Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Is Famine Inevitable?

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2008.


The fate of global food production has now become the chief terror of the future.
Advertisement

Paul Krugman's "Grains Gone Wild" column may have boasted one of the most hilarious titles ever in the annals of agrichemical economic analysis, but the situation is far from funny: Our food situation is on the precipice of failure. And all it's going to take to get past the tipping point is the slightest of mistakes -- or manipulations.

Much of our current recessionary intrigue has been aided and abetted by market speculation, from the oil and food sector all the way to the White House itself. For the last seven years, the Bush administration has placed climate crisis on the back burner in existential pursuit of resource wars and an "American way of life" that has turned from a dream of Hummers, housing and bling into a nightmare of price hikes, foreclosures and layoffs. Mission accomplished.

But someone will have to pick up the pieces, which are going viral fast. In that chaos, food has stopped being our other energy problem and become a chief terror of the future. And considering increasing prices, decreasing dollars and a world that will soon house many more people but feed even less of them, we're probably in for a famine or two before all is said and done.

Price Hikes

"Rising food prices do not have one simple cause," explains Bettina Luescher, chief spokesperson for North America's chapter of the United Nations World Food Programme. "They are caused by several factors, all combining to a perfect storm. But they are rooted in increased energy prices, competition between biofuels and food, rising demand from economic growth in emerging economies, and increasing climatic shocks such as droughts and floods."

"The majority of the increase in the cost of food is tied to the rising cost of petroleum used to produce agrochemicals and fuel to produce food staples," adds Patrick Woodall, senior food policy analyst at Food and Water Watch. "Additionally, the rising demand for ethanol energy crops, primarily corn in the United States, has tightened up the supply of arable land, which has contributed to the increasing price of all food commodities. The increased commodity prices mean that each food aid dollar buys less food than in previous years, not including the cost of transporting the food from the American heartland to international hot spots like Darfur, Afghanistan and the Congo."

The point would be probably an obvious one: There's no way we can keep going like this. Add in the transition from vegetarian to animal-based diets in India and China, and at this rate we're looking at food shortages, severe environmental repercussions and, perhaps, the eventual return to a common vegetarianism broken up by the odd meat meal -- which is where China and India were before they went hypercapitalist. It's the ultimate feedback loop.

And it's seriously lucrative. Global demand has provided companies like Potash, Monsanto, Mosaic and Agrium with huge returns. Jim Cramer and other Wall Street chatterheads are pushing agrichem as safe havens in a volatile market juggled around by hedge funds, private equity groups and other major players.

But even Potash has admitted that stores are already pressed to the breaking point. "If you had any major upset where you didn't have a crop in a major growing agricultural region this year, I believe you'd see famine,'' Potash CEO William Doyle told Bloomberg TV. But, he reminded, conscious of his role in the expensive affair, "you won't have a global shortage of food because you don't have enough potash."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, famine

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

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

Advertisement
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:
Very Real
Posted by: Jbuuty on Jun 6, 2008 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two major causes of the price increases which aren't mentioned.

One, the food system is no longer local, but international. Even here in Kenya, where agriculture is the biggest industry, food grown locally is eaten miles away, often exported, and much food is imported. A system which demands a large transportation network was set up for disaster when oil prices rose, as the inevitably would. Certainly the Bush war in Iraq has contributed to a more rapid and earlier than anticipated increase in oil prices, but it was inevitable. The agricultural sector also depends heavily on petrol in other ways, such as fertilizer, with the same repercussions.

Two, genetically modified crops have also contributed to rising costs, especially in developing countries. Whereas farmers traditionally kept seeds for planting the following year, now large agro-businesses like Monsanto sell patented seeds, which sometimes put small farmers out of business and increase costs of production.

In Kenya, where recent political conflict has resulted in the destruction of many hectares of maize and other crops, food prices have risen dramatically. The price of ugali, the local staple made of corn meal, has nearly doubled. Many now must decide between spending 50 cents (American) for public transportation to go to work, or walking 5-10 miles and eating.

