Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Food Crisis Strikes Again
The threat of a new food crisis is already a reality. The price of food began to rise to record levels again, according to the FAO Food Price Index of February, 2011, which does a monthly analysis of global prices of a basic food basket made up of grains, seed oils, dairy products, meat and sugar. The Index came to a new historic maximum, the highest since the FAO began to study food prices in 1990. In the past months, prices have leveled off but analysts predict more hikes in the coming months.
This increase in the cost of food, especially basic grains, has serious consequences for southern countries with low incomes and dependency on food imports, and for the millions of families in these countries that devote between 50 and 60 percent of their income to food—a figure that rises to 80 percent in the poorest countries. In these countries, the rise in the price of food products makes them inaccessible.
As long as agriculture and food continue to be considered merchandise in the hands of the highest bidder, and business interests prevail over food needs and the limits of the planet, our food security and the welfare of the earth are far from assured.
We are approaching a billion people—one out of every six on the planet—that today do not have access to adequate food. World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, affirmed that the current food crisis has increased the number of persons who suffer chronic hunger by 44 million. In 2009, this number was surpassed, reaching 1.023 billion people undernourished on the planet, a figure that went down slightly in 2010, but without returning to the levels before the food and economic crisis of 2008 and 2009.
The present crisis takes place in the context of an abundance of food. Food production has multiplied over the three decades since the sixties, while the world population has merely doubled since then. There’s plenty of food. Contrary to what international institutions like the FAO, World Bank and World Trade Organization say, it’s not a problem of production, but rather a problem of access to food. These organizations urge an increase in production through a new Green Revolution, which would only make the food, social and ecological crises worse.
Popular Rebellions
The popular rebellions in northern Africa and the Middle East had among the many catalysts the rise in food prices. In December of 2010, in Tunes, the poorest of the population occupied the frontline of the conflict, demanding, among other things, access to food.
In January of 2011, youth demonstrated in Algeria blocking highways, burning stores and attacking police stations to protest for the rise of prices in basic foods. Similar cases were seen in Jordan, Sudan and Yemen. Egypt is the largest importer of wheat in the world, and depends on food imports.
Evidently other factors came into play in the uprisings: high unemployment, lack of democratic freedoms, corruption, lack of housing and basic services, etc. In any case, the rise in food prices was one of the initial catalysts.
A Central Cause
What are the causes of the new spike in the cost of our meals? Although international institutions and experts have pointed to several elements such as meteorological phenomena that affect harvests in produce countries, the increase in the demand in emerging countries, financial speculation, the growing production of agrofuels, among others—various indices point to speculation with raw food materials as one of the main reasons for food price increases.
In 2007-2008 the world experienced a profound food crisis. Basic foods prices such as wheat, soy and rice rose by 130%, 87% and 74% respectively. Then, as now, several causes converged, but the most important were production of agrofuels and the growing speculative investment in the food futures markets. But this increase in the price of food leveled off in 2009, in part probably due to the economic crisis and a reduction in financial speculation.
By mid 2010, with international financial markets calmed down and huge sums of public money injected into the private banks, food speculating struck again and the price of foods began to rise. To “save the banks”, after the financial crisis of 2008-2009, it is estimated that the governments of rich countries gave a total of $20 trillion dollars to stabilize the banking system and lower interest rates.
With the influx of money, speculators saw incentives to acquire new loans and buy merchandise that predictably would rise rapidly in value. The same banks, high-risk funds, etc. that caused the subprime mortgage crisis are currently responsible for speculation in raw materials and the rise in the price of food, taking advantage of unregulated global commodity markets.
The food crisis is intimately linked to the economic crisis and the logic of a system that promotes, for example, plans to bail out Greece and Ireland while sacrificing their sovereignty to international institutions, just as it sacrifices food sovereignty of the peoples to the interests of the market.
A Grower’s Guarantee or a Speculator’s Bonanza?
There has always been some speculation in the price of foods and this is the logic behind futures markets. In their current form, futures markets date back to the mid-1900s when they began in the United States. These are legal standardized agreements to buy and sell physical merchandise in a previously established time period in the future and have been a mechanism to guarantee a minimum price to the producer faced with the oscillations of the market.
