Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Why the Era of Cheap Food Is Over

By Peter Ford, Christian Science Monitor. Posted January 7, 2008.


Corn, milk, bread, and other farm products hit record high prices in 2006 and will likely keep rising in 2008.
Advertisement

Food prices worldwide hit record highs in 2006, and all the signs are that they will go on rising this year, and for the foreseeable future. The era of cheap food, the experts say, is over and we are going to have to get used to it. This is easier said than done for millions around the world, as evidenced by protests in Mexico over the cost of corn tortillas, and in Italy last September about the price of (wheat) pasta. Here's a look at why.

What is behind the increases in food prices?

Certainly not bad harvests. Although a drought hit the traditionally bountiful Australian wheat harvest this past year, world cereal harvests hit 2.1 billion metric tons, a record production level, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Two major trends have been pushing prices up faster than they have risen for more than 30 years. One is that increasingly prosperous consumers in India and China are not only eating more food but eating more meat. Animals have to be fed (grains, usually) before they are butchered. The other is that more and more crops - from corn to palm nuts - are being used to make biofuels instead of feeding people.

At the same time, the world is drawing down its stockpiles of cereal and dairy products, which makes markets nervous and prices volatile.

The result, says Joachim von Braun, who heads the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington, is that "the world food system is in trouble. The situation has not been this much of a concern for 15 years."

How big a factor is the biofuels boom?

It is significant enough for the FAO to be warning about the dangers of turning too much food into fuel, and for the Chinese government, for example, to ban the construction of new refineries that use corn or other basic foods. In fact, earlier this month Beijing announced tax breaks and subsidies to encourage the use of cellulose, sweet sorghum, and cassava (nonfood crops in China) for biofuels.

Some analysts estimate that as much as 30 percent of the US grain crop will go toward producing ethanol this year, a doubling from 2006. IFPRI forecasts that if the world sticks to current biofuel expansion plans, the price of corn will go up 26 percent by 2020, and the price of oilseeds (such as soybean, sunflower, rapeseed) by 18 percent. If governments double efforts to produce this alternative fuel source, corn prices are expected to go up 72 percent and oilseeds by 44 percent in 12 years' time.

Who gets hit hardest? Does anyone benefit?

As usual, it is the poorest people in the world who suffer most, because food takes up a bigger share of their daily shopping bill than it does for richer people. A family in Bangladesh, for example, living on $5 a day, typically spends $3 of that on food. The 50 percent rise in food prices the world has seen in recent years takes a $1.50 chunk - nearly 30 percent - out of the family budget.

Even farmers are not immune. On the whole, small-scale farmers in developing countries buy more food than they sell, so they, too, are net losers. Relatively few peasants have holdings large enough to benefit from price increases.

Big farmers in the rich countries, however, are doing well: US corn farmers have seen the price their crop fetches jump by 50 percent since 2000. Other net food exporters, such as India, Australia, and South Africa, will also do well out of rising prices. Major dairy producers, such as New Zealand, have done well as consumption of milk, yogurt, and cheese rises in Asia. As a result, while property values in New Zealand are generally expected to soften, flat rural land, where cows can graze, is expected to continue to rise in price, according to a survey by Massey University in New Zealand.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: agriculture, food, hunger, farms, food prices, faminine

Peter Ford is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
never underestimate
Posted by: Rod on Jan 7, 2008 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As more than one of my farmer friends have stated, "never underestimate the ability of the American farmer to turn $7.00 corn into $3.00 corn".

Production of grains is more elastic that stated.

That is not to say that we should or should not do biofuels from grain. Simply that the sky is not falling.

Rod

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consider The Basic Assumption
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 7, 2008 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With humans so grossly overpopulated and even living in places where they don't belong like the antarctic (in other words, they could never get there by natural means and do immense damage by just being there), why are high food prices assumed to be a bad thing? Maybe high food prices will discourage people from having large families, because they'll be too expensive to feed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Harbinger of the collapse of civilization
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 8, 2008 2:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rising food prices can be, and are in this case, an indication of the impending
collapse of civilization. Yes, it is the fault of people for overpopulating, just as
any other organism does. Yes, the production of biofuels is speeding up the
process of famine, but is not the root cause.

In "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan, he discusses 2 or 3 dozen civilizations
that have fallen because of climate changes that were smaller than the climate
change that we have already made. "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed" by Jared Diamond discusses an additional dozen societies, some extinct,
others now on local brinks. The proper action to avoid more global warming is
not being taken. Atlanta, Georgia and a belt all the way around the earth at that
latitude is experiencing drought already and it will only get worse. Read "Six
Degrees" by Mark Lynos. Conclusion: OUR civilization has a 90% chance of
failing, unless the next president of the US takes really drastic action. That is an
unacceptably high risk. Read "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed" by Jared Diamond to find out just how bad times could get if civilization
collapses. Expect to not survive a collapse of civilization. We should
immediately start with replacing all coal fired power plants with nuclear power
plants worldwide, and finish the job by 2015. If this is not done, our chances of
going EXTINCT are entirely too high. Read "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynos.