Concerning using food for fuel (ethanol), I recall an article by George Monbiot of the Guardian a few years ago in which he said that ethanol-based fuel was a bogus solution. He basically predicted the sort of price increases and food shortages we are beginning to see today, if we turned towards ethanol rather than conservation as our energy policy.

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

» Excellent points Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: xcellent points Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Children are security Posted by: Jbuuty
» RE: Children are security Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Children are security Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: xcellent points Posted by: HoboHomo
» i 2nd that nomination Posted by: ptown
Here is the plan that would sort this out by the end of ten years
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 6, 2008 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the plan that no government would implement at this point, but it would end human suffering within ten years:

1) First, acknowledge population is the major contributing factor to this problem. More people means more of everything is required: more water, land, meat, grain. Get the population down as a major priority.
2) Encourage as much agriculture as possible and make it worthwhile for farmers in developing countries. Stop distorting markets with food aid and food dumping.
3) Encourage as much biodynamic farming as possible. This is a self-regenerating approach that means no fertilisers are required and keeps food clean.
4) Put design at the centre of everything we do: that means better designed communities, transport, housing... the lot. And that means factoring in full resource recovery when a product has finished its life cycle. No throwing stuff away.
5) Stop living in giant junky houses and filling your life up with junk. Instead, do more things and be active.
6) Force airlines to buy the new Boeing Dreamliner and make manufacturers come up with even better aircraft, fast.

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

The elephant in the punch bowl: Population growth
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 6, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's almost laughable that world food crisis is being debated so vigorously without the underlying cause even being touched upon: Runaway population growth.

As usual, population remains generally taboo because it raises all sorts of touchy tangential issues, not the least of which is the U.S. government's abysmal record in dealing with birth control issues worldwide.

Go ahead. Chatter away about local food production vs. international, the oil shortage, meat vs. veggies. It will all go for nothing if that runaway train -- which annually brings forth a new population the equivalent of Great Britain's -- is not slowed dramatically. Unfortunately, nature has its own way of dealing with such problems, and the solutions are not pleasant.

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

» RE: Sure, but here we all are. Posted by: Last Chance
Sooner the better
Posted by: kick on Jun 6, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sooner world populations are reduced to a more manageable number, the better...why put off the inevitable? Famine, disease, war or death by any means is sad , but for less than the number subjected to years of torture from overpopulation.
The planet may be able to handle a population of several million successfully but then again without mandates to control people growth, we will end up with the same. As said in the Matrix-we are a disease.

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

» RE: Sooner the better Posted by: Alsu
women's empowerment and population growth
Posted by: Shakti on Jun 6, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that the WHO found that the single most accurate predictor of how many children a woman will bear is her level of education. The longer women stay in school, the higher the degree they attain, the fewer children they tend to have. Few discuss this, but it seems likely that the best way to address global over-population is women's empowerment initiatives (e.g., micro-loans, better schools for girls).

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

» There is no other Posted by: Last Chance
Is Famine Inevitable?
Posted by: bc430 on Jun 6, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO.

Sometimes the answer to complex problems go undiscovered for years because of incorrect hypothesis and primise. That that seems so obvious and gets a majority going in it's direction just keeps gaining momentum until it becomes the assumed truth. Such has been the thinking that gave rise to Global 2000 and other over population theories and proposed smart solutions that respected Americans in the public and private sector conspired to concock and put forth.

Do your own research and discover "ONE" African country that was naturally able to produce enough food to feed the entire continent. You might find it as intrigueing as I did that the United States government funded a debilitating WAR effort in that African country for a generation and it's army was finally not vanquished by rebel fighting forces but by HIV/AIDS.

See King Alfred Plan and REX 84 and other similar old strategies. God only knows what "Classified" madness has been spawned in recent years by the GOP culture of death, both abroad and here at home.

The inevitability of world wide famine is as artificial as the destruction of Iraq and the spike in the price of a gallon of gasoline in America. Real like artificial red, strawberry flavoring but man made.

