Could the price and availability of food become one of the 2008 campaign's biggest issues? Or maybe, we should be asking, why the explosive inflation in food prices is not already THE issue.
Associated Press reports, Food Costs Rising Fastest in 17 Years ". Eggs cost 25 percent more in February than they did a year ago, according to the USDA. Milk and other dairy products jumped 13 percent, chicken and other poultry nearly 7 percent."
Bad policies, supported at a bi-partisan level, have dramatically aggravated an already serious problem. In the US, wheat suppliers are talking about rationing wheat to bakeries.
Today's New York Times, in an article which discusses the emergency nature of the need for solutions to the growing shortages of affordable food, says,
"Wheat prices have risen by 130 percent since March of last year, and soy prices have risen 87 percent, the United Nations said, with food now representing 60 percent to 80 percent of consumer spending in developing countries. In general, the World Bank has said that food prices have climbed about 83 percent worldwide over the past three years.
The Times article reports that this has "set off violent protests in Haiti, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and even Italy."
A perfect storm of bad policies in several arenas has produced this disaster that is already well under way. These are generally policies that continue to be supported by both Democrats and Republicans in congress. That situation is going to have to change, and fast, because the perfect storm is still building in size, power and threat. If it was a hurricane, like Katrina, it would still be out at sea, but threatening to soon hit land.
In the US, where food costs represent the lowest percentage of income than anywhere else, the "bite" has not been nearly as bad, at 4% increase overall, in the costs of food. But that could and will change as the confluence of factors causing it worsen.
The NY Times article says,
"Major agricultural countries must urgently change their policies to avoid a social explosion from rising food prices, a panel of United Nations experts warned Tuesday, adding their voices to new concerns about the proper balance between saving the environment and feeding the poor.
"Modern agriculture will have to change radically if the international community wants to cope with growing populations and climate change, while avoiding social fragmentation and irreversible deterioration of the environment," said Salvatore Arico, a biodiversity specialist with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or Unesco, summarizing the report by about 400 experts.
The report tries to provide a comprehensive view on how to produce food that is less dependent on fossil fuels; favors locally available resources, natural fertilizers and traditional seeds; and tries to preserve the soil and water supply.
Decreasing the Dollar's Value; good for exports and balance of trade, bad for Food Prices in the US and Worldwide. In the US, as is the case for any countries whose currencies ride with the dollar, food prices are rising as the value of the dollar continues to plummet. There are two reasons this impacts the US. The biggest one is that the price of US food looks cheaper and cheaper as the Euro and other currencies rise in value in proportion to the dollar, making US Wheat and other food exports more attractive to foreign nations. That raises the prices in the US and makes less food available.
For foreign nations whose currencies are tied to the dollar, they are competing with other currencies now worth more, and that is driving up their costs for food, and potentially could motivate them to abandon the dollar. That will surely accelerate the dollar's decline and food prices in the US.
Cellulosic Ethanol, mostly from Corn-- a rotten idea Then we have ethanol from corn. This failed idea is still being subsidized and encouraged as a good solution to the energy crisis. It will go down in history as one of the monumental bad ideas. What seems like a good idea has turned out to be a disastrous one that has raised corn and corn product prices, like that ubiquitous sweetener, corn syrup, massively. And farmers, to take advantage of the higher prices that corn brings, are converting wheat and other crop fields to corn fields, thus decreasing availability and raising prices for other foods. Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, reported, in 2006, that the ethanol to fill one SUV's gas tank requires enough corn to feed a person for a full year, saying,
" it is a battle between the world's 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their mobility, and the world's 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive.
Whenever the food value of a crop drops below its fuel value, the market will convert it into fuel. Ultimately, this dynamic risks driving up world food prices, destabilizing governments in low-income nations and disrupting global economic growth."
Yet Obama and Hillary still support funding more ethanol production, according to their website policy pages. While the McCain website does not even include Energy as an issue, David Brooks, in the NY Times, reported, in February,
"In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway. A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. Unlike, say, Barack Obama, McCain still opposes ethanol subsidies."