It works like this: Farmers sell their production to traders before harvest to protect themselves from uncertainties in the weather, for example, and to guarantee a future price. The trader also benefits. When the harvest is bad, the farmer still gets a good income and when the harvest is optimal, the trader benefits even more.
This same mechanism is used by speculators to make money off the deregulation of the raw materials markets that was spurred in the mid-nineties in the United States and Great Britain by banks, free-market politicians and high-risk funds in the context of the process of deregulation of the world economy. The contracts to buy and sell food became “derivatives” that could be traded independently of the real agricultural transactions. A new business was born—food speculation.
Speculators today have more weight in the futures markets, even though these transactions have nothing to do with real supply and demand. Mike Masters, manager of Masters Capital Management, points out that in 1998 speculative financial investment in the agricultural sectors was around 25% and today it is close to 75%. These transactions are carried out in the markets, the most important of which on the world level is the commodities market in Chicago, while in Europe food and raw materials are traded in the futures markets of London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.
A “100% Natural Deposit”
In 2006/2007, following the fall in the high-risk mortgage loan market in the United States, institutional investors like banks, insurance companies and investment funds sought safer and higher yield places to invest their money. Food and raw materials became a popular alternative. As the price of food soared, investments in the food futures markets rose, pushing the price of grains up and worsening inflation in food prices.
In Germany, the Deutsche Bank announced easy earnings if invested in rising agricultural products. And similar business deals were promoted by the major European bank BNP Paribas. Catalunya Caixa urged its clients in January 2011 to invest in raw materials under the slogan a “100% natural deposit”.
What did they offer? A guarantee of 100% of capital with the possibility of obtaining profits of up to 7% annually. How? According to the ads, based on “the evolution of yields in three food products: sugar, coffee and corn”. To assure such high yields, the ads pointed out that prices of these three products had increased at 61%, 34% and 38% respectively over the past months due to “growing demand that is increasing above the rate of production”, because of the increase in world population, and agrofuels production.
Catalunya Caixa left out important information, however: food speculation that provided such handsome profits increases the price of food, makes it inaccessible to large parts of the population in the global South and condemns thousands of people to hunger, poverty and death in these countries.
Oil Dependency
Another element that exacerbated the food crisis is the heavy dependency on oil of the current model of food production and distribution. The rise in the price of oil had a direct impact on the similar rise in the cost of basic foods. In 2007 and 2008 the price of oil and the price of foods reached record levels. Between July of 2007 and June of 2008, crude oil went from 75 dollars a barrel to 140 dollars, while the price of basic foods went from 160 dollars to 225, according to the FAO Food Index.
Food and agriculture have become heavily dependent on oil. Following the Second World War and with the Green Revolution in the sixties and seventies, and with the supposed increase in production, an intensive and industrial model of agriculture was adopted. In the current system, our food travels thousands of kilometers before it arrives on our tables; production requires the intensive use of farm machinery, chemicals pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. This model could not exist without oil.
The rise in the price of oil and the strategy of governments to combat climate change has led to a growing investment in the production of alternative fuels, agrofuels, such as biodiesel and bioethanol, made from sugar, corn and other crops. But this production has entered into direct competition with food production for consumption and is now another cause of the rise in food prices.
The World Bank recognizes that when the price of oil goes over fifty dollars a barrel, a 1% increase causes a 0.9% increase in the price of corn, since “for every dollar that the price of oil rises the profitability of ethanol rises and consequently the demand for corn grows.”
Since 2004, two-thirds of the rise in world production of corn was destined to satisfy the North American demand for agrofuels. In 2010, 35% of the corn harvest in the United States, which is 14% of world production, was used to produce ethanol. And the tendency is on the rise.
But beyond the causes such as food speculation and the rise in oil prices that has an impact on the growing investment in agrofuels, leading to competition among grain production for consumption and for transportation, the food and agriculture system is profoundly vulnerable and in the hands of the market. The growing liberalization of the sector in the last decades, the privatization of natural resources (water, land, seed), the imposition of a international model of trade at the service of private interests, etc., has led to the current crisis.
