Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe world's most powerful finance ministers and central bankers are meeting in Washington tomorrow; but as they preoccupy themselves with the global credit crunch, another crisis, far more grave, is facing the world's poorest people.
A dramatic rise in the worldwide cost of food is provoking riots throughout the Third World where millions more of the world's most vulnerable people are facing starvation as food shortages grow and cereal prices soar. It threatens to become the biggest crisis of the 21st century.
This week crowds of hungry demonstrators in Haiti stormed the presidential palace in the capital, Port-au-Prince, in protests over food prices. And a crisis gripped the Philippines as massive queues formed to buy rice from government stocks.
There have been riots in Niger, Senegal, Cameroon and Burkina Faso and protests in Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Egypt and Morocco. Mexico has had "tortilla riots" and, in Yemen, children have marched to draw attention to their hunger.
The global price of wheat has risen by 130 per cent in the past year. Rice has rocketed by 74 per cent in the same period. It went up by more than 10 per cent in a single day last Friday - to an all-time high as African and Asian importers competed for the diminishing supply on international markets in an attempt to head off the mounting social unrest. The International Rice Research Institute warned yesterday that prices will keep going up.
The buffers stocks of staple foods that governments once held are being steadily exhausted.
Rising prices have triggered a food crisis in 36 countries, says the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. The hike in prices means the World Food Programme is cutting food handout rations to some 73 million people in 78 countries. The threat of malnutrition on a massive scale is looming.
The impact is beginning to be felt in the rich world, too. More expensive wheat has caused large rises in the cost of pasta and bread in Italy where consumer groups staged a one-day strike that brought pasta consumption down 5 per cent. The price of miso, a fermented rice and barley mixture, is up in Japan. France and Australia have launched national inquiries into rising food prices and are pressing food producers and supermarkets to absorb price rises. In Britain, the price of bread is rising in line with the cost of wheat.
Governments have begun to negotiate secretive barter arrangements as the price of agricultural commodities leap to record highs. Ukraine and Libya are close to a deal on wheat. Egypt and Syria have signed a rice-for-wheat swap. The Philippines has just failed in a rice deal with Vietnam.
All across the world, cereals, meat, eggs and dairy products are becoming dearer. "Food prices are now rising at rates that few of us can ever have seen before in our lifetimes," said John Powell of the World Food Programme. Prices are likely to remain high for at least 10 years, the Food and Agriculture Organisation is projecting.
A complex interaction of factors has provoked the panic among dealers in international food markets.
Diets are changing radically in nations such as China, India, Brazil and Russia, where economic growth has boosted meat consumption. In China, it is up by 150 per cent since 1980. In India, it has risen by 40 per cent in the past 15 years. The demand for meat from across all developing countries has doubled since 1980.
Because cattle and chickens are fed on corn - it takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef - the price has risen.
The new market for biofuels has raised grain prices. Corn is being used to produce energy and the market is anticipating hugely increased production in the coming decade. George Bush wants 15 per cent of American cars to run on biofuels by 2017, which will mean trebling maize production. Europe has a set a transport fuels target of 5.75 per cent from biofuels by 2010. As a result, the price of corn has begun to track that of oil quite closely.
The soaring cost of oil, which last week topped $105 (£53) a barrel for the first time, has another impact. It increases the price of fertiliser, and also the costs of food processing and transport.
Climate change is taking its toll. Droughts and floods are affecting harvests.
Floods in central China this year displaced millions of people and devastated rice and corn crops. Overall China's grain harvest has fallen by 10 per cent over the past seven years. Last year, Australia experienced its worst drought for more than a century, causing the wheat harvest to fall by 60 per cent. The UK wheat harvest is expected to be 10 per cent down this year, partly because of the flooding.
Worldwide, an area of fertile soil the size of Ukraine is lost every year because of drought, deforestation and climate instability.
There is also increasing demand from a rising world population which is expected to grow from 6.2 billion today to 9.5 billion by 2050. The World Bank predicts global demand for food will double by 2030.
Government policies do not help: the rich world subsidises agriculture not to feed the world but to enrich its farmers.
There is an increasing recognition of the gravity of all of this among the leaders of the industrialised world. On Thursday, Gordon Brown called on the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, the current chairman of the G8, to devise an international plan to deal with rising food prices with the World Bank, the IMF and the UN.
There is increasing concern about the rush to biofuels. Britain's new chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, has said cutting down rainforest to produce biofuel crops was "profoundly stupid". It was, he said, "very hard to imagine how we can see a world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and, at the same time, meet the enormous increase in the demand for food".
Lennart BÃ¥ge, the president of the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, suggested that those opposed to GM crops should take another look at the productivity gains they can unleash and bring changes as massive as the "green revolution" of the 1960s, when crop yields in India and other developing nations jumped because of of better seeds, fertilisers and improved irrigation.
That change brought down food prices, freeing millions from hunger. If world leaders cannot come up with something similar again, the food riots could spread across the globe.
© 2008 The Independent
110 Comments so far
Show Allrmarqusee - (reposting here alond with the other blog where you posted the same thing) An excellent summary on how increased organic matter is accumulated and its impact on carbon sequestration. However, I am not sure how it bears on comparisons of natural habitats vs. grazed pastures. Did I miss something?
Rising Food Prices a Result of Oil, Not Corn
Corn prices have had minimal impact on rising food prices according to a report released by Texas A&M's Agricultural and Food Policy Center. Instead the study says the underlying force raising the cost of food is higher oil prices, and the cost of groceries like bread, milk and eggs are unrelated to corn prices or ethanol.
"The Texas A&M study dispels the food versus fuel debate," says National Corn Growers Association President Ron Litterer. "This study shows there are many forces creating increases in food costs and ethanol is not a major factor. Clearly, corn is meeting the demands for biofuels."
The report also found that relaxing the Renewable Fuels Standard that calls for the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022 would not lower corn prices. The ethanol infrastructure is in place and the industry has grown in excess of the RFS, so relaxing it would not lower corn prices.
