Part of the problem is we have tried to avoid seasonality to crops by growing them on both sides of the world, and Australia went and had a bad season... With no security or stocks of food, we have to wait for the next season... Which means people will starve to death because no one is saving anything. It's a really hard cycle to break once it starts...

The production of local fresh foods will a great business to get into. Also the manufacturing industry could make a comeback, as the cost of shipping and the poor quality of imports from places such as China, will offset the cost of providing good quality paying jobs, for quality made goods.
Support your local industries, and small production farmers. The spinoffs will help everyone in your community.

Wow. Finally, an article that doesn't blame the 'meat eating Chinese' for the increase in grain prices and the world-wide shortfall of rice and other staples, a la Paul Krugman. How does one explain that the irate Egyptian and Haitian workers were demonstrating against their governments and not against the Chinese embassies? The American pundits are generally united in pointing fingers at the Chinese now that the general campaign has been set by the US government. This British Guardian author is just not 'on-message' - China is supposed to be the Empire's whipping boy for the world wide economic crisis. Maybe the anti-China (from food shortages to repression in Tibet) hysteria is being whipped up to divert world attention from the messy collapse of the US Empire.
Of course we will never be led to call for the dismantling of the neo-liberal structural readjustment policies from the World Bank and IMF which have pressured poor countries to stop subsidizing domestic staple production and shift resources to privatizations, land concentration, real estate and financial speculation, producing export products and debt servicing.
Why are the Haitian, Egyptian and Filipino masses so off message? Why do they blame their servile US client governments for the mess?

I recently read that the world needs to produce as much food during the next 50 years as it has during the past 10,000 years just to meet the demand of the increasing global population (this factors in an ever incresing percentage of that population eating higher on the food chain).

If this statistic is correct, the threat to global security is more staggering than is being portrayed in this article.

Thousands of acres of high quality farmland are lost to development each day and few people believe that is a problem. Whenever a grassroots effort emerges to attempt to save farmland in any location, the National Association of Home Builders and National Real Estate organizations open their war chests and promptly destroy the grass roots organizations efforts.

There is no shortage of food (grain not produce). Poor people eat grain. We have created markets for our grian (ethanol) to offset other "legal" subsidies for agriculture (like the EU politician over-ride of GM approvals by their scientific regulatory agencies). This shortage is engeneered to offset trendy rich folks who are pushing philosophy-based systems like organic, free-range, and kosher. When you are hungry, philosophy is not a luxury that you can afford. You just want safe, nutritious food. You don't send back your steak because it wasn't cooked the wat you wanted it.

There is no shortage of food (grain not produce). Poor people eat grain. We have created markets for our grian (ethanol) to offset other "legal" subsidies for agriculture (like the EU politician over-ride of GM approvals by their scientific regulatory agencies). This shortage is engineered to offset trendy rich folks who are pushing philosophy-based systems like organic, free-range, and kosher. When you are hungry, philosophy is not a luxury that you can afford. You just want safe, nutritious food. You don't send back your steak because it wasn't cooked the way you wanted it.

what a surprise. who would ever have thought that feeding food to our cars, giving over land to produce agrofuels instead of food,clearing rainforests for palm oil would possibly affect our food supply? Britain and u.s. are both mandating production of biofuel. While many people have noticed how stupidly self destructive this is, agricultral produce is still going in the gastank.

Not good. Not a word about how US subsidies to agriculture prevents other people of the world from growing and selling food. The capacity is there but is undermined by US policies. We need to grow more food? Not really, we need for food to be priced according to market forces and not what benefits agribusiness. Too bad the people don't just starve to death, then we wouldn't worry about stability. Since they are protesting, and I say good for them, I guess we will have to pay attention before they turn violent. The UN is an American organ incapable of criticizig the US. World hunger and famines are the result of corruption and wars, not a shortage of food. The evidence is there. The UN? Ha!

Mr. Obvious,

Industrial farmed food has been demonstrated significantly less nutritious than "organically" grown food.

Although I agree that the "organic" LABEL has been a fad for the affluent this does not offset the superiority of organic produce- including grain.

I think that the fact that the food choices of people in north america can affect the food situation for those in the tropics is where the problem lies.

To say "Poor people eat grain(s)" and then to leave it at that is to ignore quite a gigantic subject don't you think?

WHY do "Poor people" eat grain food do you think? And what makes you think everbody else doesn't also rely too heavily on grain?