As long as agriculture and food continue to be considered merchandise in the hands of the highest bidder, and business interests prevail over food needs and the limits of the planet, our food security and the welfare of the earth are far from assured.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

31 Comments so far
Show AllFor the past 30 years the US government indexes that determine the rate of inflation, consumer price index, etc.have been skewed to exclude food and energy, thereby diminishing the ability or working folks and poor folks t0 buy food.
Obama's super secret catfood commission is further skewing the indexes by revising criteria to assume that when Americans can no longer afford groceries they will eat catfood.
I like Esther Vivas' approach here: she highlights the growing role that the usurpation of food sovereignty has played in the world food crisis, without dismissing other significant pressures, such as biofuels production and agricultural dependence on fossil fuels.
This statement is problematical: "There’s plenty of food. Contrary to what international institutions like the FAO, World Bank and World Trade Organization say, it’s not a problem of production, but rather a problem of access to food."
In a sense, I suppose, but in numerous regions where people formerly had access to locally-produced food - notably the horn of Africa - they are now suffering from lack of access to food grown outside their region. There's a lack of accessible food, largely due to climate change.
"USGS Expert Explains How Global Warming Likely Contributes to East Africa’s Brutal Drought"
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/19/348335/usgs-expert-explains-how-global-warming-likely-contributes-to-east-africas-brutal-drought/
"In a sense, I suppose, but in numerous regions where people formerly had access to locally-produced food - notably the horn of Africa - they are now suffering from lack of access to food grown outside their region. There's a lack of accessible food, largely due to climate change."
It is also partly due to a combination of poverty, an the EU's agricultural policies. In return for EU "aid", African countries are forced to open to their markets, "free trade", to subsidised EU farmers. Those African farmers then cannot compete and go bust, with the result that populations in those countries have to import food. If food prices go up, those poor countries then starve.
What stuns me considering, "various indices point to speculation with raw food materials as one of the main reasons for food price increases," is the stupidity of the wealthy to grasp the contradictory nature of their perceived interest. By pursuing their own short term ECONOMICS interest, they create a POLITICAL crisis in popular rage and, in some cases, desperation. Eroding even the commitment of personnel composing enforcement institutions, sooner or later, the economic elite will be brought down. Angry and/or desperate rats have little to lose. Being so, they are the most dangerous of foes.
"... the stupidity of the wealthy to grasp the contradictory nature of their perceived interest."
___________________
It's the stupidity of unchecked addiction that overwhelms or bypasses the cerebral cortex.
Freud has largely been discredited and superseded by Big Pharmacology, but his concept of the "id" is a pretty good model for the runaway greed of the wealthy and investor class.
The flip side of the behavioral sink they're creating is the screeching, jabbering frenzy of mercantile exchanges-- now ratcheted up to the speed of light by technological enhancements. Everything inside is pumped up to race and collide at high-speed, like atomic particles inside a cyclotron.
The entire professional ecosystem or food-chain is populated by voracious omnivores increasingly programmed to manufacture and jump at juicy and ephemeral bubbles while they're hot.
As in those science-fiction stories about post-apocalyptic societies, the traffic cops have long since been killed off, bought off, fled the scene, or simply joined the predators outright.
Contemplating the long-term ramifications of this approach, including the self-destructive consequences and the extinction curve, is inimical to the nature of the modulated stampede mentality making the status quo go.
Instant gratification, and devil take the hindmost.
"As in those science-fiction stories about post-apocalyptic societies, the traffic cops have long since been killed off, bought off, fled the scene, or simply joined the predators outright."
Your post mentions "technological enhancements" of the financial exchanges. Another science-fiction aspect of our modern progress trap is that the traders are little ants, scurrying about at the whim of sovereign machines.