It is now a reality but it "was not" inevitable until we were offered daily servings of poop and began ingesting the government issued poop.

Before the notion of overpopulation was necessary there was the plan to move people off of land that had perceived value because of what was in the land or what speculators wanted to put on the land. Now Overpopulation as a theory just makes so much sense to the poop eaters that one would have to be a fool to argue against the theory of overpopulation. The intimidation factor.

In fact the opposite is true. The lifestyle of a few post modern overconsumers will make the planet unlivable faster than the theorized overburden of human beings that the overpopulation theorists deem unnecessary, unfit and unwanted on planet earth.

Some are trapped in an imaginary box.
Some are trapped outside the imaginary box.
To some of us there is no damn box.

A few are playing on the teeter totter.
Overpopulationists on one end and rapturists awaiting the death and destruction of the late great planet earth and the return of a blue eyed blonde Jesus on the other. Up and down. Up and down. Up and down. Whheeeeee....and more fun is anticipated as soon as what we want to come true comes true. These few people share a common desired outcome based on theories that make sense to them. Important people taught them to buy into what they bought into. What do both groups desire?

Reduction of the number of people who disagree with us so we can live happy ever after. Sure it makes sense. So does smoking crack.... to a crack head. The more you keep telling youself "it just makes sense" the more sense it will make.....to you.

So go ahead, declare some more enemies, throw another war and keep more of the world undeveloped. Keep more human beings uneducated. Starve and scare the heck out of more people. When you hasten their demise you are accelerating your own.

Scarcity is the LIE.
Abundance is the TRUTH.

Famine is not inevitable.

Curtail the overpriviliged.

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

» RE: Is Famine Inevitable? Posted by: Vinote
Forget to Mention the Debt
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 6, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He forgot to mention that most countries in Global South had their internal capacity to produce food for their own people destroyed by the huge debt they owed the World Bank and others. Up until a few years ago for every dollar that was going to developing nations in aid, $1.3 was coming back to the richest countries in the form on interest payments. They had to grow food for export instead of their own citizens to help pay the debt. It is not that the world can't produce enough food. It is that the world works for the benefit of the elites at the top who have an ever more concentration of wealth. But the media never tells us how it really works. Far easier for them to scapegoat the obese hotel maid who eats a bag of chips on her way to her second job!!!

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

» Link, Haiti Must Send Millions Posted by: Gravitas
Eat the rich
Posted by: kick on Jun 6, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As with the Donner Party and the Soccer team in Alive, we will eat one another before starvation..Starving people from other countries should try to get to the States for food..In rural West Virgina and Western Pa there is a obese population that staggers the mind...from young to the elderly..death takes the obese elderly rather quickly...no problem with starvation here..empty calories and mounds of sugar supplant the diet ...sad for the young..so come and eat the obese and or start with the rich..

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

» RE: at the rich Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: at the rich Posted by: kick
» RE: at the rich Posted by: Last Chance
oligopolies, laws, and GE crops.. oh my
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 6, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
most of this has been mentioned already but to sum it up:

1. you have a handful of companies bottlenecking distribution
2. you have companies pushing to make it illegal to save seed (because they dont make money and governments cant tax it)
3. some frankencrops nature never intended are getting carried by the wind crosspolinating them with normal food crops, which affects how the fruit's classified and whether its consumable
4. property taxes have risen
5. foreclosures are affecting farms and no one cares
6. gas is getting too expensive to truck food long distances
7. certain corrupt governments are withholding food aid. So even if we're shipping it, its not getting to the ppl who need it.
8. farmers make more money selling corn for ethanol production than for food
9. Lack of bees.

--
The moral of the story is: GROW YOUR OWN FOOD. ITS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER FOR THAT CAN OF BEANS TO APPEAR ON YOUR SUPERMARKET SHELF.

