Rising Food Prices Pushing East Africa to Disaster, Warns Oxfam

Thanks.

I meant to mention that John Nichols had just told us that there's a lot of farmer bashing out there over farm bill and food price misunderstandings. That's been on my mind this week.

Also, for an example of my imagining a conservative macho audience, see my comment on the Moberg food article at In These Times.

And thank you for yours. __ Excellent comments BTW.
Keep kicking.

Hi there KEM PATRICK,

I sure did list you (and another username elsewhere) for a paragraph of what I wrote.

And yes, you stated some facts and no, you did not bash farmers. I certainly should have been nice to you.

I did take your comment about the U.S. "not yet" starving as appropriate sarcasm or something along those lines, by the way.

On farming issues, in letters I write to farm newspapers or magazines, I often imagine that I'm targeting an audience of conservative macho men. That's who I primarily want to influence, not "the choir." I find that farm issues are often rough in some venues. During the 1980s farm crisis we had Reagan "Hey let's keep the grain and export the farmers." and Reagan's (budget director?) David Stockman, "what we have is a shakeout" of the weak, ie. survival of the fittest, so it's not really a "crisis," but cleaning out the bad. Back in 1962 the Committee for Economic Development called for eliminating "excess resources (primarily labor)." More recently the Iowa Business Council and Iowa State University had a report that policy changes leading to "the elimination of small towns" and farmers were being "wisely" pursued. Those who farm "as a way of life," meaning not buying into the mechanical world view (megatechnics) of the big corps (but rather more ecologically scientific,) were especially to be eliminated. One phrase I've heard argued on TV is that those against megatechnics are "horse and buggy farmers."

I imagine much the same about who I'm trying to influence on peace issues in the mainstream media. I challenge conservative's (thinking especially of men) to stop coddling the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin, and to start facing BOTH sides of the dilemmas, direct terrorism AND our complicity, by grabbing the bull by BOTH horns, not just one, like wimpy Bush and co.

More recently I've been focusing on progressives, the left, and especially church justice arms. Many of these church groups were on board against dumping, in the 1980s and 1990s, but not now, (though they sure think they are,) as I've argued.

If you look around at recent food articles here and at ZNet, and a bunch of the farm bill articles here back to last July, you'll see that I find virtually nothing addressing my concerns. (I see no mention of the need to avoid more dumping in the food crisis, or the fact that the farm share of the food costs, with the input share taken out, has, amazingly, dropped, (in my figures, using constant dollars). One exception on some issues is a piece by Kathy Ozer of NFFC.)

Last weekend at a citizen group convention I organized a breakfast meeting of long time farmer farm-commodity-title activists with John Nichols (and a state Green Gubernatorial candidate). It was about the church concern and how progressives seem united against us and with mainstream media on farm bill and food crisis concerns. Environmental working group cites 372 editorials on board with them, on 2 key points, both of which I see as wrong.

On this stuff, like challenging Oxfam, I've been thinking about (feeling!) Rollo May's book The Courage to Create, about challenging social forms. He writes: "an active battle with the gods is occurring" (page 22) They're angry, jealous (re. Prometheus, Adam and Eve)! Prometheus' liver was eaten out each morning.

Thank you for your feedback.

Hi Andrew Taynton,

I am no more a spin doctor than yourself. I earn no money from and have no financial connection to the biofuel industry.

Nothing about what I've said about biofuels implies any kind of conspiracy.

Please understand that the World Bank is not our friend and indeed they're the cause of much of the starvation in the world. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" to learn more about how the World Bank promotes indebtedness of developing countries and forces them to grow crops for export instead of domestic use.

I am 100% opposed to GM crops, but that is a tangential issue.

My main point is that "Food vs. Fuel" is a false frame because it ignores the 50% of corn than is used to fatten up animals in feedlots. That's more than twice the amount of corn used for bioethanol. The stupid thing is that we could be using that corn for both bioethanol and cattle feed by feeding the "distiller's grain" byproduct of bioethanol production to the feedlot animals. That is, even if we ignore the foolishness of eating so much fattened beef that is linked to heart disease and stroke.