According to the study, the price of oil that has gone to $100 per barrel is the main factor impacting the agricultural industry and the economy as a whole. To view the study, click HERE
Mr. O -
I promised to post the information about pasture and its benefit for curbing global warming:
"Current Science" Volume 91, No. 7, 10 October 2006 entitled "Plant Roots and Carbon Sequestration".
Also, check out "Carbon Farmers of America" a group started by Abe Collins of Vermont.
As you will determine, there is a lot more carbon sequestration than you thought in your posts on another article on Common Dreams.
Rob
I see that Mr. Obvious loves these food posts. I cannot keep up with him :)
Personally, I see something inherently wrong with owning patents on food. In fact, it wasn't until the 1980s that the US Supreme Court permitted patents on life processes (a 5-4 decision). Up until that point, patents were not permitted on life processes - like seed.
There is something so wrong about GMO patents - and now there is a promotion of GMOs here on the discussion boards.
Of course, I understand the arguments in favor of industrial farming. However, it is a fact that it is not sustainable and has caused havoc in the rural communities.
There have been good posts here from a few you countering Mr. Obvious's points. But we cannot discard his posts because they are the arguments advanced by the monied interests who produce the GMOs.
I liked the film The Future of Food - Garcia's documentary that talks about Monsanto suing farmers who happened to get GMO on their land via wind drift. Patent infringement suits are all over the place.
No, you dont have to buy GMOs - but public policy has dictated you are out of the game as far as corn is concerned if you dont.
Oh well, the issues raised are complex and beyond 99% of the population - however, we will all experience the highly negative ramifications of industrial ag - when it will be too late to do anything about it.
Rob
chessgames56 - No one has to buy GM seed. In order to buy the seed the farmer must promise not to replant it. These seeds contain a few patented genes that offer the farmer an advantage. They pay an annual fee for this advantage. If the farmers were all honest, the terminator technology (or copy-protection on software) would serve no purpose. By the way, hybrid crops are the same. Seed from these crops is worthless. Farmers buy it every year because they make money off of it.
I'll try to lose the attitude, but it is hard.
Truth in science these days seems very rare. Self interest and corporate interest obfuscate it. The problem really seems to be a lack of integrity, especially where money is involved. And what scientist wants to be in the poverty line? In a narrow way, Mr. Obvious may be correct; we tend to side with what we know and understand, while resisting change, or new information that modifies what we formally thought we knew .
I believe Sigurdur11 is being sincere in his points as well, and gives a genuine first-hand perspective. One thing I do know in my heart is that it's immoral to design seeds to terminate. Farmers who put their blood, sweat, and tears into raising crops, should be able to use their seed for the next harvest. This is a clear example of corporate greed and, in my view, exploitation of the worst kind.
Doug writes:
Think forensically folks. Food prices and shortages have skyrocketed just in the last 12 months. Biofuel production was no more than 5-10% greater this past year than it was the year before — and that's because after 30 years it's now starting to get big.
--I tend to agree with this, Doug, I think there are indeed other factors involved, and that, while relevant, ethanol production is only part of the puzzle. It may not deserve the intensity of the present focus. For me, the school is still out on this.
Mr. O writes:
Sanity is a 'rarety' here. Its like waking up in a world run by 4-year olds.
Yes, Mr. Obvious, we know your views are right, while just about everyone else who posts here is wrong. Could it possibly be that you are too narrow in your views to incorporate the contrary views of others?
You come across as condescending, haughty, and self-righteous, and seem to believe that your personal perspective is an absolute, even when your posts are clearly 'off the mark.' Why not present your case as objectively as you can, and let others draw their own conclusions?
It's time we all grew up and moved beyond belief to ascertain the facts. Scientifically, facts are all that matter, and the misinterpretation of such will not prevent the reality of that which is being studied from making itself known. One can only spin and obfuscate the truth for so long. And that applies to the spin of either the left or the right.
And for Andrew: just the facts please, along with your references. :)
Thanks
jclientelle - It is happening, but right now oil is cheaper. Government regulation can change that by providing subsidies or penalties depending on what they are trying to achieve. Right now, we are trying to pay for a war that most do not want.
I feel like I am travelling down the disinformation highway here. The food crisis seems much worse than ever and needs to be investigated by an independent group of smart scientists, ecologists and economists. But since everyone is paid by some kind of special interest, where would they come from?
Meanwhile, common sense tells me we should not be taking food to make ethanol but looking to wind and solar. I am astonished that the multiple posters do not talk about that. Why?
Surely emphasis must be placed on new forms of energy for transport rather than trying to fuel existing vehicles.
It may threaten oil and car manufacturers but our own economic mechanisms defeat any attempts at alternative fuels as we are now finding out.
The law of supply and demand has been found wanting and is now working against our very survival.
If price is determined by availability then is it the suppliers who will decide which of us is to starve first, and who will be next?
If ever the "ingredients" were being put in place for a nuclear war it is now - with our greed driven attempts at food and fuel management!
Sigurdur11
This is how inefficient ethonol from corn for cars is.
The grain it takes to produce enough ethonol to fill the tank of one SUV could feed a person for a year.
Biofuels from food crops are taking food away from starving people and feeding cars.
Sigurdur11
You are incorrect, the Roudnup Ready gene did not come from maize in Mexico.
Monsanto discovered it in a bacteria in their back yard, a bacterial gene that was resistant to their Roundup herbicide. WOW!!, so they decided it was a good idea to introduce this foreign gene into our food chain.
So now figures taken from the US Department of Agrculuture show that GM soya yields 5 to 10 percent less than high yielding non-GM varieties and uses 2 to five times the amount of herbicide.
You can check that with any honest agronomist.
Even if a gene is natural, the process of splicing it into a new organism disrupts the genetic funcioning of the new organism with unintended consequences. New toxins, new allergies, changed nutritional value. The science is all there if you search for it beyond the manipulated corporate junk science.
Mr Obvious
GREENPEACE ?
No I don't work for Greenpeace but they have my respect and support.
I support their anti-GM, anti-nuke, anti-whaling, anti-deforestation campaigns.
