Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Growing Food Crisis, and What World Leaders Aren’t Doing About It
If all goes as planned for the G-20 this year, leaders of the world’s most powerful economies will convene to issue bold proclamations, talk past each other, and quietly agree to do virtually nothing. The stakes might be a little higher now, though, as the political poker table will be stacked with millions of the world’s hungriest people. Guess who’ll come away empty handed?
World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned at a recent World Bank-IMF meeting that the planet was hurtling toward a food crisis, akin to the chaos that erupted in 2007-2008 across the Global South. The context this time is in some ways more daunting: a perfect storm of social and economic upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East, natural and nuclear disasters in Japan, debt crises in Europe and the U.S., and epidemic unemployment worldwide.
In the past year, Zoellick said, soaring food prices have plunged some 44 million people into poverty. Another ten million would become impoverished with just a 10 percent further rise in the UN’s food price index, which jumped by 25 percent last year. Poor regions hover on the brink of malnourishment due to depleted safety nets and broken emergency back-up resources.
Following the G20 meeting in Washington this month, Oxfam issued a statement criticizing the conference’s failure to come up with meaningful ways to stave off the coming crisis:
Leaders today said the food crisis is desperately urgent, and that the G20 will act on it at its next meeting in June. That’s 66 days away; nearly half a million children will have died of hunger by then.
The World Bank says we’re one shock away from a full-blown crisis but makes no mention of the three things rich countries have done to cause it—burning food for biofuels, gambling in commodity casinos, and subsidizing farmers in rich countries.”
Indeed, even the World Bank’s food fund, a stopgap measure, has been hobbled by underfunding, Oxfam noted.
This is an old story in many ways, one that may evoke more fatigue than sympathy from observers in relatively privileged regions. Hunger in sub-Saharan Africa has become chronic, punctuated regularly by an outbreak of conflict or disease. Intense poverty in India seems intractable despite ever-accelerating economic growth. Even the notoriously insular North Korean regime has admitted its people are close to starvation. Hunger is almost a banal fixture on the global economic landscape.
But it is not a natural disaster. Agricultural policies feed directly into the hunger crisis—policies such as growing crops for fuel while neglecting crops that feed people.
The Times UK reports:
Among the many causes of high food prices are rules in countries, such as the United States, that require a certain percentage of petrol to come from corn-based ethanol.
Some 31 per cent of the corn produced in the US in 2008 was turned into ethanol, and government forecasts show that this will hit 40 per cent this year.Biofuels have been a cornerstone of American attempts to reduce its dependency on imports of oil from the Middle East and elsewhere.
The modern face of famine: A plan to cure a fuel crisis through industrial farming has potentially driven a humanitarian crisis of far greater proportions.
Princeton biofuels expert Tim Searchinger has argued that the government-subsidized expansion of biofuels, including corn-based ethanol in the U.S. and other plants like sugar cane elsewhere, cause displacement of food crops in the agricultural system. The exact impact of the food vs. fuel dilemma is unclear, but the fact that trends in energy markets are eating into the world’s need for basic sustenance says a lot about the disconnect between economic priorities and human rights.
Meanwhile, there’s a growing wariness that ethanol will do little to curb climate change and will prove to be environmentally unsustainable itself. As ethanol crops gobble up precious resources, both food prices and food supplies are taxed. Then there are the global stressors of climate change, population growth and urban migration, and a rising demand for meat. It adds up to a recipe for a collapse of the entire food system that would rival any financial bubble.
Speaking of which, speculation in commodities markets, which reduce critical stable crops to ticks on a stock exchange, are another factor that could drive poor, often aid-dependent countries into deeper hunger and instability.
Remarkably, the World Bank, a financial institution hardly known for putting a high premium on humanitarianism, seems to take a more humane position on the emerging food crisis than the G-20 leaders. Yet many of those leaders represent communities that are dealing with food insecurity and soaring prices within their own borders. Even U.S. farmers are suffering from the economic downturn despite a rise in crop prices, according to a new study by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University. In other words, even those who should be benefiting from the volatile marketplace are still cheated by its structural inequities.
At the same time, food-justice advocates inform us that the fundamental crisis, which no policymakers wish to confront, is not one of supply, but of access, distribution, and the need for equity-minded agricultural methods that can truly sustain both producers and communities.