Religion has contributed to the collapse of many civilizations in the past.
Christianity contributed to the collapse of the Greenland Viking civilization
according to that book by Jared Diamond. There were other contributions to the
collapse of the Greenland Viking civilization, such as climate change. Religious
contributions to collapse this time include all of the world's religions, including the
religion-like objections to nuclear power. 32 nations have nuclear power plants,
only 9 have the bomb. Yes, some religions are worse than others, but "Our enemy
is nothing other than faith itself." as Sam Harris says on page 131 of "The End of
Faith." As Sam Harris also says, Islam is the most dangerous at the moment since
the Koran and the Hadith instruct believers to exterminate non believers. That
does not exonerate other religions, such as Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a different perspective on food
Posted by: jackpine savage on Jan 9, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Agriculture, though the basis of our lives, is probably the most misunderstood facet of human civilization. This disconnect arises because we are fundamentally disconnected with the source of our food. Lettuce comes from the grocery store, wrapped up nicely in cellophane and free of the dirt we associate with the underside of a farmer's fingernails. But go out and try to find a farmer; the US census doesn't even list it as an occupation anymore.

What we consider agriculture did not begin until after WWII, when war industries needed to be retooled for civilian purposes. Two significant changes stand out. First, American society urbanized and industrialized to an unprecedented extent at an equally unprecedented rate. Second, chemical fertilizers came into widespread use.

Nitrogen is the second most common element in nature, but atmospheric nitrogen is useless to plants. Breaking the chemical bonds of atmospheric nitrogen into plant usable nitrogen takes a massive amount of energy. The equivalent of 2,200 pounds of combusted coal is required to make 5.5 pounds of applicable nitrogen. While we apply astoundingly large quantities of fertilizer on our crops, only about 50% is actually used. A fair amount of it volatizes as gaseous nitrous oxides during application. A very large amount runs off into ground water and streams. We apply fertilizer at rates of tens of millions of tons.

Environmental costs related to this are simply externalized, but in this system, agricultural inputs are directly related to fossil fuel prices. Higher oil prices mean higher food prices, before the average 1,300 mile transportation costs are even figured in.

But it is important to look closely at who wins from higher food costs. Generally, it is not the farmers but the agri-businesses who own nearly the entire process because they are vertically integrated throughout the production chain.

The rage for bio-fuels, well championed by the likes of Cargil and ADM, is driving the price of agricultural commodities up. But there is a deeper story. In 1980, in the US, the application of a ton of fertilizers resulted in an average yield of 15 - 20 tons of corn. By 1997, that same ton of fertilizer only produced 5 - 10 tons. Quite simply, fertilizers were becoming cost prohibitive for farmers while locking them in the Catch-22 of yield. More production leading to lower prices.

Bio-fuels solve that by pushing up commodity prices while swallowing overproduction, and subsidies reinforce the whole activity. A side benefit is that few people will complain about GM crops as fuel sources.

This is not the place to discuss the negatives of monocropping, grain feeding livestock, soil issues, or pollinator problems.

We should, however, be aware that how we practice agriculture is not the only way. In fact, it could easily be argued that using the industrial revolution model for agriculture is the worst way to produce food. (see history of the Soviet Union)

Changing our system does not require an agrarian utopianism. It starts with each person producing what they can (and no exurban yard built on what used to be a farmer's field has any excuse), and shifting back to smaller farms and more localized supply chains.

Agri-business will say that it isn't possible to feed the world that way; that's a lie. It isn't possible for agri-business executives to eat foie grass on their private plane while flying to India for the trial of a farmer who had the nerve to save seed from last year's harvest if we returned to farming that way. (That story ends happily for the agri-biz exec, because after they win, the farmer goes home and drinks pesticides manufactured by the agri-biz to kill himself.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

forgotten remark
Posted by: jackpine savage on Jan 9, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should understand that the Chinese and Indians are not just eating more. Those societies have been rapidly industrializing and urbanizing. Yes, they are eating more, but they are growing/producing less. Really, they are buying more, which pressures the market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When food prices are fairly represented and the water shortage really hits...
Posted by: jparsons on Jan 14, 2008 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even most people in rich countries will
not be able to afford much meat or dairy. We will
be generally eating lower (and cheaper) on the
food chain, and "eat local" won't just be
a fad but a necessity.

I'm trying hard to think of a downside... maybe
those insects discussed in that other article?

What I'm describing seems the calmest way to
manage the inevitable price rises and shortages
- there are plenty of disastrous scenarios too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Organic farming
Posted by: herbal on Jan 16, 2008 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been an organic farmer 34 years, since before I helped to initiate certification. I have traveled extensively on every continent except Africa. After experiencing the intensity of farming in China and SE Asia I have been convinced that most of the world under utilizes its open and productive land. For example, wherever grass lawns are planted in cities like LA or Rochester, etc., the Asians would have it planted them to edible landscape.

The old adage about starvation holds true; food is not short, but hunger is a problem of political interferance with equitable distribution. There is a tremendous increase in food production that is achievable in spite of urbanization and livestock production, but this cannot or will not happen until there is a much greater proportion of the population re-involved with agriculture. Organic farming, for example, requires fewer inputs but more mangers and management skill. Organic production is comparable to industrial ag. OG does not outstrip chemical ag until it is practised as intensively as in Asia. This is not to infer that the Chinese and others are not super addicted to pesticides and chemical fertilizers. They are. However, you will see fields of rice in China as small as one sq. meter. Think of US agriculture by the square yard and back yard, and parkway and highway rights of way.

Ethanol may have finally tipped the scale of infamy on food production, but it is not hopeless. It is rather like peace activism. The battle is with corporatism (see wikipedia and you will find that the corporatism word was coined by Benito Mussolini) and elitism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]