Mr Obvious, what you cannot stand is someone who does not swallow corporte propaganda/science hook, line and sinker.
Everyone should question what is going on and look at data from independent scientists, like Greenpeace do, not selective manipulated junk science as sprouted out by industry and their spin doctors.
I agree with the farmers who say oil prices are the biggest culprit. Wall Street's "financial instruments" also have a lot to do with the decline of the dollar and the increase in food prices.
Corn ethanol is getting a bad rap. It started when a few people blamed the increase in Mexican corn prices on ethanol. Not so. Cheap NAFTA corn into Mexico drove corn production down, reducing domestic production and supply, and ultimately increasing the price. Mexico (unlike some countries) can produce enough corn to feed the population, and store the surplus against crop failures or price gouging. The Mexican government chose to import NAFTA corn. That is the fault of Mexican & US politicians not the fault of the American people who opposed NAFTA.
Prudent governments have bought up grain and stored it in case of crop failure, price gouging, or interdiction of supply, at least since the days of the democracy at ancient Athens. Nothing has prevented governments around the world from buying and storing corn, rice, for whatever grain they wanted when prices were cheaper.
Do Americans bear some responsibility for the situation in the world today? In my not so humble opinion, we do. But we have botched & bungled so much on our own we can't afford to bear the responsibility for the mistakes of others.
Can I mention comparative advantage? Comparative advantage is the notion of a dead stock gambler named Ricardo. It is as crazy as his wage pool theory. It posits a world that never was and never will be. Contemporary economists, politicians, and free traders have been obsessed with comparative advantage and it is (one) of the reasons governments haven't stored enough grain against crop failures and price gouging. The financial instruments of the vampire banksters on Wall Street were supposed to be one of the comparative advantages of the US. Can you say FUBAR? When the world works its way out of this mega boondoggle, maybe governments will pay more attention to the basics.
Reducing the price of oil will do more than anything else to lower food prices. The Congress should:
1. Stop George Bush from adding oil to the strategic petroleum reserve.
2. Outlaw the futures market in oil and gas that Ronald Reagan duped Congress into passing.
Economists say the oil & gas futures market adds at least 15% to the price of a barrel of oil.
3. Build a large oil refinery on top the Strategic Petroleum Reserve & blend corn alcohol into every gallon of gas produced. The price of oil, gasoline & diesel will drop the day construction starts. Hording and
price gouging will come to an end.
Pojer-
Don't try to blame Bucky for biofuels, no matter what he may or may not have told Blume. Another little known fact about him is his work, especially in his later years, was trying to "make the world work for 100% of humanity" If he were still around he would be horrified at what biofuels are doing to the Global South
Roundup is not safe to fish and frogs according to latest research, if you want to get current information like why ddt is banned, go back to school! Have you heard what plastics are dioxin releasing and in what quantities? Dis information is a sour game, no wonder you are so sour with a ego-maniacal name like Dr Obvious. Do you talk to yourself a lot? Do you listen? I bet not.
There is no Food Shortage, where are these reporters getting their information? There is plenty of Food, the people protesting simply are too poor to pay for it.
It's just the rich folks getting more greedy then usual c(the oil companies are on the top of that list) and people starving somewhere does not concern them at all.
Any one who knows anything, knows that education of women in Third World Counties is paramount to dropping the population. Educated women have fewer children, and understand they can keep two children alive, having 10 ir more allows for most to starve to death in famine and wars.
Course, we have had a Fundamentalizt RightWing Nut case at the Wheel for 8 years, pandering to the -Religious Right- who think each sperm should live, so those Countries Bush has cut off Birth Control Education to, now have a hugh increase in abortions and death from un-safe conditions.
Seaweed - Your computer would probably provided more BTUs.
Last January, on a Monday I took all the food in my refrigerator and put it in my wood stove to heat me while the temperature outside was -5 degrees F. By Wednesday I was very hungry, very cold and very out of money to buy either.
Doug - The argumant that land is kept ready for food production (in case of a weather disaster) is a valid one. I would just prefer to see it kept in the CPR program to preserve the soil and help wildlife. It may cost a lot to use fossil fuels without pollution, but I am still unconvinced that this is not better than biofuels. Solar, wind, hydro, and hydrogen seem like they may eventually be even better. I am not a fan of nuclear, because history has taught us that humans are fallable and the safeguards are not sufficient. The fossil fuel industry is obviously too concentrated preventing a free market to operate, but this is a seperate issue that needs to be addressed through antitrust laws.
Here is another vote for David Blume's "Alcohol Can Be A Gas".
The Anti-ethanol articles are REALLY coming out strong, aren't they? I CHALLENGE the Independent to interview David Blume and review his book.
The Forbidden Fuel
Alcohol Can Be a Gas by Dave Blume, published by the
International Institute for Ecological Agriculture, 2007, 630 pages, $59 hardcover.
In the forward written for this book in 1983, when the project was first started, R. Buckminster Fuller writes that it is possible to harvest enough energy to sustainably meet humanity's needs through solar sources while completely phasing out all fossil fuels and atomic energy. Many know Bucky Fuller for his work on geodesic domes. Few are aware that he was also in charge of alternative energy research for the U.S. military during WWII, and held ethanol fuel in great esteem. The author was inspired and mentored by Fuller in the 1980's, and it could be said that this book is the culmination of Fuller's work in this field.
The intent of the 600+ pages of Alcohol Can Be a Gas is to act as a complete tool kit to revolutionize our transportation fuel system, from the grassroots up. It combines sweeping vision with intricate ecological and mechanical detail, starting with a thorough history of the use of alcohol as a fuel for internal combustion engines.
The Model T car was designed as a flex-fuel vehicle, and got 34 MPG on alcohol until prohibition put an end to small-scale ethanol production. "There's a lot that goes on in the world of energy that you never see on the 11 o'clock news" writes the author. "The control of a country's energy is the ultimate control of its people."