Where do you think the "sweetness" of your Coke comes from, beets?

-matti.

All the countries named are poor. Why are they poor? Do you need to ask? Take Haiti. If anyone tries to help these people the US invades. The Africans? Corruption on a massive scale and sponsored by the US. If we need to increase food production it is because we are not ready to end corruption which is of great use to the US. Look into it. The evidence is there. The UN ( yes the UN) has just commended Cuba for being so good at feeding its people. Cuba is very poor, but not corrupt, as evidenced by its well fed people. Why? They have succesfully kept out the US. Had the US succeeded in reconquering Cuba is there any doubt Cubans would be malnourished? No doubt at all.

Matti: As a doctor I must inform you that people eat grains because this is the natural food for humans. The AMA recommends a diet which is 70% grains. In the US eating grains is a sign of poverty, and being fat is a sign of prosperity. Americans obtain more than 80 % of their calories from meat and are the fattest people on earth. This is very bad for health and very bad for the environment. Time to learn some things here! Organic? Christ this is so unrealistic it makes me cringe. Spoiled rotten I say.

The single most important event that can improve world hunger is the emergence of poverty amongst white people. The europeans are just as disgusting in protecting their agribusiness. They have systematically destroyed any opportunity for others to grow food. Malnutrition is a result of imperialism and will improve only with the decline of white supremacy.

lizard,

As your sentence after "The Africans?" acknowledges, these "countries" are NOT "poor", a great many of the people in them ARE, because of the greed of a few of the people in them and -a sadly less few- of the people in this "country"

Perhaps the problem comes from speaking (or writing) in terms of "countries" instead of people?

Even accurate terms like Nation-State, while still focusing on political entities rather than bioregions, would be superior.

The "country" where I live has remained mostly the same, even as it switched from being Kittitas-controlled, to Tsarist-controlled, to Britsh-controlled, to U.S.-controlled. Excepting of course all the trees cut down.

Am I nit-picking? Sure. But I strongly believe that intelligent people(notice the compliment to you) would be benefited by employing non-B.S. language in their attempts to understand the World.

I'd also like to point out that Cubanos DID recently go through what they now refer to as a Special Period (I believe) of malnutrition and food shortages after the loss of Industrial-Style subsidies from the defucnt Soviet Union?

What got them out of this and on the path toward "best nourished People of the Tropics"?

If you guessed Local Organic Farming and Food Co-operatives, give yourself a pat on the back.

Anyway good on you for asking the economic questions -lizard- sorry to nitpick ya.

-matti

fertilisers and pesticides are oil based. Price to protect the crops from bugs etc and make them grow faster costs more. Then the machines to cut, bail and put it on a truck or train or ship. This price gets passed on. Do you think oranges grown in California are going to continue to be sold in Canada or around the world cheap?

Hey Wow!

I take back all the good stuff I wrote about you -liz-!

Can you please "explain" to me as a "doctor" how milled grains can be the "natural food" for humans when they were part of NO HUMAN'S diet as little as 9,000 years ago and require at least hand-driven stone-milling to be edible and of nutritional value?

It should be entertaining.

-matti.

Starvation & Poverty can never be mitigated until an effective means of family planning/population control is implemented. Our environment can not sustain the current reproduction rates.

Compared to over-population, other measures are on almost irrelevant. Unless this admiinistration's zealotic opposition to this essential need is halted, and these vital measures are addressed now, increasing poverty and eventual degradation of the quality of life--as well as environmental degradation-- is inevitable.

There is no shortage of food and there never has been in the history of the world. There is only an excess of people. The article quotes one idiot saying that we need to double food production. Firstly, that's impossible. Secondly, it would only put us back exactly where we are if it were possible. This is the same strategy we have tried thrice a century for the last 10,000 years. It never worked before; why would anyone suspect that it might work now? Abstinence. Contraception. Masturbation. Abortion. Homosexuality. It's either these or genocidal warfare and slow, horrible lingering death by starvation and disease. Those are the options; increasing food supplies is not among them.

leaf:
this is getting funnier by the minute.
So who do you blame?

...the agriculture industry needed to double its food production, using less water than today...

Full marks for every mention of over-population. Say it again and again.

There is no doubt that excessive meat consumption and waste is part of the problem. Suppose that agriculture and consumption patterns manage the impossible, and todays population can now be fed. What is going to stop population growth from running into the next new limits to growth?