Not uncommonly, and perhaps more than a bit arrogantly, dismissive of most comments on this and other sites, I'm impressed with Obediant Servant and Aleph Null. You are both saying something important. So strange is how the current world has fallen into a cross breeding of Eighteenth Century "L'État, c'est moi," and modern science fiction such as The Matrix. Indeed the masters of the state are the slaves of machines. As bizarre as this is, no wonder the masses are beginning to stir. Although envisioning the bourgeoisie as masters of the state, not even Karl Marx envisioned them as slaves of their own machines.
"Contemplating the long-term ramifications of this approach, including the self-destructive consequences and the extinction curve, is inimical to the nature of the modulated stampede mentality making the status quo go."
OB................do you take yourself seriously?
While there may be sufficient production toady , massive shortages will occur in the very near future as current surplus or self-sufficient areas suffer decreases in production.. Saudi Arabia, for example, poured billions of dollars into aquifers that gave several years of self-sufficiency .The acquifers are drying up and Saudi Arabia will need to import 100% of their food needs.The bigger problem lies with
China. Over the past 30 years,China switched much of their production from soy
to wheat. They are the largest producer of wheat in the world, but, the acquifers in North China that water this production are decreasing dramatically. If a very probable drop in wheat production occurs, with a modest 20% decrease, China will need to import more than 80 million tons ... The entire US surplus last year was 90 million tons. With a switch to biofuels and continued climate instabilities (i.e. drought in Texas) this surplus will decrease ... Increased consumption by the growing middle class in China will also increase demand ... If China needs to import 25% of its wheat, there will be no world surplus to feed population increase and a reduction in production . As Lester Brown calls it, we are one bad harvest away from chaos. With the China problem we may be one good harvest away from chaos.
Like healthcare, there may be an adeqate supply of food but if you cannot afford it, the word abundance has no meaning for you.
If only we could ship our dumpsters to sub Saharan Africa. I am so full; give the rest to the dog. Alas
A billion people? Can we stop breeding ourselves into starvation and thirst? Population control must be implemented now and it is not even being discussed. The idea of go forth and multiply is not working, please fecund breeders stop! Life is not only about reproduction, being a father or a mother is not the only reason for living. In fact all that rapacious reproduction is going to eventually destroy all wildlife and maybe humanity itself.
Yes, yes. Despite all evidence that there is more than enough food, population ranters like you STILL claim that it is an issue of population.
Nope, it isn't.
Population is more than just numbers of people just as starvation is more than food production. If you are assuming we can continue destroying arable land, exhausting nonrenewable resources, growing an immense amount of grains to feed our meat addiction, and continue feeding the world into the future, then yes, population is not a problem. Seven billion people could also drive a car, but not for very long.
In western countries, 40-50% of food is THROWN away.
It is VERY revealing how many "environmentalists" while being oh soooo concerned about the effects of agriculture on environment never seem to want to deal with this issue of wastage, choosing to rant about population instead.
We have 7 billion now, and population is not an issue. Will it become an issue when we have 14 billion? No? 21 Billion? No? 28 billion?
Irrelevant. Hypothetical numbers. Throwing shit at the wall. Mental masturbating to see if something sticks.
Right. I figured you wouldn't actually answer. Okay, then. Hypothetical numbers. Please provide an estimate as to how high you believe the population will go. 8 billion? 10 billion? 12 billion? Is there no limit to the planet's carrying capacity?
Population of world 'could grow to 15bn by 2100'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/population-world-15bn-2100
You beat me to it.
The United Nations will warn this week that the world's population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century, putting a catastrophic strain on the planet's resources unless urgent action is taken to curb growth rates... The new figure is contained in a landmark study by the United Nations Population Fund (Unfpa) that will be released this week.
Population of world 'could grow to 15bn by 2100'
Posted by rfloh
Oct 23 2011 - 5:57pm.Irrelevant. Hypothetical numbers. Throwing shit at the wall. Mental masturbating to see if something sticks.
Of course the UN could just be throwing around irrelevant, hypothetical numbers, throwing shit at the wall while mentally masturbating just to see if something sticks.
However, if the UN estimates turn out to be correct, this will be a huge boon to rfloh and his greedy neoliberal capitalist cronies. Just imagine the potential for profit with a market that large.