Blume has seen his share of the dark underbelly of the big energy conglomerates in his 25+ years working in this field, and carries the scars to prove it. There are six big sections to this tome, each of which could be a book in its own right, comprising 29 chapters. Section I gives the sweeping vision of ethanol set within the context of an ecologically renewed agriculture. The great promise of alternative energy development under President Carter during the first energy crisis is summarized, and what the author dubs 'MegaOilron's' success at squashing it.
Blume dives quickly into the controversies swirling around ethanol as a fuel with a chapter entitled 'Busting The Myths.' These myths include: 'Ethanol's net energy is negative' (studies from Brazil show ethanol has a positive net energy ratio of 9.0 when using sugarcane); 'There isn't enough land to grow the crops for ethanol' (highway medians could grow enough ethanol crops to supply 40% of America's gasoline); Ethanol is an ecological nightmare' (a permaculture ethanol system vastly improves soil fertility); 'It's food vs. fuel' (cattails grown in wastewater show tremendous promise); and 'Ethanol fuel does not address global warming' (the growing of plants, especially if organic, ties up much more CO2 than goes into the ethanol).
Part of the beauty of this book is its ecological sensibility. Blume is an organic farmer and brings 20+ years of bioregional wisdom to his writing. Two chapters contrast the nightmare of America continuing on its present energy course vs. retooling the way we do agriculture and energy along the regenerative principles of Permaculture design. There are sidebars on the restoration of degraded prairie farmland using highly complex fuel crop polycultures, and the practice of swale contour farming to replenish groundwater and topsoil.
His vision for a grassroots ethanol revolution is ambitious but conceivable: "A nationwide switch to organic farming is in order, but it can't work if we maintain a monoculture-based system, with its present emphasis on corn farming."
The second big section of Alcohol Can Be a Gas has five chapters laying out the How To's of alcohol production for fuel, including chapters on feedstocks (everything from algae to buffalo gourd), fermentation technology, distillation, and plant design.
Section III deals with saleable or otherwise useful 'co-products' from alcohol production -- from livestock and aquaculture feeds to yeast, methane, protein and propagation material for mushroom production. Sections IV, V & VI address the mechanics, regulations and subsidies for using alcohol in engines: "We can put 85% alcohol in our cars now! Really!"
Included are chapters on the business of alcohol, its economic, regulatory and legal considerations and a practical vision of small-scale production that Blume dubs "Community Supported Energy." Six case studies depict the type of grassroots on-farm ethanol production the author envisions in his revolution.
One of the few criticisms I have of Alcohol Can Be a Gas is that Blume is unabashedly caustic towards the large energy corporations. The book will likely alienate middle Americans who are uninformed about the politics of energy. Instead, it is tailor written for activists who want to put their shoulders to the millstone and do something. Despite its narrow-minded focus on ethanol as The solution to our looming energy crises, this book has the feel of a resource one does not want to be without -- the depth of a Whole Earth Catalog hybridized with the humor of a Humanure Handbook.
Those people working on biofuel development would be well advised to study the history of ethanol cooperatives described in this book -- honesty, integrity and setting a high ethical standard seem to be crucial to success.
Sigurdur11 - I think we agree on most things so please do not be angry with this slight correction. The RR gene came from a bacteria. It is an homologue of a native plant enzyme that is not deactivated by Roundup.
All - Of course more Roundup is used on RR crops because the herbicide kills regular crops. However Roundup is extremely safe and short lived so it replaces more toxic and persistent herbicides.
Andy - Do you work for Green Peace? On second thought, they are far more clever with their propaganda. They do not spout lies that are so easily proven false.
For those of you so aghast at using agricultural land for transportation fuel, until the advent of the horseless carriage pretty well all our transportation fuel was biofuel. I've heard a figure that at its peak some 80 million acres were required to feed America's horses.
Also keeep in mind, selling corn to an ethanol plant is only a seasonal decision. It's not like you paved over the land. Next year you can grow something else, or sell it to Kellogs for Corn Flakes
Andrew:
With that logic it appears that you drive a humvee or such. Go buy a Honda Fit. They get 45+ mpg and have a 13 gallon tank.
And Andrew,
must be one heck of a big tank if you think a tank of biofuel will feed a person for a year.
Andrew:
Where do you think Monsanto got the gene for roundup ready? It came out of wild maize in Mexico. As far as chemicals? GM corn requires a host of less chemicals than non GM corn. That is a fact of life whether you like it or not.
While you are against chemicals, and I do wish they would be outlawed as if you think food prices are high now or scarce, without them it would be world wide famine.
Also, as far as health risks. Ever look at the incidence of cancer per captita and by age bracket? It has been falling steadily for 50 years because we are eating a whole lot better.
Thank you for your opinions Andrew, but you do need to check your sources much more carefully.
Doug welcome to the club. Sanity is a rarety here. Its like waking up in a world run by 4-year olds. While I do not like biofuels (based on the need for more agricultural land which I believe is inherently disruptive, and due to the Ag subsidy it provides), you make good points on the other factors affecting the current food price hikes. Good like fending off the rabid sheep.
Doug Nixon
You are talking tripe. Biofuels are a strategy by the biotech industry to try and sell more GM seeds. Trying to market a food crop nobody in the rest of the world wants to eat.
Hello Mr Obvious in another guise. Biofuel from food crops causes starvation and the price of food to rise, wake up.
One tank of biofuel gasoline will feed a person for a year.
Doug Nixon, next you will promote university web sites to tell us GM crops are higher yielding, rBST is safe, and pesticides are healthy.
Hi jungleboy
Mr Obvious will be back in another guise once the planting season starts. Watch this space. Planting seeds of deception as usual.
Keep a beady eye.
Think forensically folks. Food prices and shortages have skyrocketed just in the last 12 months. Biofuel production was no more than 5-10% greater this past year than it was the year before -- and that's because after 30 years it's now starting to get big.
The bottom line is there has been no sudden surge in biofuel use. In fact the industry is just emerging from a period of ethanol-glut prices near $2.00 a gallon with gasoline over $3.00 a gallon. As far as useage goes for ethanol, it's been steady predicatble growth for decades a situation not given to setting off market fireworks.