Human herd numbers have already grown too large. We are struggling against each other to consume life in overwhelming numbers. That will not stop the rich from consuming quantities of Gaia that could support a much larger population.

Nobody, apart from the Chinese, are concentrating on reducing population growth. The freaking oil-power leaders at the US white house would even try to stop abortions if they could. Their chief contribution to solving human overpopulation is to try and mass destruct the population of any part of the world they do not like, in order to consume more than their fair share.

Priority for human kind from A to Z should be birth control and contraception. As for abstinence,... who are you kidding (or having sex with)? Making little kiddies, with the additional costs of supporting their lives, is now far the most destructive process for Gaia. It is also our primal instinct. Wisdom lies in the control of primal instincts.

I think the food shortage is a blessing - albeit disguised. What else would motivate people to take personal responsibility for their own welfare? As it becomes obvious that global imbalances are biased towards the haves, the have nots need to avoid reliance on them and their corporate and bureaucratic outreach programs. Hunger is probably one of the most un-ignorable encouragements to start producing foods - nutritious and health-supporting - locally that we could experience. And - as most posts on CD suggest - taking personal responsibility is the only way you will change your world - wherever you live - in terms of hunger, security, pollution ........

i don't see what the problem is...we can still eat at mcdonald's on the dollar menu. this is America!!! we have Taco Bell....

it's time to wake up and smell the fast food people!!!

Wow. Finally, an article that doesn't blame the 'meat eating Chinese' for the increase in grain prices and the world-wide shortfall of rice and other staples, a la Paul Krugman.

*I was disappointed it didnt mention meat.
On the BBC this morning they had a show on this and THANK DOG someone did mention the logic of a vegetarian diet in the last few minutes. We have the food to feed everyone now--just need to take the wasteful dietary choices out of the equation.

1.3 billion people switching to a meat diet isnt good.

If one is too much of a selfish asshole to care about what happens to members of other species in farms(big and small) then think about the humans who are suffering because of the wasted water and food.
That and the new diseases that are created from livestock rearing.

There just isnt a good side to it, except maybe humans will drive themselves to extinction.
Meat looks like shit, and is a misery to cultivate, while fruits and vegetables are the colours of the rainbow and grow on trees, vines and the ground. If there is a deity it couldnt have created a better PR campaign for what to eat.

OK, lets start to eat people. it is the only answer to both problems. More food and less people. Soylent Green on a whole wheat bun with a side of fries. McDonalds will sell billions of them. That old Zone To Serve Man will be a best seller at Chapters

It seems to me that this is something that the UN WANTED to happen by perpetuating this myth about CO2 caused global warming, and thus turning food into fuel. But there is a bit of good news on this subject, read about it here:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/196704,germany-cancels-plans-to-add-ethanol-to-petrol.html

a few steps to begin with:

1) Eco-Eating at www.brook.com/veg

2) stop using food for fuel

3) de-commodify basic grains and other necessities

4) tax greenhouse gas emissions (methane and nitrous oxide as well as carbon dioxide)

geo:
ethanol does NOT have to be made from corn. It can be made from just about any green plant on earth. CUBA Brazil use sugar cane AFTER they remove the sugar from the cane and use the rest of the plant that was before just burned. Like who cares if it cost 1 cent more for your coffee because of higher sugar prices.As for the Germany, the reason given in the article was damage to engines as well as food prices.

PERMACULTURE!!!

Don't grow food for Fuel!!!!

Permaculture

Permaculture Defined
Permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor. It teaches us how build natural homes, grow our own food, restore diminished landscapes and ecosystems, catch rainwater, build communities and much more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food Forests and Guilds
Food Forest mimics the architecture and beneficial relationships between plants and animals found in a natural forest or other natural ecosystem. Food forests are not 'natural', but are designed and managed ecosystems (typically complex perennial polyculture plantings) that are very rich in biodiversity and productivity. example

http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/classroom/

one other thing is the US and gas companies don't want people to start making moon shine and run the family car off it. If your car can run on 85% ethanol that many can, just look at the gas cap on your car. It can be a mix of moon shine and gas and buy 85% less gas. No tax bucks off home made and profits for the oil industry.

OK SINCE WHEN IS SUGAR A FOOD SOURCE?