Despite poverty, desperation, and even revolt exploding around them, officials and finance ministers are gambling on putting off decisive action, maybe hoping the market will somehow correct itself. But as Zoellick cautioned, “In revolutionary moments, status quo is not the winning hand.”


25 Comments so far
Show AllThank you, Ms. Chen for an excellent article. The use of corn/bio-fuel is a sin against humanity and nature. I remember when this trend began how I could see from the outset how much it would impact world hunger and/or food prices.
Studies are not needed to note the obvious, and yet studies are done more often than not as stalling devices.
Those who play craps with others' literal daily bread, will have MUCH to answer for... in lives, worlds, and dimensions that exist beyond the Maya of this one.
"This is an old story in many ways, one that may evoke more fatigue than sympathy from observers in relatively privileged regions. Hunger in sub-Saharan Africa has become chronic, punctuated regularly by an outbreak of conflict or disease."
One reason it has become "chronic" is because of "aid" from the west, "aid" from the EU. In return for "aid", African countries are required to open their internal markets to (heavily subsidised) farmers from the EU. Unsurprisingly, they cannot compete, and stop farming.. So, when global prices go up, guess what happens?
You nailed it.
The problem is not that the US grows corn to burn.
The problem is that people in impoverished countries have been thrown off the land by globalization.
As Francis Moore Lappe points out, people WILL feed themselves unless powerful forces prevent them from doing so.
Implying that what third world countries need is cheap US corn is wrong.
"Speaking of which, speculation in commodities markets, which reduce critical stable crops to ticks on a stock exchange, are another factor that could drive poor, often aid-dependent countries into deeper hunger and instability."
Not only "could", but played a significant role in the food "shortages" of 2008.
There are 2 sides to the speculative coin. Right now prices are so high that everyone is encouraged to grow food. Plant a garden. Producers will do what they can to maximize production. Low prices now would merely lead to greater disaster in the future. We do need to quit subsidizing ethanol. I think we taxpayers spend $5 billion per year for a "blender's credit" for oil companies. Also, now days, farmers do not need any government money thrown their way for direct payments because the land has a historical crop 'base.' It's just throwing money at the rich, in most cases.
Hardly everyone. If you have the land, the expertise, the capital, then yes, you have the incentive to grow food. You are writing from your perspective as a North American farmer.
If you are some extremely poor person living in an urban slum in a poor country, having the incentive to grow food, is meaningless, if you lack the capital means to do so.
Waste stream ( sewerage sludge) eating Bacteria is the emerging Biofuel producer.
Its the people, vs Market Forces, Military Madness, Energy Profits, Food Profits.
The people do not stand a chance.
World population still growing. Food production is falling. Stored grain levels falling.
Carbon Emissions rising. Anthropomorphic Global Warming advancing. Climate unstabilizing.
Wether or not we can feed everyone now, there is far less prospect of doing so in another decade.
With trillions to spend on oil wars to fight, places to bomb, children to kill, why worry about starving to death?
Bad time to defund Planned Parenthood.
Growing food prices are simple the result of monopoly unchallenged. Less for more is a basic accounting rule. In th absence of Soviet Union this rule is the dominant one.
When the corn-ethanol thing started getting press attention, I started getting excited. I thought it would be great.
Then the actual economic studies started coming in and it soon occurred to me that the actual oil-gas-inputs for corn-ethanol, such as tractor fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides, would make ethanol more expensive than oil. I noticed around that time that Brazil was doing bio-ethanol using sugar cane, which seemed to be considerably more efficient than corn-ethanol (but they are also cutting down rain forests to increase ethanol yield, which itself has a short-term gain selling all that good wood).
As these various complexities were churning in my head, suddenly our Congress got interested in SUBSIDIZING corn-ethanol and even mandating it in our gas tanks. Our government also subsidized the construction of complex corn-to-ethanol production facilities (which no doubt closely resemble corn-whiskey production plants!).
Our federal government has spent Billions subsidizing corn-ethanol and requiring that we use it if we drive a car. Why, when it is innately Entropic, esp. as regards the human need to consume food? And WHY, when those same billions could have been invested in truly "renewable" (I prefer "ongoing") energy such as wind and solar?
"Disaster Capitalism" is a good starting paradigm, but the problem goes deeper: Planned Eternal Scarcity. Coming to you at a supermarket soon.