I'm right there with you. Beware. We are about to be called racists.
No. Just a greedy neoliberal capitalist.
Because I think there may be a limit to the earth's carrying capacity, that makes me greedy neoliberal capitalist? Wow. You have absolutely astounding powers of deduction. However... it seems to me, sir, that YOU are more likely to be the greedy neoliberal capitalist, as all you can see is an unlimited expanding market with unlimited expanding population. Like it or not, vast as it is, the earth's resources are ultimately limited.
A few decades ago, we burned the 'back to nature' bridge - gone,gone,gone...
We replaced the shortfall as bio diversity and 'free' food from nature like wild fish in the sea vanished, with energy (oil) intensive industrial production. Agriculture production of every kind is just about totally dependent on oil now - we are at the end of cheap oil so now it's the end of cheap food in the rich countries at least, as well...
In the 'not-so' rich countries - thanks to the neo-liberalization of their economies (with a nod to the World Bank/IMF/US Military-NATO), the people there were moved to slums in cities so the agricultural land could be used to grow 'commodities' for export to the giant multi-national food corporations - which means if they want to eat, they have to pay to import food from these same companies.. and when there's shortages as oil production peaks and declines - who do you think will get 'shorted' first?
It won't be long tho, and we'll all be in that same boat (famine) - climate change, if nothing else will see us starving too.
Some rightwing, mega-pro business guy I know actually questioned me as to why I didn't think it was ethical or moral to allow speculators to cause food prices to spike. But then, this guy justifies hedgefund managers, saying they contribute to society, so he has no credibility.
Some rightwing, mega-pro business guy I know actually questioned me as to why I didn't think it was ethical or moral to allow speculators to cause food prices to spike. But then, this guy justifies hedgefund managers, saying they contribute to society, so he has no credibility.
"The present crisis takes place in the context of an abundance of food. Food production has multiplied over the three decades since the sixties, while the world population has merely doubled since then. There’s plenty of food. Contrary to what international institutions like the FAO, World Bank and World Trade Organization say, it’s not a problem of production, but rather a problem of access to food. These organizations urge an increase in production through a new Green Revolution, which would only make the food, social and ecological crises worse."
Ding. Bingo. Right, repeat: there is enough of food. There is enough of food, there is enough food. Regardless of what neo liberals who claim GMO is needed, or who rant about overpopulation claim.
Yes, there is enough food TODAY . There is a grain surplus of @ 100 million tons which can feed 400 million people at a low consumption level.
The bigger problem, however, is the decrease in production in surplus producing countries. China TODAY is a net exporter of wheat. Production is dependent upon the North China aquifer which is rapidly drying up. With decreased production and increased consumption, China will need to import grain . We will see a rapid decline and disappearance of all global surpluses.
Since China's economy continues to grow at a 10% annual rate, we can expect an increase in consumption of more than 10% per year (a higher % of income goes to food in less-developed economies). At present, China consumes @ 400 million tons of grain per year. A 10% increase means a demand for 40 million more tons per year in a world with a declining surplus of 100 millions tons .. China, by itself, will eat up all of the surplus food in the world in less than three years.. And what are we doing about this problem TODAY.
"The bigger problem, however, is the decrease in production in surplus producing countries. China TODAY is a net exporter of wheat. Production is dependent upon the North China aquifer which is rapidly drying up. With decreased production and increased consumption, China will need to import grain . We will see a rapid decline and disappearance of all global surpluses. "
Really. Any evidence for your contention that we will see a rapid decline and disappearance in global surpluses?
"Since China's economy continues to grow at a 10% annual rate, we can expect an increase in consumption of more than 10% per year (a higher % of income goes to food in less-developed economies). At present, China consumes @ 400 million tons of grain per year. A 10% increase means a demand for 40 million more tons per year in a world with a declining surplus of 100 millions tons .. China, by itself, will eat up all of the surplus food in the world in less than three years.. And what are we doing about this problem TODAY."
Well yes. That is PRECISELY the point. Per capita consumption. Greed.