The prominence of the Iowa presidential caucuses also plays a major role. The Iowa caucuses are held prior to the elections in most other states, and presidential candidates hope to do well there and gain momentum going into the rest of the campaign season. Since Iowa is the heart of ethanol production country in the U.S., candidates pander to the voters there who have greatly benefited from U.S. ethanol policies. In order to win Iowa, you must support ethanol policy. Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John McCain provide perfect examples of the Iowa influence. Longtime critics of U.S. ethanol policy - both changed their positions during the most recent presidential campaign. In 2003, McCain had come out strongly against U.S. ethanol policy:
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
of an engineered worldwide food shortage is not so far fetched now. You can blame it on agri-fuel or global-melt. I say its HAARP and elitist speculators holding supply to raise the price. The pale horse this way cometh. Funny thing about us tin-foil hatters, we stocked up when prices were low. If you dont have a years supply of food, even if you plant crops you might go hungry until harvest. having money is no gaurantee you will get food in trade for it
Remember Joseph, he stored food knowing of the future famine and he used the food to buy everything in Egypt. Its the same plan now only different mini-staters sitting on the grain. In the words of Joyce, "everything that has been done shall be done, and done again".
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 379 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 3:05:07 PM
Good thing I've been saving my MREs. Actually, in all seriousness, I agree with your article Rob. I went to the store the other day to get a gallon of milk, only to discover that milk is now 4.99 a gallon! (Organic is even MORE expensive!)
What does the average person do?
by
drew nevins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 4:00:23 PM
Perfect storm? Yes, and unfolding according to well formulated plans. It is a plan that, using the artifice of money, will decimate worldwide supplies of food, water and energy sources. We Americans are embedded in this endgame scenario for the destructive global civilization built by the elite.
That this civilization is not sustainable is obvious to those who take the time to understand the basic principles upon which it operates and the constraints of Earth's resouces and a climate now marginally suited to our current state of social evolution. Our only hope is to transition to a new civilization based on ecologically positive solutions that replace growth of artificial profit, products, waste and power with growth of enough food, water, and energy sources to support our current population. Also, we do need to stabilize and humanely reduce our current global population in a slow and orderly way that excludes the killing machines of war and greed.
There are solutions to our problems. Unfortunately a big wakeup call appears to be needed to accomplish an orderly dismantling of our current civilization and its replacement with a new sustainable, caring and cooperation based plantary civilization.
Good Luck to the human species.
by
Larry Dicken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 4:46:29 PM
was the watchword during the 30's. When the depression morphed from a recession, people's supper literally died on the vine. Pig farmers killed their shoats and were proclaimed madmen by those who had not seen meat in the cities. Trade was stopped because truckers undercut each other until they finally asked Uncle Sam to put them under the Interstate Commerce Commission. Those who lived on farms--and many did--were better off than most because they could depend upon some crops, despite drought, sandstorms and grasshoppers. Those who depended upon soup kitchens never understood what it did to farmers who could at best only trade some crops for a pound of sugar.
It's too dramatic to think of such happening in the US now. Except it gives no hope to hear of how truckers are organizing strikes because of the high price of fuel. The War and foreign needs finally righted food supplies, as long as rationing and price stabilization was implemented. Obesity was not a main topic on the evening news!
I remember a modified occurence during Viet Nam days. Price of food increased in the US and other countries were impinged greatly. One associate at work sloughed off the severity in developing countries. When I mentioned the issue, he proclaimed it was just a matter of distribution. True enough. Many in the US were going to bed hungry on Metrocal. This time, there are less paying jobs to go with the twin problems of shrinking paychecks and higher prices. Jimmy Carter said that inflation is the cruelest tax of all.
My worry is that there are fewer Americans who know how to eat healthy but inexpensively. (Do not try to convince them that potato chips were not born in a Pringles can.) I look to the elderly, including where I live. Meals on wheels seem rather adequate still. But what about the weekends and a second meal? We residents have run a free pantry for well over a year. Those who can pitch in, do.
And how sad that poverty-stricken children will look even fatter while living on biscuits and gravy. Churches in our part of the country have always had food banks. Come Thanksgiving, they'll be leaning on the public for extra help.
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1302 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 772 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 4:55:15 PM
I am a disabled widow living on a fixed income which is below the poverty level. I am fortunate to have a 9 year old car that is paid for, and a modest house payment, otherwise I would not be solvent. I get $33 a month in food stamps. I buy basically the same food---cook mostly from scratch and try my darndest to eat healthy whole food. That said, the last few weeks my typical shopping trip for food has increased way more than 4%. Maybe it is because I try to eat some fresh fruits and vegetables but there is no way anyone can convince me that food prices have increased by so little. For me it seems much closer to 15% more expensive.