A concomitant here: You walk into a Wal*Mart Superstore and immediately to your right is the produce section. Brightly lit with automatic water spray for the leafy stuff. A HUGE display. Now watch how many people actually buy the produce. Now ask yourself how much is literally landfilled.
We waste to produce Scarcity. This goes on and on! We bulldoze and landfill old houses instead of retrieving their lumber. Why? Because certain people seem to think that if we do not create social "competition," people will get lazy?
I have never known a rich man who was not concerned about the Human Condition. I have never known a poor man (other than totally drunk) who would not jump at the chance to earn money.
Grow a garden. Replace that yard. Get rid of the chemicals. Tell your neighbors to do the same. It may not seem "efficient," but consider the "externalities"!
(This Michelle Chen is something else! I mean that in the positive sense; a provocative writer...)
-30-
The analysis here is false, as I show below.
The crisis is real, and urgent, but it was also real and urgent 20 years ago when conditions were very different, but without all of this attention. The food movement has risen, which is mostly great, but this issue is everywhere misunderstood. In a blog "False on the Food Poverty Crisis: 25 Online Examples" I deal with analysis similar to this.
Food prices are up, yes, and that's a crisis, yes, but only if you're really poor. Yearly average farm prices have been nearly double of 2005, (or 1998-2005), but those were the lowest prices ever. What's not explained is that the poverty that causes the hunger is often caused by those very low prices, and the solution to that poverty is higher farm prices. The real crisis, then is a dilemma. Low farm prices over decades have made people so poor that we have a food poverty crisis when that poverty starts to end. This is fairly easy to prove, and people need to stop spreading the false information because when they do, it contributes to food poverty. It hurts food poverty advocacy, advocacy for higher farm prices.
Ok, yes, of course, I know that this is hard to believe, given the many online articles all saying the same thing. Why should you believe me?
Consider these provable (online) facts. 1. Least Developed Countries, the poor ones, are 70% rural. Logically, then, they're farm economies, dependent upon farm income, adequate, fair trade farm prices. Plus, according to FAO's "The State of Food and Agriculture" (2009): "Livestock in the Balance," p. 3, "Almost 80 percent of the world’s undernourished people live in rural areas (UN Millennium Project, 2004) and most depend on agriculture..." (I'm not pasting in the link, as the spam checker will think this is spam.)
If my thesis is true, you would expect that poor countries would agree with me. Yes, the "Africa Group" at WTO has stressed the long term problem of low farm prices causing poverty "WTO Africa Group with NFFC, Not EWG" and see more links there. So too for La Via Campesina, the world peasant movement operating in many poor countries: "Via Campesina with NFFC: Support for Fair Farm Prices."
This is also affirmed by the work of some of "America's Progressive Community." The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy did studies of export dumping (ie. "WTO Agreement on Agriculture: A Decade of Dumping," or do "find" on page at IATP publications: Reports: "Show All"). IATP's "Fair Farm Bill" series (same source) points to the policies in the US farm bill that contribute to the problem of low farm prices (ie. "A Fair Farm Bill for the World's Hungry," p. 9). The latter document calls for "a fair market price floor," just like what the Africa Group and Via Campesina want. IATP also supports supply reductions as needed, (and price ceilings with reserve supplies, top side to stop skyrocketing farm prices). Together, these top and bottom side US farm bill policies stop dumping, especially when they're enacted also in Europe, (the US is dominant in export markets like corn and soybeans, and is also price leader for wheat and rice. We can set world prices.)
Progressives and mainstream media also miss these policies, and think a free market (simply getting rid of farm commodity subsidies in rich countries) will solve it. IATP disagrees that this "doling out production and income support" is the cause (p. 9 again). I also prove this 4 ways in my YouTube video, "Michael Pollan Rebuttal." Pollan misunderstands IATP, Tufts (ie. Tim Wise, The paradox of Agricultural Subsidies," pp. 21-22) and others (ie. Daryll E. Ray, "Rethinking US Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide,"see pp. 44-45 on price floors, etc.) on this.
Tim Wise, the guy behind the "Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University," linked above, supports this also, and uses IATP's work on dumping in his exposes on cheap corn as an "implicit" (not paid by government, but caused by the farm bill," subsidy to corporate agribusiness grain and cotton buyers, the primary beneficiaries of US farm bill policies to lose money on US farm exports. For example, they want cheap, below cost grain for ethanol.