Those price increases were triggered by numerous market and waether related forces, that were then driven higher by the hyper-investing activity of those with all the cash. In true ENRON style, the aim of such folks was and still is to drive-up food prices, but particularly grain and oil-seed prices, timed in such a way as to coincide with the lead-up-to and now the advent-of new biofuel-friendly U.S. energy legislation, thus leaving the distinct impression amongst the SUV-loathing that the right dots had been connected.
Now the green amongst us mistakenly thought, re-inforced with evidence from the discredited Dr, Pimentel, they had everything needed to condem biofuels, when in fact they should have been standing in awe at how, after 30 years, this little renewable energy industry is still managing to prevail and grow against the full might and subterfuge of the largest most polluting industry on Earth as well as the meanest son of a bitch in the valley. Thanks for all the help fellow Greens.
I'm a fan of using hydrogen in internal combustion engines. It avoids the biofuel nonesense, low low cost conversions, can still run on gasoline if need be, and will absolutely destroy the oil commodity monopoly.
Oh yeah...its clean for the greens, and its a free market in energy for the rest (finally).
Mr obvoide is a paid stooge I wonder what his last posting name was. If you havent noticed misinformation is the name of the game here on these posts.
Oh Sigurdur
Just searsh on the internet for "GM soya, lower yields, more herbicide, scientific research" and see what you find.
GM soya yields 5-10 % less than non-GM high yielding varieties and uses 2 to 5 times more Roundup herbcide. Its been documented scientifically. You cannot dispute it.
Sigurdur
To claim all cross pollinated crops are bio-engineered is based on scientific ignorance.
Cross pollination by farmers to get higher yields has been going on for 10 000 years.
Bio-engineering started in the mid-1970's. It is done in a laboratory. Genes are transferred across species barriers, and in the process the DNA is scrambled leading to unknown consequences. Like more allergies in the food, more toxins, changed nutritional value Like Monsanto's GM soya, just visit, the Seeds of Deception web site and look up GM L-Tryptophan, 100 people killed in the USA from bioengineered L-Tryptohpan. Tell me there are no unintended consequences from modern laboratory bio-engineered products.
Hey Mr Oblivious
Lets hope the weather breaks tonight and you go soon as per your last posting.
We are tired of sore losers who try and promote pesticides as safe, and GM crops as "higher yielders" despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary, and rBST as safe despite peer reviewed studies to the contrary.
We are tired of people who quote old court cases regarding Percy Schmeiser and ignore the latest Supreme Court rulings.
We are tired of people who hide behind the FDA, EPA and USDA despite ample evidence of their revolving door policy with ag-biotech and ag-chemical industry employees.
(Speak to Dick Cheney about getting Aspartame approved by the FDA and Monsanto's ex chief laywer who was head of the FDA when rBST growth hormone was approved.)
People around the world are tired of spin and manipulated science by some universities whose departments recieve sponsorship from transnational corporations.
Go plant your crops and spray them with pesticieds that maim and kill people. In the Bible it says as you sow so shall you reap. I wonder if the good Lord was anticipating GM crops.
If you so distrust .org web sites why did you even bother debating on this one?
To the rest of the people who read these posts, go in peace.
Lets create a safe, GM Free, chemical pesticide free world, rBST free
Andy.
Simo:
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but to grow GM crops right now you do use less herbicides/pesticides. I actually find it quit interesting to note how "Paranoid" anti-GM folks are. Do you not realize that corn has been a hybrid for 50 years? That all food/weed/plants are bio engineered. Some by man and most by nature. It is called cross polllination.
The so called food shortage has been caused by weather and a climbing standard of living in India and China. As noted earlier, China no longer exports corn, they consume it internally.
There has been starvation on this planet for centuries. While I don't like that, in all reality there isn't much I can do about it. The people that are starving either can't grow their own food, or don't have money to buy their food.
And as stated, Rice is not a bio-fuel source, yet in short supply. The production has been consumed by people who can afford it, and the only way to increase production is to have a price high enough that it is economical to grow it. Us farmers just can't keep producing copious amounts of grain with very little return on assets. That is econ 101. As long as people keep producing children that they can't care for, we will have this problem of a "food shortage". That is the bottom line. There are only so many global resources to produce food.
Here in Vancouver we just started using Bio-diesel in our public transit fleet.
The drivers and mechanics HATE it. The bio-diesel has less oomph for acceleration, and apparently has all kinds of residue that fouls the injectors and glazes the engine, requiring more frequent and extensive downtime.
And for the fellow that asserts that the alternative energy companies are free of oil company influence or ownership: You are dreaming in technicolor! Dig deep enough into the corporate records, and you will find that the alternative energy companies are being bought out by oil companies using shells to keep the acquisitions from going too public. It's a scam.
The 'hydrogen economy' is a scam!
Bio-fuels are a scam!
Nuclear energy is a scam!
The oil companies have known for thirty years that their number would be up not to far into the 21st century. One of their own blew the whistle YEARS ago. M. King Hubbart was his name. Peak Oil was his theorem. And like and good theory there is plenty of hard evidence to back it up.
Ask yourself these questions: Why have the oil companies not built a NEW refinery in twenty years? Why were the drilling platforms in the Gulf of mexico not repaired and brought back online after hurricane Katrina? I know there are companies that are touting the new deep water drilling platforms, by why is it so important now to spend that kind of capital for a limited return? Why were the majority of refineries and chemical plants in New Orleans not repaired after Katrina?
And most telling... Why did John McCain just announce he would not keep filling the US national petroleum reserve?
m__b: Well said. This article, with its misleading title, got the top billing on the CD website. Biofuels are the new "greatest evil" solely responsible for starvation in the Third World.
PaulK: I'm glad you mentioned that biofuels produce no net energy. That widely disseminated piece of misinformation was the result of one obscure study that has since been discounted. Scientifically it made no sense whatsoever. Since farmers can readily produce their own ethanol, they might have noticed if they were using up more gasoline in the production than was generated. Also, corn is not the only biofuel source. There are many more efficient ways to produce biofuel, but thanks to Exxon Mobile, they are all getting lumped into the "Starving the World" category.