Good luck -- because carbohydrates are burned within the body as fuel, even if your muscles atrophy (w/o proteins) and you eventually die of some other disease, at least one doesn't starve.

Ugh.

Every subject serves as fuel for whatever agenda one was already determined to espouse here on the Internets, doesn't it?

My favorite silly thing written is the "SINCE WHEN IS SUGAR A FOOD SOURCE" bit.

Well, since glucose has been a required coating for mammalian neuron cells, so several million years, I suppose.

I think what you mean, -goodluck- is Since when has CANE sugar been a food source?

The answer to that is : for several hundred years.

To lizard:

Still awaiting your "doctor"al response.

-matti.

Protein production determines carrying capacity. Cannabis seed is the world's best source of protein, but because of marijuana prohibition, hemp seed agriculture has been forbidden in most countries of the world for the past seventy years.

What we are seeing now is the result of imposed essential resource scarcity. Until hemp is reintroduced into the agricultural equation, the problems we face will never be resolved.

Hey -liz-.

I was so busy responding to the stupidity of the first part of your "doctor"al thesis that I completely failed to notice the stupidity of the second part.

80% of calories from animal foods huh?

Pretty slick bait-and-switch, since of course most animal foods are much higher in calories than plant foods.

Of course "Americans" are deriving too much of their average diet from animal foods, but the main health detriment of this is the lack of plant foods that result.

There is only so much room in the stomach after all.

But blaming people in the "developed" Nation-States for being biologically attracted to high-calorie animal foods is just as stupid as Krugman's blaming of the Chinese for attempting to follow in our path.

People will be attracted to the cheapest, highest calorie foods on hand, millions of years of striving to supply ourselves with fuel for our complex brains tends to trump any dietary ideology.

The obvious solution to global food shortages caused by population jumps and the capitalist preference for storable commodity grains is locally produced, nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables, with the adjunct of local meat production where resource and culturally permissable.

Of course this involves a conflict with globalist food selling paradigms and unfair land ownership laws.

There is much work to be done when it comes to the Human relationship to food production, ideologically based thinking can only get in the way of this work.

I suggest people drop it.

-matti.

Maybe we need to stop making babies we can't feed? We do understand how this happens right? Oh that's right. Religion has made us stupid.

"ONLY POOR PEOPLE EAT GRAIN" ??

Vegetarian diets are healthier, being typically high in fibre and low in fat, and devoid of meat borne toxins as well as meat linked food poisoning, while vegetarian cuisine is tasty and diverse, visit any top class Greek, Indian or Thai restaurant.

However, the poor can benefit from a vegetarian diet being cheaper than a meaty one, while vegetarianism is better for the environment, as meat production requires far more land and animal manure pollutes waterways, and methane from meat production exacerbates climate change. Vegetarian diets will help end world hunger as meat production is an inefficient method of producing food.

Carnivores naturally eat meat and it would be wrong to stop them, but the human digestive system more closely resembles that of herbivores so vegetarianism is an excellent choice.

So, maybe only the most intelligent people eat grain?

There are many reasons for this. In no particular order: Susidized ethanol production competing for acreage in the US and Brazil. US farmers reluctant to take a chance on over production and falling prices while they lose the subsidy for not planting. China (India too?)importing more food with its export income. Overfishing. Bad weather. Monumental droughts in Australia, Somalia and elswhere. Higher oil and fertilizer prices. Scarcer and more expensive water for irrigation. Increased beef and pork production world wide. Increased global commodity trade has raised transportation costs.

The green revolution, at least partly built on cheap fossil fuel, gave food supplies a big boost, but Dr. Malthus' math, modern sanitation, and medicine, and traditional large families have caught back up.

The world's population is at the brink of unsustainabiity and growing, and we are just beginning to see the effects of peak oil, depleted aquifers, and global warming. Looks like a collision course to me.

didn't 'global security' go out the window on march 20th 2003?

Matti - you wrote: " Industrial farmed food has been demonstrated significantly less nutritious than "organically" grown food."

Bull! - This has been tested over and over again and it ain't so. Labels to this effect have been deemed illegal by the EU courts based on the scientific data. By the way, I do not drink soft drinks like Coke. Also, I did not say that only poor people eat grain. What I was trying to point out is that grain commonly represents the main food for the poor in 3rd world countries. Organic production which requires replacement of synthetic fertilizer with animal waste is ecologically unsound. Where is all the manure going to come from? What are the ecological impacts of all this additional animal production? Over-grazing and production of greehouse gases ring a bell? Ethanol from corn is a "legal" subsidy for agriculture. This is a response to other "legal" Ag subsidies like the banning of GM crops by EU politicians after these crops were approved by the EU scientific regulatory agencies. Again, the poor suffer as we play games.

