George Monbiot’s latest article ‘The Pleasures of the Flesh’ on 15 April 2008 is about the causes of the current global food crisis. Currently there are food crises in 37 countries. Monbiot says “the price of rice has risen by three-quarters in the past year, that of wheat by 130%(1).” and according to the World Bank one hundred million people could become poorer by the high prices. Actually there is no scarcity of food; for example “at 2.1 bn tonnes, last year’s global grain harvest broke all records” and “it beat the previous year’s by almost 5%”.
A significant amount of food produced are used as biofuels; for instance according to the World Bank “the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol … could feed one person for a year”. And according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), this year 2.13 bn tonnes is likely to be consumed, and only 1.01bn will feed people. Monbiot complains that now in the UK, all sellers of transport fuel have to mix fuel with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops. He says: “In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity in which every driver in this country has been forced to participate. “
Monbiot also discusses the other cause of the food crisis, which “is a bigger reason for global hunger, which is attracting less attention only because it has been there for longer”. This year 100 m tonnes food will be used as biofuels, and a bigger amount, 760 m tonnes, will be used to feed animals. Since meat consumption in Asia and Latin America has been booming, and the UN estimates that the population will rise to 9bn by 2050, Monbiot tries to answer the question “What level of meat-eating would be sustainable?” and he says “ If you care about hunger, eat less meat”.
At the end of his article, George Monbiot says:
Re-reading this article, I see that there is something surreal about it. While half the world wonders whether it will eat at all, I am pondering which of our endless choices we should take. Here the price of food barely registers. Our shops are better stocked than ever before. We perceive the global food crisis dimly, if at all. It is hard to understand how two such different food economies could occupy the same planet, until you realise that they feed off each other.
19 April, 2008 at 6:13 am
a friend naively asked: if there’s a food crisis, how come prices went up? I guess the question, in its naivety, points out to a structural problem in this situation: that food is understood through the prism of the capitalist exchange model, as a profit-making product.
20 April, 2008 at 12:40 am
[...] diesem Zusammenhang ist auch der Artikel von Guardian Kolumnist und Autor George Monbiot (via culture matters über die globale Nahrungsmittelkrise von Interesse. „Der Weizen, der benötigt wird um einen [...]
21 April, 2008 at 1:03 pm
[...] global food crisis Following on from Nursel’s recent post, I’d like to draw readers to a recent New York Times article about what it is called a [...]
24 April, 2008 at 7:10 am
Another bitter irony: some of those countries that could best afford the rising prices–for example, Trinidad & Tobago where I lived and studied, a petroleum and major natural gas exporter–are ones where many people are suffering from rising prices. If the government were to regulate prices, then it would be in trouble with the WTO. If it were to significantly raise wages, then there would be the issue of inflation. This is the huge, nasty, consequence of a country with lush land and a 12 month growing season, with generous rain, that made itself almost wholly dependent on food imports because they were “cheaper” to import than to produce (for a time). And of course, who wants “food sovereignty” when so many free-marketeering economists in the region scoffed at the idea, quipping that what counts is prices, not sovereignty–well, now they have neither. Import dependency for foodstuffs is like using a credit card to buy groceries.
Being tied into the world market is a major problem. In a case unrelated to the food issue, but more to questions of self-sufficiency and independence from the vagaries of the world market: Canada, also a major oil exporter, could have sealed off its petroleum borders and the state could have said, “we have enough oil to satisfy Canadian needs, at prices we choose and can afford, for the next two centuries”. Having signed on to NAFTA however, if Canada cuts oil supplies to the US, it must cut its own supplies to its own population. So it is obligated to sell on the world market, and though Canada is self-sufficient in oil, Canadians need to pay world market prices as if they were importers.
And then we are told “capitalism works”.
24 April, 2008 at 12:50 pm
[...] ist und wird ärmer und hungriger als je zuvor: Monbiot The Pleasures of the Flesh [via Culture Matters] & New Statesman How the rich starved the world; Nachtrag: Culture Matters The Global Food [...]
24 April, 2008 at 7:10 pm
[...] of the crisis I found an interesting article by Guardian columnist and author George Monbiot (via culturematters). Quoting the World Bank he points out that “the grain required to fill the tank of a sports [...]
27 April, 2008 at 5:11 pm
[...] Cultural Matters [...]
1 May, 2008 at 12:32 pm
IF it takes proportionately larger amount of grains to convert it into meat, and the prices of grains are going up, wouldn’t it result in even relatively greater increase in the prices of meat and meat eating would go down naturally? I do not get it. Or the effect of food crisis on the prices of meat would be felt after some time?
1 May, 2008 at 3:42 pm
It’s a good point Keval, though I don’t think meat should rise proportionately more than grains. I’m no expert, but I would think that if grains rose in price 20%, the price of meat would rise less than 20% as the cost of grain does not account for the full cost of producing meat. A certain amount of the rise in grain prices would be passed on to the cost of meat, but it would actually be a lower percentage rise. E.g. if the cost of grain accounted for 50% of the cost of meat, a 20% rise in the price of grain would only lead to a 10% rise in the cost of meat.
If my reasoning is correct, fluctuations in grain prices would disproportionately affect people who rely on them for survival. Meat eaters, who tend to be richer, would be relatively cushioned from these fluctuations.
Like I said, though, it’s not my area of expertise, so I could be missing something really basic.
1 May, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I agree with Jovan. In some countries, people with low income can’t afford meat, but grains are important part of their diet. When grain prices increase, the poor will be affected the most. If the meat prices go up as a result of an increase in grain prices, meat would become even less affordable for the poor, but I guess middle-upper middle classes would continue consuming similar amaount of meat to maintain their lifestyles.
But on the other hand eating less meat and having less animals to feed grain to wouldn’t necessary mean having more grain with reasonable price. Even in this case as a result of market mechanism and other factors, the grain prices might increase.
Maybe every country should try to be self-sufficient in terms of basic essential food.
Also there needs to be a change of attitude. Having plenty of affordable food should be considered a very basic human right for everbody and this right should be guaranteed for everybody; and production, pricing and distribution should be organised accordingly.
6 May, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Please check out http://www.futurefood.org
Gives a prefect overview of how plant-based diets of the future could look like, or of possible alternative ways of producing meat more efficiently without using animals. Ecology, world hunger, health and animal welfare are covered, too.
7 May, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for the link Gerda!