Genetically-engineered products do in fact use more pesticides--Round-up ready soybeans are called that for a reason--the soy has been engineered to allow the use of MORE Roundup, not less. This has become necessary because plants considered "weeds" are now resistant to this deadly pesticide.
Another drawback to GE foods is the introduction of new proteins to the food supply-formed when engineering these plants--and the utter lack of studies that have looked at the possible allergic reactions in humans consuming these proteins. The introduction of these foods without proper research as to their safety represents the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings--all done without our knowledge or consent.
CommonDreams is playing right into the hands of the oil industry, and a lot of you readers/responders are obviously getting sucked in. Why is "Biofuels" even in the headline of an article which doesn't even mention biofuels until its 14th paragraph. And then the word biofuels occurs only one other time, farther down in the context of cutting down rainforests, which may be a problem but has nothing to do with impact on food supplies.
The food riots are taking place mainly in countries where rice, not corn us the staple. Last I heard, no one is making biofuels out of rice.
The problem is oil prices, oil prices, oil prices driving up the cost of everything, including food. But again the same myths (oil company propaganda) about biofuels being net energy losers are being dragged up and trotted out in an orgy of self-righteous indignation.
Biofuels, properly developed, are one thing that can help bring oil prices down --and provide markets for poor farmers in the third world. Biofuels are the one renewable resource that has been wildly successful, and therefore profitable -- which apparently makes it anathema to many on the political left, who in their ignorance mouthing exactly the words the oil companies want them to.
Lobbying talks. Peak oil walks. Global warming really walks.
Anyone who was paying attention could read a couple of years ago that American biofuels and maybe nuc lear too were net energy consumers. They didn't actually produce any energy, just wasted a bit. However, the majority of American voters couldn't get this information and some didn't care. Congress in its wisdom plunged right in.
Biofuel scam is the most hideous and the most outrageous rape of the planet undertaken for short term greed and profit by criminal corporates. Long term results are going to be catastrophic for the environment in addition to obvious human casualties.
good luck - Pretty soon the weather will break and I'll be too busy to punch keys in vain. Folks like Andy will be free to spout their jibberish in peace. You are correct, we just keep going in circles...
Mr. Obvious. There are many factors causing food prices to rise. It is very unfortunate that the media has singled what probably has the least impact (biofuels) and blown it out of proportion. I would love to cite evidence on this, however, everything is so skewed these days, I have found the most success relying on common sense. The oil companies have established precedent in the arena of mass misinformation campaigns, following the lead from the tobacco industry. This is a well known fact. In addition they have funded think tanks with austere sounding names like "The American Enterprise Institute" from which they spew out misinformation on global warming. After it became common knowledge that Exxon Mobile was behind these groups, it took the wind out of their sails somewhat. I expected them to become sneakier as a result. They have the wherewithal; they have a history of deceit. They feel threatened by biofuels; it is no great stretch of imagination.
Didn't we go through this same talk a few days ago?
It does not take a rocket scientist or even an economist to figure out that when you increase demand for a commodity and supply cannot keep up, then prices rise. Increased population and biofuels both contribute to the demand side of the equation. While this does not rule out a conspiracy by the oil companies, it also does not indicate one. Unless you have some other reliable information on such a conspiracy, this just makes you sound paranoid and down right silly. Food grain supplies are down due to natural disasters (drought) and competion from corn and beans due to increased demand for these latter crops from ethanol subsidies. When supply drops, prices rise. Fuel prices have also driven up transportation costs. This is economics 101 on the first day. No need to invoke alien abductions either.
GM crops are the biggest scam out.
Any family which has more than 2 kids is contributing to this problem. With the current population growth, no matter what we do, we will run out of Earth resources. It is as simple as that. I realize that this is a controversial stand, but it is an inevitable fact.
Let them eat Big Macs. Globalization will cure everything. Who do they need rice when they can have Happy Meals?
Kloro agreed its the speculators and Wall Street that are the problem...as always they create financial bubbles and inflation steal the money and laugh all the way to the bank.
Honestly, I agree with kloro:
Things are being covered up. It is obvious.
P,
Ken
I agree with kloro.
Peace,
Ken
this article is a piece of nonsense. overwhelmingly the cause for the spike in food prices since the subprime meltdown is speculation in the commodities markets. money fleeing the mortgage-based markets had to go somewhere and it went to the commodities exchanges. other factors -- biofuel production, floods, droughts, whatever -- are all very secondary. this article is at best covers up the real state of affairs.
sgohare1 - thank u for not having any rug rats. We don't need any more pollution in the gene pool.
when i fist heard about biofuels i said "my god the americans have gone so crazy they are feeding food to their cars!" it may be true that if the u.s. was a gated community some of you biofuelers would have an argument. It's not and you don't. this whole story is about the very real possibility that food for cars could cause global famine- global hunger has already intensified, the entire Global South is experiencing real pain, the U.N. has already cut their rations in half- it's just gotta stop. look at this
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against...
and another thing, I don't have any kids by choice. Why do i have to pay to bus your little rug rats anywhere? You can't teach them to read?
hey a$$ there are food shortages NOW.
The use of biofuels may or may not be a significant factor in the food crisis. However, 50 years ago the world population was about 3 billion. Today it is over 6 billion. According to the article, in 2050 it will be over 9 billion. Unless we can control population, there is no chance of avoiding severe food shortages in the future.
Oh my, no one could have ever have imagined making food into fuel would cause any problems. Please bite me.
I appreciate the comments of Sigurdur 11. There are many reasons for the higher food prices including a plunging dollar (compliments of the Iraq war), climate crisis and, of course, overpopulation.
I don't have any evidence, but I would not put it past the oil companies to manipulate the commodities markets by buying up corn, grain, rice, whatever. They have enough money to wreak havoc, and they know that it is easier to squash an emerging industry than an established one.
The article says it all, there was a big RUSH to biofuels, before we knew what there effect would be or if we even really need them, which we don't since the globe is not warming, in the past ten years it has actually cooled back to where it was in 1900. So the UN has created a real crisis where there was none... now why do you suppose they would do that? Something to think about.