So, I read your article and appreciate your providing the background for your point of view. I hope you will please do me the honor of reading this one (and please also take a look at what it links to).

http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_marcus_b_080506_is_feeding_the_h...

www.cleanfuelsdc.org/pubs/documents/FoodFeedandFuel.pdf

Hi there ~BRAD WILSON~. Did I write something here that turned you off? Sounds like it, as you selected me for a lecture.

I posted a comment which referred to the fact, that the cost of food has risen about 40% and that has occurred in just the past two years. Was there something there I should not have said?

I sure never have put the blame of higher food costs on the farmers. And my parents had a dairy farm in Michigan where I grew up, so I'm quite familar with farming and how tough it can be. We donate a lot of food and half of our garden crop to the local food bank and to the home for the homeless here in our town.

I have no argumennts with what you posted, just wondered why it was I you chose to single out and jump on?

Famine is, and always will be, a part of the human experience. Modern arrogance compels us to work on solutions, to fix problems, that cannot be fixed. I send money overseas, I sponsor a child in Central America, I grieve for those who suffer, but in my heart I know that it's just a balm to ease an aching concience.

Is famine man made? Sure. Are we in the West part of the problem? You bet. Are you (we) willing to do what it takes to end the suffering?

Become a Buddhist, or just become someone who takes only what is needed to live, that's probably the best thing you can do. Limit your consumption. You (we) are not as important as you (we) think we are. If that were so, human life would be treasured around the world.

I'm not Buddhist, I'm just saying.

Love you all.........huntz

Hey folks, in the bigger picture it's not about SUVs and biofuels.

That's just mainstream media spin. Yes, those are short term impacts, (but not the root, more the opposite). This is not to support them. But we must get the facts about what's really going on.

First, this is a terribly important subject and we must get intelligent about it and committed to putting an end to it, short term AND long term.

Second, We can't allow this crisis to continue. The article is correct about that!

Third, the article is right that the root problem is "chronic poverty" which "the world consistently fails to address adequately."

So the article got two important things right. Good for you!

Now on the down side.

First, there is NO mention that the "chronic poverty" underneath the starvation is caused by LOW farm market prices, NOT HIGH farm market prices. This is something Oxfam knows about and surely The Guardian as well. Even here on this web site, if you go back three years, I'm sure you'll see it as the leading issue. Good for you, Oxfam etc. some years ago, you got that right back then.

Soooo, these high farm prices, (with whatever degree of help from ethanol) are the long term solution to the underlying cause of starvation and malnutrition, because these are often rural areas, and when farmers make money, it generates wealth throughout the economies of these regions. Yes, ethanol is helping raise farm prices which bring profit to LDC farmers (and big ethanol is lobbying like crazy to lower them back down again, to return to dumping).

Consider these facts: According to USDA Economic Research data, U.S. farmers lost money in the marketplace (full costs vs. market prices) on many of the major "program crops" the vast majority of the time 1981-2006 (ie rice never netted above zero in the marketplace 1982-2006, corn only once netted above zero 1981-2005, as U.S. farmers lost nearly $70,000,000,000 in the marketplace). The U.S. chose, by policy to lose money on exports of these program commodities on all of these years pouring our wealth out to foreign processors and livestock interests (so we could subsidize U.S. and foreign exporters, processors animal factories and consumers, including the world's hungry). This drove down world market prices. Dumping (exporting below cost)! Chronic poverty! See U.S. Dumping on World Agricultural Markets: 2004 Update, online at IATP.

We must stop the food crisis, but NOT by a return to dumping!

By the way, according to the online National Farmers Union Newsletter (11/05) as of September 2005 cotton and rice were only 26% of "parity," (basically of a living-wage, fair-trade price that would end the chronic poverty,) corn was 25% (dumping to subsidize ADM ethanol, Tyson, Cargill,) while wheat and soybeans were 32%. So farm market prices needed to be quadrupled or tripled so these huge corps would pay fair prices and we'd end much of the world's chronic poverty. A

Factually, this is the other side of the fact that "cereal prices have increased by up to 500%."