Imagine 160,000 soldiers ( or "troops" if you insist ) along with an equal number of $800-per-day mercenaries - all cultivating fields and digging wells ( water wells ) instead of shooting children; and branding steers and stimulating bulls for their semen instead of forcing piled enemy combatants to masturbate. What a well fed world that would be, a?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070614071300AAWQljn

But, as it is, all the world's hungry eyes, envious and resentful eyes, are directed at the fat Americans with their big automobiles and gasoline enough to invade the world.

Mr. O:

Its ecologically sound if you're an Amish farmer just feeding his family with a little extra for the local farmer's market and the grain wholesalers, and your farm has been paid off for generations. But we have billions to feed!

CoCo: You're right. The neocons had no idea what it took for that vain egomaniac to hold Iraq together. He was predictable and under control. Now its just chaos.

Mr Obvious

Just because you have not seen studies showing that organic foods are healthier does not mean they don't exist.

What about the pesticide residues in chemically grown foods. Organics must be healthier.

How many times do we have to tell you that organic production does not need animal manure, there are other methods of naturally increasing soil fertility and furthermore, animal manure correctly composted does not pose an unacceptable risk.

More food poisoning cases come from industrial agriculture that organic agriculture.

You have said before, "keep an open mind". That is good advice, check out the research yourself, none so blind as those who don't want to see.

bbr-001 - It is nice to sit in your suburban living room and romaticise farming, but with billions to feed, it is more ecologically freindly to concentrate food production on as little land as possible. Production of annual agriculture crops is inheriently disruptive and not compatible with biodiversity.

Andy - The earth must be flat because it appears so. The sun must revolve around the earth because I see it do that every day. "Organic must be healthier." Science sometimes tells us that what we think we know is false. Every environmental factor affects the composition of food. Many studies have looked for both ecological and health benefits for organic production and food. The problems are different, but no convincing evidence has emerged that one method produces safer food, but organic takes up more land. This is why it is illegal to make health claims for organic produce. Such claims have been found to be false over and over again in scientific studies from around the world. By the way, you are correct that "More food poisoning cases come from industrial agriculture that organic agriculture." But again this is misleading. There is far less organic food than conventional. It is like saying that crime is lower on a single street in Harlem compared to the state of Wyoming. The proportion of food poisoning from organic food is much higher than the proportion of food poisonings from conventional food. This does not make organic unsafe when proper procedures are followed. Unfortunately, improperly processed manure used on food crops can cause food poisoning. If a pesticide was found to be this dangerious, it would never be registered.

good luck April 9th, 2008 6:54 pm said:

"OK, lets start to eat people. it is the only answer to both problems. More food and less people."

Very funny, good luck, but I imagine it will come to that in certain places. The survival instinct trumps the religious impulse when pressed too far.

How about insects instead? I read somewhere there are 1,800 pounds of termites for every person on earth. Imagine pulling up to the drive through at Mickey D's saying, "I'll have a quarter Bugger-Burger Deluxe, and throw in an order of hopper fries, a termite turnover, and a carob grub shake." Yum or yuk depends on your hunger level & the miracles of modern science (and advertising LOL).

I also read recently the corn/ethanol/fuel ruse could ultimately cause 200-300 million deaths from starvation and/or disease worldwide. That's as many deaths as all the wars of the 20th century. Can't pat ourselves on the back for being a learned enlightened species if we keep repeating the same mistakes, yet expecting different results, now can we?

My admiration goes to the person at the dawn of time who discovered eating raw oysters was ok...a real adventurous soul he/she, brave & bold. I've always felt if someone can do something so can I, so here goes,

"I'll have a quarter Bugger-Burger Deluxe, and..."

Mr. O:

I quite agree. Its ironic my dairy farmer grandfather told me almost exactly the same thing 45 years ago. He said we've come to far and there are too many people to go back to the old ways.

""Climate change is a real issue and is rightly being dealt with by major global investment. However, I am concerned there
is another major issue along a similar time-scale - that of food and energy security.""