To the extent that ethanol causes those higher farm prices, it helps end the poverty (but the dilemma, caused by decades of farm poverty, remains). One other misunderstanding is that the recent "record" or "skyrocketing" farm prices, the yearly average prices 2007-9 for corn, wheat, and rice, for example, are in the bottom 25% of all time prices, with only 1 minor exception out of 9 (3 crops x 3 years).
From 1947, when corn and oil were the same price, to 2008, corn rose in price less than 100% (<1x) while oil rose more than 4,000% (>41x). As oil prices rise even farther, ethanol could eventually raise corn prices above fair trade levels. It hasn't happened yet. By the traditional standard of living wage, fair trade farm prices, parity, corn should be about $10/bu, and it has been higher than that, not just for a day or two, but as a yearly average, on more than 30 years (adjusted for inflation with a GDP deflator). Imagine if corn had gone up the same as oil, and with the same production (acres x yield). In Constant dollars, US farmers would have made an additional $13 trillion dollars (13,000 billion) above actual market prices. If they'd received parity prices, it would have been only $1,6 trillion above what they actually got, not counting about $200 billion in subsidies (in today's dollars). Corn and other crops that got subsidies lost money every year (vs full costs, USDA-ERA "Commodity Costs and Returns,") 1981-2006 (except 1996), as we dumped on the poor farming countries, lowering world market prices. Price floors were lowered below parity levels starting in 1953, under pressure from corporate buyers.
"Food prices are up, yes, and that's a crisis, yes, but only if you're really poor."
Yeah, who cares about the really poor people, eh?
Thank you for that comment. It is important that we, from our perspective get this right. I fully agree with your concern over what I meant.
My point is this: to lower farm prices to where people living on $2/day can afford foods such as flour and rice, is to, at the same time, cause their poverty if they're rural or live in a rural country, as most of them are, (a rural country where even people in the cities are dependent upon a thriving rural economy to stimulate wealth and jobs creation). It's a dilemma. For us in wealthy countries to advocate only for low prices for farmers, for farming countries and regions, is also to cause food poverty. They desperately need to be fed, that's an acute crisis, (and has been for decades for many). The solution must, of course, be both/and.
I hope you picked up on my concern that the food movement in the US and the farm subsidy movement in Europe, (including NGOs working on hunger in the US and in Europe) have often NOT advocated even for price ceilings and reserve supplies, to directly fix farm price spikes, but also NOT for price floors and supply reduction programs, as needed. Again, here, these policies are in the Food For Family Farms Act of the National Family Farm Coalition.
Hello Michelle Chen,
The wealthy and powerful use food as a weapon of mass destruction. From their point of view it causes financial transfers from the poor to the wealthy while reducing the population of the earth. This is a win-win scenario. Sort of an Ebenezer Scrooge on steroids approach.
Yes, don't forget that the main objective of Kissinger, Rockefeller, and the rest of the Bilderberger-Council on Foreign Relations crew, is to REDUCE the world's population.
If you look at plans for the relocation of populations in the USA it makes the Gulf Oil disaster look like progress, as with the Japanese Nuclear disaster. These are each a horrible crises that will not go to waste. The elite will turn them to their advantage.. have turned them to their advantage.
We have to stop eating animals, at least to the extent we do now. Torturing them and processing meat like units not living creatures. Turn to organic farming but the truth is Big Business rules and if we stop out consumption of animals we will at least be doing something to help.
Here's more from the source I listed above: FAO's "The State of Food and Agriculture" (2009): "Livestock in the Balance," p. 3, "Almost 80 percent of the world’s undernourished people live in rural areas (UN Millennium Project, 2004) and most depend on agricultureincluding livestock, for their livelihoods. Data from the FAO database on Rural Income Generating Activities (RIGA) show that, in a sample of 14 countries, 60 percent of rural households keep livestock (FAO, 2009a). A significant share of the livestock outputs of rural households is sold, making a sizeable contribution to household cash income. In some countries, the poorest rural households are more likely to hold livestock than wealthier ones; although the average number of livestock per household is quite small, this makes livestock an important entry point for poverty alleviation efforts." These hungry people are rural and livestock contribute 40% to their income (same p.3).