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

» Hooray - the lettuce came up! Posted by: stellabloo
OMG blame the moms AGAIN - did you not take the time to read the above posts?
Posted by: stellabloo on Jun 6, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent points made above by someone actually living in the third world :

"Poor people have more children. It is not out of ignorance, which you didn't say, but many seem to believe this. There are basically two reasons that people have large families: lack of access to means of birth control and children provide security in old age. Some do have large families out of religious reasons, but this much less common that many suppose."

The harsh reality is that many of those babies will die an agonizing death that could have been prevented - no medical miracle required, only a few pennies worth of cereal or basic medicine .... so convenient for some childless technogeek to blame the faceless parents of the world for the fact that gassing up the SUV is now so costly :(

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

My Garden -or-Thier Garden
Posted by: Babygoat on Jun 6, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who have even a small patch of land
can generally produce the basics, that is when the weather cooperates. This year in Nebraska, I planted my garden on or about May 15th. We got hit
with the worse storms and tornados ever. My garden washed out and fields are flooded. The date is June 6th...if farmers can't get their crops in the ground within two weeks, you simply will not see the foods that your used to. The bread basket will be empty! It doesn't matter today if it's my garden or their garden. Our fields are saturated and need time to dry out before we can replant. Does the government really expect us to live on doughnut holes?

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

It Is At This Point
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jun 6, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is at this point in our discussion of global hunger and starvation that I think about what we could do about this issue if we as members of earth and a global community put our minds and resources to solving the problem rather than waging war against each other for resources.

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

Not if we lagalize Hemp production
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jun 6, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp,hemp seed and it's stalks contain...FOOD. Hemp grows in all climate types. Needs little to no fertilizer and can be grown on the same patch of land for decades without harming the crop yield or the soil,unlike corn,soy or cotton. Hemp contains protien and the aminoacids that 'rebuild' the human immune system and we can make clothes,fine quality clothes,with it after we get the food crops part of it harvested.
This food shortage scare is another in a long line of mental terrorism that's been forced down our collective throats. Don't give in to this fear mongering stories foisted upon us by the controlled media. We're not facing mass famine,we're facing massive greed by corrupt world governments. If you want to save yourself and your family,learn to plant your own food and if that includes hemp,be willing to defend your right to do so. The governments and their medias promote fear. Don't give into their bullshit,you'll feel better,sleep better,
and you'll insure your own survival.
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

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

Healthy Alternative To Overpopulation
Posted by: HoboHomo on Jun 6, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Empower sexual minorities. When a society mandates appreciation and respect for the homosexual, you no longer have people marrying just to breed children. The pressure is finally off. MANY people are bisexual, so could easily opt for same-sex marriage.

Every country needs to promote homosexual rights immediately, as a sane and effective solution to overpopulation.

We'd also benefit from homosexual rights by putting an end to machismo...male violence that is the cause of most wars. For men would no longer feel coerced to prove to the world they're not f*ggots by breeding unwanted/unloved children, and bashing the bejesus out of anyone they please.

I can see the billboards now as I drive through Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, China, Siberia and yes, even Afghanistan:

"Same-sex love: a healthy alternative to overpopulation."

And pro-homosexual advertisements and shows on radio and television...and of course, on Youtube.

The Catholic Church needs to get behind this, by apologizing for all their abuses against gays, and promoting same-sex unions big time!

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

» I am liking this solution Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: I am liking this solution Posted by: HoboHomo
rn
Posted by: mnatra on Jun 6, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dis empower intercourse

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

In short, yes.
Posted by: AdamG on Jun 6, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any population, whether yeast or the ever abundant talking monkey, has population flucuations. Sometimes very dramatically over a short period of time.

Whether through predation- plagues and disease in our case-or by eating ourselves out of house and home, the human population will see a dramtic decrease. Possibly sometime in the near future.

And no; Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, the seventh Mahdi, Buddha, the flying Spaghetti monster will not be their to save us.