KEM PATRICK: farmers in the U.S. have been subsidizing you more than you've been subsidizing them (and we want fair prices with no subsidies), and so too for the world's farmers. You owe money back, all of you, but send it to starvation relief. They're desperate. Send it, not to rip off LDC farmers again, but to pay them a fair "parity" price! You've been subsidized for a quarter century. Take that portion of your wealth, with interest, and send it to starvation relief that buys food from LDC farmers where the local economy has been so devastated by low farm prices that there are many poor people who can't even afford to pay at severe dumping prices (way below cost) for rice and wheat and corn!

fanny666 Be careful about giving money to Oxfam! Yes, if they're the best at getting money to feed the starving right now, buying from LDC farmers, send it. But consider this.

The positions supported by Oxfam for the 2007-8 U.S. Farm Bill Commodity Title were pro dumping "reforms." They would CAUSE dumping under market conditions 1981-2006 (but not the rare market conditions of 2007-8 where the farm bill doesn't matter). I refer to Oxfam's online pdf reports: "Farm Bill 101" (page 9) and Fairness in the Fields (page 15).

Look for anti dumping proposals: U.S. price floors and (as the Africa Group called for) supply management . Oxfam had NO such positions. Ok, now look for U.S. strategic reserves and price ceilings to address high food costs. Again, NO Oxfam support. (And none in Bread for the World's "Hunger 2007," chapter 1: "Commodities: Reform Starts Here," page 29) You might send money to the National Family Farm Coalition, which is the U.S. leader on BOTH sides of these U.S. farm bill commodity title/world poverty and starvation issues.

And don't be fooled by the reference to "subsidies that distort trade" in the Oxfam reports (and U.S. "Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill" principles). Subsidy removal doesn't stop dumping, as Tufts University shows ("The Paradox of Agricultural Subsidies," Table 4 page 21). "Green" commodity subsidies and "subsidy caps" are dumping. Instead of the bread crumbs in the Tufts reference, (ie. 3% help against 20-60% dumping) these latter "reform" measures say, "let them eat cake crumbs."

Come on folks! We can and must do better!

Sorry to be so ornery about all of this but Sheeesh! What's going on around here! These people are desperate! But we must not buy into the ADM/Cargill/Tyson/Smithfield megacorporate solution of a return to dumping.

I hope we never see this in the US, but there are some very hungry people, even here. I see them when I volunteer at our food pantry. KEM-the food pantry clients are more excited to see produce on the shelves than anything else, so I always bring something to share from my garden or the grocery store.

The Earth has a limit. I won't apologize for that acknowledgment. The Hitler reference is an easy way to deflect attention from the Earth's biggest problem. Obviously I am talking about birth control, not murder.

It is true that in countries with high living standards the birth rate slows, however the per capita consumption of resources in such countries is enormous. Is it education that slows the birth rate or the trappings of wealth? Vacation homes. Shopping sprees. The things that come with education and wealth. These families may only have two children but those children have a room full of clothes and plastic toys, and ultimately a huge environmental footprint.

jstevens

"Population control", a bit like Hitlers eugencis huh.

The best way to bring about negative population growth is increasing education standards and living standards. Stop spending billions of dollars on illegal wars and increase living standards/education levels.

Clark Kent

I can only think you are a spin doctor for the biofuel industry or you are a conspiracy theorist.

When someone with as little knowledge as you contradicts a 2500 page report/study done by 400 agricultural experts that is supported by the World bank and most UN agencies your misinformation just does not gel.

Of course the big swing to biofeuls crops causes hunger.

Read: Change in farming can feed the world- (400 experts reject GM as solution to poverty/hunger)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/16/8327/

Africa's population is exploding, putting tremendous pressure on the environment and resulting in deforestation, species extinction, etc.

This article decries the deficit in donations of food, yet at the same time states that relief workers are targeted, and donations stolen.