WOW, on the same time scale huh? Genius that!

Gee, could it be because the two issues are intrinsically linked?

Genius...

Mr O is completely wrong. It looks like he is an employee for Monsanto. If you desire to get the true facts on organic vs industrial tech farming see www.woodburyorganics.com - and look at the Letter to the Public.

One major issue is that many grain farmers are no longer rotating crops - we have become a mono-culture. As a result, bio-diversity has been sacrificed, top soil is being destroyed, centralization of food distribution has worked against local communities to feed itself, chemicals have saturated the ground water, etc etc.

Now, if Monsanto has the patents on seed - you would want the whole world to pay royalties to a company for seed that otherwise would have been passed down for generations in Mexico etc. It makes those people poorer - while leaving a corporation holding all rights to the seed.

I am mostly concerned about the rural communities. Iowa is becoming a wasteland of large corporate farms - as will the entire Midwest (except for increasingly large metropolitan areas.

What do you mean by saying that grain ethanol offsets other legal ag subsidies? Or that European scientific community is somehow causing a problem by not adopting GMO? That makes no sense whatsoever.

In the end - what you are really saying is that nature is not as good as man created industrial farming in supplying food. You assume the latter is safe. There are many reliable studies showing that local food is more nutritious.

Go eat your twinkies and drink your high fructose corn syrups.

Oh, by the way, while crappy industrial foods will increase in price due to price gouging and subsidies, organic food will actually come in line with industrial since they do not use the same inputs. It may end up that crappy food will cost more than the real thing.

Rob

A couple more points:

GMO ag is highly fossil fuel dependent.

Many of the entries above make an assumption that is incorrect: Rodale Institute has proven that you can get same yields with organic as you can conventional (GMO) ag. A 22 year study shows comparable yields.

There are conclusive studies showing a lack of iodine in the American diet - and that has been definitely shown to be a link with increased breast cancer rates. Industrial Ag has removed much of the iodine. So, what we have here is: nutrients have been removed from food - and there is a big push for pills that make up for the lack of nutrients we get in our food.

There are so many aspects of this: Mr. O would be a big supporter of CAFOs - or bST - etc. Anything to promote highly concentrated methods of food production. Meanwhile, autism and other health problems are on the rise. While I cannot prove a direct correlation, you would throw caution to the wind - and experiment on the general public.

"And - as most posts on CD suggest - taking personal responsibility is the only way you will change your world - wherever you live"

What exactly do you mean by this? You seem to be talkng the blame-the-victim language of the people who have created most of the worlds poor - and even bansided the word "poor" from our political discourse and the US mass media.

I can take personal responsibility and start stealing food, or I can move in and start squatting and growing food on idle land of a rich man, but for how long will that work? We need many thousands of people coming together and taking over the food distribution system and rich people's idle land.

The operative word is collective resposibility, not personal responsibility.

in fact the capitalist commandment that we all be greedy and self-absorbed ethic of only "looking out of No. 1" is what has getten us into this mess.

Today's NY Times says that last year Nigerians spent 73% of their income on food; the Vietnamese-65%. "They are in trouble."

This shortage is engineered to offset trendy rich folks who are pushing philosophy-based systems like organic, free-range, and kosher.

--Gee whiz, Mr. Obvious, these 'trendy folks' sure do have a lot of power to control the food supply! One wonders where you hear this babble.

--And my oh my, what did nature EVER do without man made fertilizer and pesticides? It's a wonder we're here at all. There are a LOT of problems with using man made fertilizers and pesticides that have PROVEN deleterious effects on the environment, which you seem to conveniently ignore, are just unaware of, or believe just doesn't matter.

Also, I dare say that there are PLENTY of animals to render fertilizer--the ones we raise for our excessive meat consumption, which you apparently have forgotten as well.

Not meaning to pick on you, Mr. O, but I think this points to a bigger problem with man having lost touch with his natural roots. Many are no longer capable (or willing) to distinguish between what is authentically beneficial and natural and atificial and harmful, perhaps because just about everything now is thought of in terms of yield and profit margin.

--There is another point to raise: farmers get paid relatively little for their grain and other staples, and much of the cost goes into advertising, processing, and transportation. Eliminate and Reduce these factors, and you reduce the price of goods as well. You can still offer expensive foods that those 'trendy rich folks' seem to relish, but they'll have to pay more for them.