Some day, a wealthy person weighing about 180 pounds will yield about 75 pounds of edible meat. At that time, the wealthy will have achieved their true worth.
There is a demand deficit in Mexico for the output of Mexican farmers practicing the thousands-years old traditional methods thanks to illegal NAFTA dumping by El Greedy Gringo. Nutritional values of traditional Mexican varieties measure far greater than those of El Greedy Gringo's petro-fired genetic-mutant corpo-corn. This is because corpo-corn is engineered to maximize macronutrients, protein, starch and fat, and neglects micronutrients.
In all the micronutrient comparisons so far revealed the traditional varieties in Mexico are far superior to the corpo-corn from Greedy Gringoland, and it's extremely likely that EVERY micronutrient would compare likewise. This would come as no surprise because the Mexican soil has been maintained for all of these thousands of years by sustainable methods. One such method is rotation that allows deep rooted plants to pull minerals up from the deep soil and deposit them in the topsoil. Another method in traditional reliance on their plant's own phytochemicals for pathogen resistance. Not surprisingly these same phytochemicals transfer similar resistance to the consuming animal. The traditional plants are themselves more water and nutrient efficient among other things.
So the ethanol-fired price inflation on corpo-corn is an opportunity for Mexico to revive its great agricultural traditions. If there is only one lesson to learn from the planet's unfortunatel experience with Gringo Capitalism it is this: DO NOT DEPEND ON EL GREEDY GRINGO FOR ANYTHING OR YOUR RACE, CULTURE, TRIBE WILL DIE.
The hysterical screaming over biofuels is the subversive work of El Greedy Gringo to further his "goal of goals" to divide the progressive, peasant, people's movements. Indepedent biofuels production happen to be one of the peasant's keys to emancipation from El Greedy Gringo.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/04/10/energy-doesnt-grow-on-trees/#commen...
The greed of current day capitalism exceeds all hubris.
As long as the monied classes can rip off the remainder of humanity and starve it in the process in order to keep even more control of resources is exceedingly criminal.
The rich had better watch for there is more of us than them and no matter how much power the rich wields, paybacks are a mother_______!
Ultimately, we are bumping up against the limits nature has set for us. Those of us in the rich world simply can't continue to live the comfortable life we've known for the last 50 years. So no more driving everywhere, no more long showers, etc. Either we all learn to live sustainably, or there will be nothing left for anyone. Too bad the Conservatives might win in Britain and McCain in the U.S. Those are the kind of governments that will encourage people to maintain their unsustainable ways of life. Oh well. Guess I'll sit in my room and watch us do ourselves in.
Sigurdur11 - I have also enjoyed our discussion and have learned from you. I do wish you well in your farming and life. I don't really know if I would call myself a conservative because I really don't want to tell others how to live unless they are hurting someone else or asking me to support their indulgences. I think that the federal government is into too many things and is too big. While I would be inclined to leaving the presidency vacant for 4 years as opposed to electing one of the bozos running this round, I will have to vote for Obama because I cannot vote republican after the fiasco we have experienced, and I cannot vote for Bill's wife who stood beside him and helped him lie to the American people. Better to spend billions to help the poor than to spend it waging war to save a people who are not willing to stand up for themselves. We are not likely to bring peace to an area that has been waring for 3,000 years. Best of luck this season. We need some warmer dry weather in my neck of the world so I can work our small plot of ground.
Mr. Obvious:
It takes us less than 2 mins to make a loaf of bread. Panasonic has a greattttttt bread making machine. Works out to a great hourly wage.
Mr. Obvious:
You have hit the nail on the head. In all reality, I don't want anyone in the world to be hungry. The whole grain/fuel/clothing thing is so much more complicated than ethanol or bio fuels. Most of the anti biofuel opinions come from think tanks funded by oil co's. My 1st cousin, retired this year from Tessoro, told me how much money they give to combat bio fuels as it scares them.
I would love to see more wind towers, which just to the west of me there were 132 built last year come online. I would gladly pay more for electricity produced from them and solar. I would find a way to buy an electric car if there was one produced that could go over 40 miles. My main trade area is 17 miles away, and that is the machinery parts trade area. The largest city within 100 miles is 65,000 people. That is one of the costs to us rural folks of cheap food prices. Some schools in western ND have bus routes over 120 miles long to get enough kids to make a school. It is sad but it is reality.
As a farmer I am not only conservative in political values, but also very conservative in real life values. Waste not, want not per se. I am a good steward of the land, and contrary to popular retoric, do not use chemicals to just use chemicals. I drink the water I have under me, I breath the air around me.
We have huge untapped resources of energy between solar and wind which are being developed way to slowly. I am not an advocate of government spending, but in this case, being what I consider infrastructure I am. It would be wonderful for the nation as a whole. Not good for the oil co's, but the horse and buggy seemed to go by the wayside some time ago and we survived that.
We are protecting oil in the Middle East, as we think we have a "right" to do so. I have no doubt that we would leave that area in a heartbeat if we were energy independant. But between the military industrial complex, which Ike warned us about in his parting remarks, and the money that oil has to throw around, I don't forsee us leaving it anytime soon unless Americans actually read and educate themselves. We will need a leader who in interested in the United States, not who is interested in what corps and power can do, to really benifit from our resources. Will that happen? I don't know but I would love to be President for a year.
It is kinda like medical costs. There is a limit on the amount of doctors that schools will put out. It is back to econ 101. supply verses demand. Keep doctors in short supply and costs will go up.
Anyways, it has been a great discussion Mr. Obvious. I respect your knowledge and I bet you are a conservative as well, as you haven't attacked me personally, but we got to discuss facts. Thank you.
Sigurdur11 - How much money could you make flipping burgers at McDonalds in the time it takes you to make a loaf of bread? Maybe you should consider consulting with an economist on your farm operation if you are making a loaf of bread to save $1.60?