How can sending more food be an answer to the misery in Africa?
Sending more food merely causes more people to be born into starvation.

Relief efforts must be tied with population control.

The Guardian is leaving out the crucial information about the local food production scenario. What is the normal leverl of local production, what level did it drop to and why? The Guardian is toeing the imperial line in reporting only the parameters that the imperialists want reported - imperial production and distribution status. This leads the reader to ignore local production - so when local production is finally destroyed by the imperialist's illegal dumping practices, nobody will notice.

Regarding the conflicts, violence, ... in Somalia and Ethiopia, among other African countries, the following brief but excellent and important article tells of the actual reality there. And the U.S. happens to ..., like always, be criminally involved; very, very responsible.

"Bush's Rampage in Somalia",
by Mike Whitney, Jul 17 2008

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9608

I don't think it's literally "Bush's Rampage" there, but he is the puppet U.S. president, so he's targeted with such criticism, etcetera. Just a puppet, though. He couldn't even run his relatively little oil company!

I feel badly that anyone would go hungry; humans, animals, whatever. I'm also wondering why rich countries don't supply birth control to poor countries to limit their population. Who in their right mind would want to bring children into the world to live in poverty, suffer, and maybe die of malnutrition?

From EIR

"This British policy of treating Africans as chattel, wiping out their people, and looting their resources became the official, although not public policy of the United States, under President Richard Nixon, with Henry Kissinger's 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200). This report targeted the fastest-growing populations in the "Third World" for population reduction—i.e., genocide. It also sought to prevent those nations from expending their natural resources for their own benefit, when these resources were deemed vital to the Western financial cartels. NSSM 200 was a Malthusian tirade against population growth, especially that of non-Caucasian people, but also included the importance of the "advanced sector" having a continuous flow of "mineral supplies" from developing countries which had high rates of population growth.

In its Executive Summary, under the subhead, "Minerals and Fuels," Kissinger's report states: "Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure in depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population growth frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources" (emphasis added).

If one truly desires to understand why people are suffering in such horrible conditions today, and why countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are under attack, one need only refer to NSSM 200."

The least expensive canned quart of tomatoes in our local supermarket is $2.49. One cucumber $.92 cents, one large white onion $1.07. At least a majority of Americans are not facing starvation like people in some other countries are. ____ NOT YET.

How ironic that Ethiopia's plight is even worse than Somalia's, even as the United States is supporting Ethiopia's military assault on Somalia. That American money could be put to infinitely better uses in both nations.

whatfools -- (1) Yes the Bush/Cheney oily cabal is responsible for most of the rise in oil prices. They took Iraq's production off line at a critical time, (2) America's farmers are not greedy. Many of them lose money. They have to sell to the highest bidder to survive. Agribusiness is greedy, however. (3) The real abuse of corn is that we don't use the same corn for both ethanol production and cattle feed. 50% of corn goes to animal feed. Corn is not a healthy food for cattle and causes digestive problems leading to higher use of antibiotics. Distiller's grains, a byproduct of ethanol production is healthier than unprocessed corn. It is extremely wasteful not to be taking advantage of dual use of this half of the corn crop. (4) High fructose corn syrup is just one of many uses of corn that I would not call "human food". (5) Americans are dying from overconsumption of corn indirectly thru feedlot-fattened cattle (burgers) while people in developing countries are dying for want of basic tortillas. Blaming biofuel production is just spin from oil industry flacks. If they can kill the biofuel initiative to become less dependent on oil by telling people they're causing people to starve-- well it won't be the first time. Google "golden rice" and "the future of food" for more info on how public relations firms use people in developing countries as guilt scenarios to manipulate Americans.

Ah yes, the Bush/Cheney oily cabal has quadrupled the price of fuel and America's greedy farmers have been abusing the Corn Goddess by making SUV fuel from human food.
We are well on our way to taking more human lives with America's war on the world than Hitler ever did.

https://donate.oxfamamerica.org/02/silent_tsunami