>>Well yes. That is PRECISELY the point. Per capita consumption. Greed.<<
Exactly what you and the rest of your neoliberal capitalist cronies are counting on. How is your commodities trading account doing? Surely you have invested heavily in the grains, no?
This is very important, AND it's important not to get it wrong. Unfortunately this well meaning article misses main argumentsand ends up with half truths.
First, here are a few anomalies: A few years ago the emphasis was on export dumping, low farm prices, below costs (ie. IATP). The Africa Group at WTO likewise said that low farm prices, chronic long term, are their main problem. 80% of the "undernourished" are rural and 75% of underweight children in subSaharan Africa are farm kids.(UN-FAO, Livestock in the Balance, p. 3; also Millenium Project, Intererim Report).
Ok, if you adjust for inflation, then farm prices for corn, wheat, and rice and many others are not at all records, but rather have been the lowest ever since 1990 when the Food Price Index was started. These 3 crops, 2007-9, were much higher than the lowest out of 144 years (corn, wheat, etc.), thus the percentages for price rises. But they were still in the bottom 25% on the all time list, with 1 exception out of 9 (3 crops x 3 years). The index, actually covers the lowest 20 years of farm prices in history, which isn't the same as claiming "record" highs. There have been no record prices for these and similar crops in recent years, not even on single days vs previous yearly averages!
Ok, 70% of people in Least Developed Countries (the very poorest countries) are rural. They have had low farm prices for decades. Thus low prices caused their poverty to where they can't afford food, not high prices. That's long term. Farmers globally have been so extremely exploited that they can't even "afford" food at export dumping (extremely cheap) prices, let alone fair trade prices. That's a dilemma, and a return to export dumping won't solve it! Rather export dumping created it. The article favors export dumping, in that it only calls for lower prices, and offers no price standard. The percent increases given ("130%, 87% and 74%,") are compared to the most severe export dumping in history! This is a horrible misunderstanding of the problem, (although it's also almost half true, almost half right on about this huge crisis.)
The article gives no standard of fair trade farm prices. Parity is the traditional standard of fair prices here, and Africa, etc. surely need at least parity. Recent prices may have been pushed up by speculation, ethanol, etc, but none of the recent prices has risen all the way up to fair trade levels, by the parity standard, not even for 1 day. For example, parity on corn is about $10 per bushel, but prices haven't risen that high, even for 1 day, and 2007-9 didn't get much above 50% of parity for yearly averages, (ie. $4.20 corn, but parity was lower than $10 then). By the parity standard, speculation and ethanol helped move us toward fair trade.
Ok, so the chronic long term low farm prices caused the food poverty among the hungry (80% rural) people of the world. The poverty from low (not high) farm prices also caused the dilemma where they can't afford food and have a hard time benefiting from recent higher prices. It takes longer to gain from profits to build needed infrastructure. Ok, so it's really a dilemma, not a simple matter of only higher prices being a problem. So in the dilemma they need higher farm prices for wealth and jobs creation (economic stimulus) long term, but that also makes them hungry in the short run, which is, truly, a huge crisis that must be addressed (but not by a return to export dumping)!
As a non American, Esther Vivas probably doesn't understand the big policies that are needed, as Spain has been a small farm exporter with little clout. The US has dominated global farm commodity exports, bigger than OPEC in oil, but we've chosen to lower prices and lose money on exports, the opposite of OPEC. We did it to secretly subsidize huge lobbyists who buy farm commodities, subsidize with below fair trade and below cost raw materials, like corn. As global price leader, with huge export shares (bigger than all of the European Union,) we can set global prices.
Economically farm commodity prices don't self correct in free markets, thus the push for free markets and free trade! We fixed that in the New Deal, with price floors and supply reductions (as needed) (and Europe did some of that much later in CAP). See NFFC's Food from Family Farms Act for these solutions today. Starting in 1953, we lowered price floors, more and more, until we ended them in 1996. That's what can fix speculation. Mere fixing of recent speculation doesn't fix the failure of farm markets to self correct, but these other policies do. Top side, we need price ceilings and reserve supplies, (also nffc.net).