

You keep saying it's illogical, but fail to provide a reason. If that's a logical assertion, you have yet to prove it as such. Vegetarianism would solve global warming if it were world-wide... but America doing it would be a big step in the right direction. Even every single person driving a hybrid would not have even close to the same effect. Again, making up statistics and "facts" will get you nowhere.

Donating food aid isn't heartless, but compared to the alternatives - it is stupid.

No offense, but you live in Kentucky.

Really, I would be okay with him hunting for meat. The major issue with meat is the the massive farms and machinery needed to raise meat for the world. How about if we don't mandate vegetarianism, but ban the sale of meat? If you really want meat, hunt for it - or get someone to hunt for you. That would still solve the major issues we have... or is your stepfather one of those Kentuckians whose only hunting is hunting through the menu at the Cracker Barrel?

You could if they weren't all on factory farms...

Because a steak for an American is more important than the lives of eight Africans. [/sarcasm]

I would find that to be immoral. But what do I know - I'm an atheist.

Henry---I agree with Brandon. Each day, based on news which I hear/read. hundreds of Africans (and those in other parts of the world) starve to death. And it has been going on for millenia. Fact of life. It is getting worse, because most food is not grown where it is consumed (lets make an exception for small family-type farms and 'Pick Your Own' farms). Add to that the cost of fuel to transport it to the consumer; these costs are getting greater with each rise of fuel costs. I fully expect that in the northern states there will be people freezing to death next winter as well as others who starve to death next winter. Hope I'm wrong, but things are looking more bleak each day.

What? You can't just make things up in a debate!

Henry---you have to be more specific: what did I make up??

That the reason for hunger is the lack of local consumption. You'll need some evidence to back that up if you want to make such an assertion. I have proof that for every double quarter pounder you eat - four pounds of grain could have been eaten.

Henry--what part of the universe do you live in??? Go to your local supermarket during January and February; where do you think that the 'fresh' food comes from?? Have you heard of the Imperial Valley and the other major valleys in California where much of the food comes from during winter, but it is 'fresh'?? Do I need other proof??

No doubt we eat food that isn't local. I'm saying that you haven't shown why doing so is a larger contributor to the food crisis and global warming than the production of meat itself.