Comments on: The Global Food Crisis

By: Jovan

Jovan — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:45:56 +0000

Thanks for the link Gerda!

By: Gerda99

Gerda99 — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:55:14 +0000

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.

By: nursel

nursel — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:51:08 +0000

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.

By: Jovan

Jovan — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:42:39 +0000

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.

By: keval

keval — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:32:54 +0000

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?

By: Wake up America!! « Jokker’s Blog

Wake up America!! « Jokker’s Blog — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:11:08 +0000

[...] Cultural Matters [...]

By: If you care about hunger, eat less meat « betterplace.org

If you care about hunger, eat less meat « betterplace.org — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:10:40 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Amys Welt » Blog Archive » News aus der Mittagspause

Amys Welt » Blog Archive » News aus der Mittagspause — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:50:26 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Maximilian Forte

Maximilian Forte — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:10:06 +0000

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”.

By: The global food crisis « Culture Matters

The global food crisis « Culture Matters — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:03:19 +0000

[...] 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 [...]