Opinion

Facebook DIGG

Politics and Hunger

by:   |  Visit article original @ The New York Times | Editorial

photo
Countries are in critical need of food assistance.
(Photo: sitemaker.umich.edu)

    One might expect that food riots in Egypt and Haiti would convince the world's wealthy nations of the need to do more to feed the world's poorest. If not, maybe the threat of 100 million more people falling into poverty due to soaring food prices would spur them to help.

    Yet at last week's United Nations food summit, the world's more-developed nations proved, once again, that domestic politics trumps both humanitarian concerns and sound strategic calculations.

    Over the past year, the prices of grains and vegetable oils have nearly doubled. Rice has jumped by about half. The causes include soaring energy costs, drought in big agricultural producers, like Australia, and rising demand by a burgeoning middle class in China and India. But misguided mandates and subsidies in the United States and Europe to produce energy from crops are also playing an important role.

    The International Monetary Fund estimated that biofuels - mainly American corn ethanol - accounted for almost half the growth in worldwide demand for major food crops last year. About a third of this country's corn crop will go to ethanol this year. Yet at the summit meeting in Rome, the Bush administration insisted that ethanol is playing a very small role in rising food prices and resisted calls to limit the drive to convert food into fuel. The United States wasn't alone.

    Brazil, which has an enormous sugar-based ethanol industry, also rejected demands to curb biofuel production. Argentina objected to calls to end export taxes that it and other countries have erected to slow food exports. The United States and Europe also rejected suggestions that their farm subsidies should be blamed for depressing agricultural investment in poor countries.

    Today, Africa has less large-scale commercial agriculture than it had 50 years ago. Productivity has slowed to a crawl in India, Indonesia and China.

    Several countries have pledged more aid in response to the crisis, but not nearly enough. The Bush administration wants to increase food assistance to $5 billion over two years.

    According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, there are 37 countries in critical need of food assistance. Many need not only food, but also seed and fertilizer to plant this season.

    According to the U.N. secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, world food production must rise 50 percent by 2030. This will require investments exceeding $15 billion to $20 billion a year in the farm economies of poor countries, including research into robust, high-yielding crops suited to poor regions like sub-Saharan Africa.

    After 9/11 the world's richest nations saw the link between hunger, alienation and terrorism. They offered a trade deal to eliminate the agricultural subsidies and tariffs that were pushing farmers in developing countries out of the market and further into poverty. Seven years later the tariffs and subsidies are still there.

    One of the most useful things industrialized countries could do would be to deliver on their promise and end the fat subsidies they provide their farmers no matter how high prices go. These subsidies depressed food prices for years and discouraged investment in agriculture across much of the developing world.

    In a world of growing demand and far too much hunger, they have no justification at all.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

This author forgot to

This author forgot to mention that the real cause for the food shortage is because we are feeding animals for our own consumption an excess of corn/soy/grain that would be better used to feed the hungry. Not to mention the amount of land, water, and energy that is wasted in the production of meat. It's appalling! If every person was to even cut out 20% of their animal intake we would have no hungry mouths to feed on the planet.

One thing not mentioned was

One thing not mentioned was the way speculation on grain futures has taken off since the mortgage market went kaput. All of a sudden lots of large hedge funds, banks, and pension funds have been trying to recoup their losses and seem to feel that grain futures are a good opportunity. Having said that, there is no one thing that, when corrected, will restabilize prices. Subsidies certainly have a lot to do with it, but since they have been destroying third world food production for decades, removing them, while necessary, will not be sufficient to undo so many years of harm. The same goes with using food crops for fuel or to replace food crops with other crops for biofuel production. The policy has to be changed, but will not be sufficient. Replacing food crops or deforesting jungle to grow palm oil for biodiesel needs to stop now, but for other reasons, not because it will cause a fall in food prices. By the way, Brazil growing sugar for ethanol is not at all analagous to the US growing corn for ethanol. The price of sugar is not one of the big pushers behind the food price crisis. Using grain for feeding ruminants to the extent that we do it in feed lots is part of the problem, but does not eclipse any of the other problems. Using corn and soybeans for poultry and swine production can certainly be justified by the increased value of the protein produced and by the relative efficiency with which the grains are used.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.