People on low fixed incomes feel it first because in spite of all else, we still have to eat. Must say, it helps me with my weight loss plan. (smile)
by
Char Stellamaris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 7:18:13 PM
The world food crisis is just another example of the corporations maximizing their profits by allowing prices to rise while the rest of us are left to eat cake, if we're lucky. Finally, the consumer end of the food chain is feeling what the supply end has been feeling for decades. Just as Third World farmers are paid almost nothing for the food they produce, now that the there is a shortage the corporations are reaping the profits of rising prices. The rich will always have enough to buy food, just as they will always have enough to buy gas or a new car or a nice home. The rest of us who are seeing our salaries shrink as inflation increases, will eventually feel the bite, but it will be nothing like the Third World where a big increase in food price is tantamount to starvation.
by
Deano (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 14 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 8:09:50 PM
While working at a friend’s restaurant, I’ve gone to purchase the food with him on many occasions. (I had a truck to haul the food and he didn’t) When purchasing food almost three times a week you really notice the price jumps in food even at the wholesale level.
I’ve seen food prices jump by 20% in a week on some items. Even the bread supplier has a fuel surcharge now. The farther the food traveled the more the price increase.
The prices are going up so fast I’ve began to speculate on food buying in large quantities and storing it.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 530 comments)
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 8:17:18 PM
Yep, the best solution to overpopulation is starvation and don't bet on the mutant strand of caplitalism that is predominant today to not take advantage of the potential new market in producing a new solution to the hunger problem. The Chinese are already using death vans to both execute and then extract the organs from 'criminal' victims (dissidents) to sell to the highest bidder so it's not too much of a leap of logic to see this same practice coming to America at some point in the near future. The police state needs a solution for the growing number of rabble rousers and all of those white 'al Qaeda operatives'. Leave it to American ingenuity to take the next step though and turn the excess parts into a commodity and feed the hungry at the same time.
What a ghastly time that we all live in.
Just my two cents
EE
by
Ed Encho (6 articles, 10 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 371 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 5:29:10 AM
The thing that makes this really an ugly mess is that the US pays almost all of it's farmers every year to keep about 20% of our cropland idle. So there is available 20% of crop land in the US to be put into production to subsidize ethanol and eating. There are a lot of other ways to make ethanol than with corn, too. Algae has a huge potential if we can find a way to not make it an elitist crop that requires a heavy investment in plastics to produce. The heavy investment American farmers have in the oil industry would cost them a pretty penny up front to get out of. It would also take education of the farmers so they could use a different approach. If all you have ever done is factory type farming using the products of a oil dependent system you need to learn how to make organic work. There are too many very rich and powerful companies who have their income firmly lodged in oil intensive farming to allow the farmers a grace period of change. It would take at least one year if not several of reinvestment in equipment and time management to allow the change that needs to happen to occur. Unfortunately most farmers are so heavily in dept to the banks for their equipment and seed or feed that revamping their agricultural practices would mean they would not be able to meet their financial obligations during the transition. The boom in real estate prices even with the current down turn has made getting the dead farms all over the county side back into production prohibitive. At $100,000 an acre+/- it is too expensive for a start up farmer to afford. When half the dairy farms where put out of business in the 80's serious and very long term damage was done to our country's ability to provide for itself. Making two farms into one larger farm put us in a seriously vulnerable position especially when it comes to the spread of disease. But also in the ability for change to occur. Now instead of two farmers thinking about changing their practices we have only one farmer who is strapped to a very intensive production program to be able to produce double what his predecessor of only a generation ago was required to do to meet his family's needs. We need to unlimber the idle land and find a way to give farmers the education and grace to change. New farmers need a leg up just to start production, because land is priced so that only the rich can afford it thus excluding farmers, especially those who are just trying to get started. Organic farming is very labor intensive but people need to be willing to pay for the increase in labor. Some of this expense would be mitigated by lower cost for fertilizer and pest control but not all, especially if you have to buy in bulk things like fertilizer (read as manure), grain, hay or silage. The land would also need recovery time to rebuild natural bacteria and fauna that makes organic work. Soil that has been heavily dosed with chemicals for years lacks healthy organisms (it is essentially "dead" soil) that work together in a natural system to turn organic fertilizer into topsoil and usable nutrients.
Added all up, what really has to happen is that the rich have to let go of some of their riches. If the 2% of Americans that hold the bulk of the wealth in the US don't step up and unlimber the bank accounts we will get to repeat history yet again. When the rich hoard so much of the currency and wealth that there is not enough to feed the poorer of the population bad things happen to the rich. Marie Antoinette and the French revolution, springs readily to mind. Farmers may wish to farm for altruistic reasons, but if it doesn't put food on the table, they can not farm. Smaller more self sustainable farms that provide the farmer with a decent living doesn't seem like much to ask for on the face of it, but there are just enough overpaid executives (remember that top 2%) in companies like Monsanto, Dow, and Exxon to see too it that it does not come to pass.
by
Mary Hodgman (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 6:55:11 AM