Look - Domestic ethanol subsidies are simply clever ways to get aroung WTO rules against Ag subsidies. We can buy Brazilian ethanol cheaper than we can make the stuff. Without tarriffs on the Brazilian ethanol, grain prices would be much lower. I am not even arguing against the Ag subsidies because other countries, like the EU. are playing the same games. Unfortunately the poor get hurt in this economic game. If people get hungry, our grain will be worth more than oil.
Mr. Obvious,
Yes we make bread from our wheat. We haven't bought a store loaf in years as it just upset us that we could make a loaf for less than 40 cents and it would cost us over 2 bucks in a store. Don't know how to make corn flakes tho.
The pressure for revolt in Iraq must also increase, as anything that presses on the already desperate Iraq population will bring about further violence. Rising food prices may trigger a further descent into chaos.
Sigurdur11 - Do you make bread from your wheat or do you buy bread from the store? If you want the convenience of "store bought" packaged goods, then you pay what the market will bear. Like I tried to emphasize before, processed food prices in the US are not the issue. I seriously doubt that we will see riots over corn flakes.
Once again,
You have to look at global supplies. In this country, ethanol use will increase.
If I took the .15 cents a gallon that someone put in here as the reduction in fuel costs to an average consumer because of ethanol, what is the net effect on the whole in the country? And also, what is the economic effect of ethanol production to our economy as a whole? Not only in the gas price savings but in the increased economic activity in the country as a whole, rather than importing more oil?
IF China was still exporting 6 billion bushels of corn, would what we are doing have much of an effect on the world market?
Global Famine begins. At least one of the apocalypse horsemen is up in the saddle and roaming around. The high cost of oil is starting to bite. And the local solar alternatives have not been adopted enough to make a big difference. For many people it will be too late.
Mr. Obvious- I read the whole article. We shall see what the cost of raw products (grains) is after this production year. I do think the days of "cheap" food are gone now that India and China have booming economies. Russia has filled some of the gap in production, and Australia looks to have a promising crop coming. The crop in the US is still suspect, as the western wheat belt is dry and the soft red wheat areas are too wet. Also, Canada's major wheat areas are quit dry. ND is the largest producer of spring wheat in the US and our western 2/3'ds is very dry.
We went through this price spike type thing in the middle 70's as farmers. To give you an indication of production costs wheat in ND is projected to be up only about 600,000 acres. The prices of mach/fert/fuel etc plus the discounts when wheat was in ample supply have basically driven it to a crop of last resort, rotation only.
I am not sure if the increase in farm income will keep up with the increase in costs. And if you burrow deeply into the government reports you will find them really interesting in the statistical analysis when it comes to profits. It seems they forget to include standard economic models of costs.
I am not complaining as it is what it is, but the main reason for the rise in food is that the cost verses expense to grow the durn stuff has finally come home to roost. And I am only talking raw costs. When a box of corn flakes has 7 cents worth of corn in it at todays prices and the box costs Kellogs 21 cents, there is something wrong with this picture wouldn't you say?
Some selected excerpts from the article. This is not the whole story but it is a major contributor.
"Corn receives major attention in the report. Ethanol demand for corn almost doubled from 2005 to 2007, with nearly 4 billion bushels to be used from the crop to be harvested this fall. FAPRI projects corn for ethanol will almost equal the bushels fed to U.S. livestock by 2015, Brown said."
"Projected wheat prices remain higher than in years before 2006, because of higher prices for corn and other crops. "
Sigurdur11 - Read the rest of the article. No one said that ethanol was the only cause. Please read the whole thing. The CPI in the US is not the issue. Its the price of grain for 3rd-world countries. No one in the US is going to be seriously hurt by this increase in food prices.
The Consumer Price Index for food rose 4 percent in 2007, more than the CPI for all goods and services. "Much of that increase came from rising energy prices, which increased costs all along the marketing chain including the farm level," said Scott Brown, FAPRI livestock analyst.
Mr. Obvious, there it is in a nutshell as far as this country goes.
Mr. Obvious:
The ethanol subsidies have been a contributor to higher corn prices. Not a major contributor tho. Chinas decline on the export front has been THE major contibutor.
We have been producing ethanol in this country for years without a increase in the price of corn. Exit China from the world supply front tho, and now there is a price increase. The reason China has quit exporting is that their countries standard of living has increased and they are demanding more meat products etc, hence they are consuming their production. Also South Africa had a poor crop. You have to look at global numbers to really understand what is going on. If Ethanol was the main driver, you would see increased prices in the US but not the world market.
That is the crux of it all. We are in a world market again whether we like it or not.
We used to be the supplier of last resort as there was a grain embargo in the 70's that killed our export market. Now we are once again a supplier.
http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/ext/showall.asp?story_num=4289&iln=908
Sigurdur11 - Are you seriously alleging that the ethanol subsidies have not been a major contributor to the record grain prices?
Mr Obvious:
In the 70's I was getting 60-70 bushels per acre of wheat. There have not been dramatic increases in wheat yeilds from genetics for some time.
In 1975 I bought a 110 hp tractor for 11,000 dollars. That equated to 2,200 bushels of wheat. That comparable hp now costs 111,000. Local wheat price was 9.05 on Friday.
Now that hp costs 12,265 bushels of wheat. When you pull farm draft machinery it is hp that pulls it.
This has been coming on for a long long time. I also grow potatoes. I was at a meeting in Florida a few years back and Burger King knew that even spuds were being bought below cost of production. Their statement was they didn't care as long as they could do it. The piper is coming home to pay for them now as the supply of spuds in this area and even in Idaho is falling dramatically.
Banks have no humor at all these days, and there is crp land coming out that no one will rent. Give you an idea of what is really going on?
Reuters has just posted an update on the food riots in Haiti this afternoon:
PORT-AU-PRINCE, April 12 (Reuters) - Haiti's government fell on Saturday when senators fired the prime minister after more than a week of riots over food prices, ignoring a plan presented by the president to slash the cost of rice.
More details here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSN12217781._CH_.2400
Jane's Intelligence Review was right. I posted this last year it was a July 2007 release:
http://www.janes.com/press/press/pc070716_1.shtml
Good info is hard to come by. Oh well