Fifty years ago, during the Great Leap Forward, more than 20 million Chinese died from famine and starvation. Current leaders have vowed that this will never happen again.
Over the past fifty years, the population of China has more than doubled. More importantly, food consumption patterns have changed. If average caloric intake doubles from 1000 C per day to 2000 C per day and the population doubles, China will need four times more food than in 1960.
To their credit, China has increased production substantially, Much of this production is dependent upon once huge aquifers under the North China Plain.
These acquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate.
China was once the largest producer of soy in the world. They are now the largest importer in the world as they had to switch to production of grains with lower water reqirements. China is now the largest wheat producer in the world, although this is jeopardized by increasing water shortages.
According to recent reports by Lester Brown and the Earth Policy Insitute, China will need to import increasingly larger amounts of grain to meet their population and consumption demands. If they import 20% of their needs, they will require 80 million tons of grain. Last year, the US exported 90 million tons of grain. China will get first preference because they hold our debt.
And 20% is only the beginning as population and consumption increases in China. And what about India, where population and consumption patterns mean much much higher production and/or imports.
Water is becoming the prime determinant in the ability of the world to feed itself.
Much of the current unrest in the Middle East can be attributed to rising food costs.
When millions of Egyptians are living on $2 per day, doubling of wheat prices means hunger and civil unrest.
Laos is in the process of developing one of its few resouces - hydroelectricity on the Mekong, threatening the surplus rice production of Thailand and Vietnam, Can you blame them when they have little else ??
Russia lost much of their grain production in fires last year. Whatever the cause, Russia had to withdraw grain from the world market.
A change is monsoonal patterns has meant a change from periodic famine to chronic famine in Ethiopia and Northeast Africa.
The switch to biofuels in Brazil has meant a massive change in rainfall patterns over most of the Amazon Basin. Drought may become a larger problem than the current deforestation taking place for production of biofuels.
The US Military has spent millions, if not billions, studying and planning for these problems. The G20 and the World Bank are essentially politcal posturing groups.
As Lester Brown sums it up -- the world is one bad harvest away from chaos.
From September 2005 to January 2011 the farm price of 20 pounds of wheat went up by a whopping $1.35, rice went up $1.41, and corn $1.30. Previously the farm values for 20 pounds were $1.11 (wheat), 62¢ (corn) and $1.33 (rice). For us 20 pounds of rice 220 servings. You lose some in processing, and you should make bigger servings you could call it 141 servings, so it went up 1¢ per serving in farm value. Or call it 2¢ if they eat more, etc. It's hard for us to imagine what it's like to live on less than $2/day. Farmers in LDCs need to be paid that 1¢ or 2¢ and more, however to stimulate wealth and jobs creation. To call for going back to the 2005 prices, the lowest on record for corn, (adjusted for inflation,) is the wrong solution. (1998-2005 saw the 7 lowest wheat prices ever, 6 of the 7 lowest rice prices, 8 of the lowest 9 corn prices).
Lester Brown, ie. on Grist recently, doesn't understand that the crisis is, and has long been two sided, as I've described, and mainly caused by low, not high farm prices. Yes, we have a risk of a bad harvest, as we ended reserve supplies of farm commodities in 1996, and prices have long been low. Brown doesn't call for the long term needed policies that I've identified, bottom side price floors and supply reductions as needed, or even the top side price ceilings and reserve supplies. He shows no understanding of the other side of the crisis which I've described above. LDC farmers have huge potential to increase production, but not while they're living on $2/day.
"Daryll E. Ray" in "Weekly Column Policy Pennings" starting in May of 2008, has an interesting series on China, that I recommend for comparison. There have often been predictions that China can't feed itself. Current conditions in world farming are unusual, and it's dangerous to use them to formulate solutions, as Ray writes repeatedly.
If we stopped the consumption of animals or at least reduced it we would be on the road to changing the food crisis for the better. Simple as that! In fact we would be helping the water situation as well. My goodness, you would think people would begin to realize that the factory big business meat industry is the problem. Their whole way of thinking leads to the pesticide mess along with the genetically modified seed horror. Enough!