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

» And soon Posted by: pangolin
most famines are man made
Posted by: avatar_singh on Jun 6, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ofocurse famine is not inevitable.
in the year 1886 India was visited by the american trade secretary who preached to Indians that India need not become self sufficinet in food as other nations can suply her gfood. ofcourse iNDIA AT THE TIME DIDI NOT LISTEN BUT WAITNG ON THE WINGS WAS A WORLD BANK FUNCTIONAY WHO WAS LATER IMOPSED ON iNDIA THROUGH PROPAGANDA AND ISNTALLED AS FINANCE MINSITER TO FURTHER THE AN=ANGLOAMERICAN INTERESTS. AND HE COPIED EVERYTHING WHAT HIS AMERICAN MASTERS ORDERED HIM TO. THAT WORLD BANK FUNCTIONAY IS CALLED MANMOHAN SINGH THE PRESENT UNELELCTALED AND UNELECTABLE PRIME MINSITER OF iNIDA.
that is how familne is visited upon on a country.since 1993 , when thattreahcerous crerature called manmoahn singh has been isntalled in high govt, Indian agriclutre went south and now India has to import food at much higher caose than the govt is willing to give to own farmers for indian wheat or rice.

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

» RE: most famines are man made Posted by: avatar_singh
???
Posted by: sre on Jun 6, 2008 1:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember a book written in the early '70s called "Famine 1975". 1975 came and went. No famine. Didn't happen then, won't happen now. No matter how much is said about it. Just come to your senses. Go back to sleep, children. Nothing's changed since the 1970s. Nothing's wrong. nothing will happen.

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

celebrity overpopulation
Posted by: world traveler on Jun 6, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Julia Roberts is yammering on Oprah about being all environmental, and yet she has three kids, who must have god-knows what amount of stuff. Maria Shriver has four kids, and Steven Spielberg has eight! There are so many affluent Americans who seem to be reversing the trend towards smaller families and breeding all over the place. And we get all in a tizzy whenever People does a spread about the babies. Sure babies are nice, but they also use diapers, eat food and for every one you add to the family, the whole family's carbon footprint explodes.

Even though Angelina Jolie seems to come with her own mini entourage, at least she's adopted a few of them. My own dim-witted relatives who live in an affluent part of the East Coast had to have baby number 3 because everyone else was. I guess three is the new two!

You can curse the poor African's or Asians for having a few too many kids, but from what I've seen they are sucking down half the resources that our privilaged American kids use.

If we're going to extend life into the nineties with medical advances and all, then we've got to think about what will happen if we don't control the numbers to start with.

I don't think we will destroy the planet, it's been through a lot of stuff worse than we could throw at it, but we can make living here pretty awful for the humans who exist if we aren't thoughtful about this. But then again, it's the thoughtful people who are doing something, the others just go about doing what the rest of the herd suggests. Ever seen Idiocracy? That's our present and our future.

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

the grim reaper is comen home to reap?
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jun 12, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
roost

do we actually need to be reminded of this?
your dam right we do... we can do something about it...

no water, no food... so many people!
things can get ugly fast if we not more careful and prudent

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

Population growth and food distribution.
Posted by: nightgaunt on Jun 22, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA has 304 million, third behind China and India. Imagine that. By 2012 it is estimated that the world population will have grown to 7 billion from the present 6.7 billion today. This by the Census Bureau of the USA.
2050-9 to 10 Billion projected.*
2012-7 Billion projected.
1999-Reached 6 Billion (just 13 years to add another billion people!)
1930-2 Billion
1800-Not quite a Billion world wide.

Notice the trend? Extapolation from it should be easy shorn of emotionalism and politicking. Nature has no emotion, just the quantitative and qualitative effects of natural forces. Too many as too few can equal extinction. Humans need a govenor whether we do it or nature does it will be the factor for human and the earth's biosphere's survival. Cold equation if you will.

I wonder from those number crunchers out there what would it be like if we had equal distribution of food? Calory requirements and food balance of nutrients.

*I hope that projection is too generous.

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