Remember that it's a food poverty crisis, not a grain shortage crisis. The food poverty has been caused, increasingly over most of the past 60 years, by too much grain and low prices, not the reverse. Again, as in FAO's "Livestock in the Balance," livestock are important in ending food poverty. It's also important that we in the US understand our role, as the dominant force in world export markets, as price leader, in creating food poverty, through decades of chosing to lose money on farm exports (to secretly "subsidize" agribusiness grain and cotton buyers with this below cost grain).
Welcome to the land where ironies abound:
To produce a gallon of ethanol, it takes by the lowest estimate 0.6 gallons of oil (for fertilizer, tilling, harvesting, etc). Many estimates put it at a 1 gallon or even higher.
Conservatives insist we should secure our southern border and arrest and/or deport all of the illegal immigrants. Doing so would collapse US production of any hand-picked foods (most fruits and vegetables), as well as impacting other agriculture-related industries like meat packing.
Which, frankly, would be a good thing: end farm subsidies, end water subsidies for agriculture, let this low value activity move to countries with cheap labor - that's how markets work without massive government intervention.
But those farms are in tiny states with outsize clout in the Senate, and Republicans aren't going to alienate their only remaining reliable voting block.
Okay, okay Brad W---
I think you finally sum up your long and detailed exegesis when you write:
"Remember that it's a food poverty crisis, not a grain shortage crisis. The food poverty has been caused, increasingly over most of the past 60 years, by too much grain and low prices, not the reverse."
Two questions would seem relevant:
* Are you suggesting that diversion of corn to ethanol (which depends on government subsidies) helps to resolve the "food poverty crisis"?
* Are you taking issue with my larger hypothesis that the imposition of false Scarcity is at the base of the global economy?
*****
Also, something has been missing from CD discussions on the issue of meat. Esp. the rapid increase in the cost of beef as for example compared to pork. Also the question of the agricultural cycle by which for example cows produce fertilizer that feeds the grasses on which they feed. (Which goes to your discussion of the value of animals in poor rural areas...elsewhere! (I'd love to raise chickens in my back yard---it would improve the fertilizer cycle and lower the insect population, but it's illegal in my rural town...People hate roosters. Cockadoodle-doo!)
Best,
-30-
Ok, OleManRiver, you refer to my "long and detailed exegesis." Obviously I must change. On that point, thanks for the positive feedback. Elsewhere they asked for the bumper sticker version (ie. "Parity Not Charity" was a bumper sticker during the 1980s farm crisis). I must save the paragraph you quoted. (Note: I also comment at YouTube, as FireweedFarm, where we get 500 characters.)
Yes, I'm suggesting that ethanol, in helping however much to end export dumping on LDCs, helps the food poverty part of the food crisis, since LDCs are 70% rural, etc. (I have a blog at zspace, "UK Guardian Misunderstands Ethanol," which gives more detail.)
On the other hand, ethanol could, in the future, (if it's economics enables it to stay in business at the resulting price levels, which also surely requires skyrocketing oil prices,) raise farm prices above fair trade levels. I mean, what's the end to how much energy we could use? 2007-9 the yearly average price of corn was above 50% of parity 1 year. Whether parity is the appropriate standard of fair trade, living wage prices will need to be debated. On the other hand, the CAFO complex, ethanol, HFCS, transfats and more were developed during a quarter century of below full cost prices. Parity is a way to pay more and remove a bunch of the costs ("externalities") that society has to pay that the corporations don't otherwise pay for (pollution, health problems, lack of wealth and jobs creation, destruction of rural society, food aid, all the other problems caused by the food poverty crisis, such as war and corruption). Imagine livestock moving back to many small farms, and onto forages. Parity is also a way for the US ( and especially LDCs) to make a lot more money on farm commodity exports, (rather than losing money per unit, as we often have), while protecting fragile lands with acreage reductions (supply management).
I haven't read anything on "false scarcity" lately. I agree that there's a lot of fear. I agree that the agribusiness output complex (buyers) want cheaper, below cost prices again, so they have a huge vested interest in drumming up fears of scarcity, and in calling for all out production to "feed the world," as if oversupply and the resulting poverty did not cause the food poverty crisis. Earl Butz (Ralston Purina) and Nixon made few policy changes, (subsidies started a decade earlier, contrary to Pollan's claims, and price floors actually increased, for cost of living, in the 70s,) but he did get this scarcity message out there big time, and it's still mystifying today.
Thanks for the points about meat. I haven't lately followed beef and pork prices.