A Tsunami of Hunger: Food Riots Hit Countries in Africa, Asia and Haiti
While the US is consumed with a $4 billion general election campaign with its all-important focus on whether someone wears an American flag lapel pin or knew anyone with a checkered past, a slowly developing Tsunami of Hunger is rolling across a number of lands both near and far.
Today's New York Times has a photo and story of a girl in Haiti rummaging through a garbage dump for scraps of food while another article devotes even more space to the trials and tribulations of organic food aficionados whose vegan-only budgets are being hammered by the disparity in prices between organic and processed foods....oh pity us all!
It's impossible to pin blame on any one source for this situation but here's a list from someone with 29 years' experience feeding and medicating those in need:
1. Global warming, El Nino, La Nina and the resulting disruption of weather patterns have destroyed traditional farmers' intuition on when and what to plant. If they guess wrong and the rains don't come or fall too heavily, crops fail and local prices rise as incomes fall. Crop substitution takes vast amounts of new capital.
2. Food aid policies and funding are way off what they need to be. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts a 56% rise in the bill poor countries (in Africa, it's forecast to be 74%) must pay to import cereals and other staples in 2007/2008 on top of a 37% rise in 2006/2007 food prices. The UN's World Food Program is asking for drastic increases in both food donations and money from donor governments to stave off growing evidence of malnutrition and outright hunger in dozens of countries. There is an active discussion in Washington, DC about radically altering the "buy-American" mandate on food purchasing and allowing food to be purchased locally when available--strengthening local markets and encouraging more local food production; but the farm states and agro-business are predictably against much of this. US foreign aid funding has always been inadequate in the area of agricultural development despite everyone's acknowledgement that this is the signal precursor to sustainable development and food security.
3. Ethanol production using maize (corn) is growing rapidly at the expense of setting aside adequate amounts of maize for human consumption. This creates shortages and a spike in prices for a wide range of food products. The use of sugar cane residue and other organic crops which can also produce ethanol is being ignored in the US because of the corn and ethanol producers' lobbying efforts. The displacement of petroleum by ethanol is a good thing but it won't lower air pollution and may just kill people from the resulting riots and hunger caused by food shortages.
Domestic food price hikes in many countries have spurred social unrest--many countries carefully regulate what is charged for bread, rice, maize, milk, cooking oil, soybeans and other foods. When weak governments with a tenuous hold on power raise food prices, there is often a serious domestic reaction. The use of export restrictions, subsidies, tariff reductions and price controls to limit the impact of price hikes has failed to curb the disruption. While Haiti has always had serious food shortages and resulting domestic violence, food riots have also occurred in far more stable and prosperous countries--Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Senegal, Cameroon, Uganda and Ethiopia. The list will increase dramatically as prices continue to rise.
When you "Walk the World" as relief workers do, the results are manifest--children wasting away from hunger, adults too weak to work, hospitals and clinics crowded with sick or injured people, local governments hollow shells of incompetence, indifference or corruption.
And yet we debate lapel pins, acquaintances and the majesty of the church steeple.
Richard M. Walden, is founder, President and CEO of Operation USA, a 29 year old international relief agency based in Los Angeles, www.opusa.org
Follow Richard Walden on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Rwalden63
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The real issue is population control.
As long as the world population continues to skyrocket, any increase in the food supply merely throws gasoline onto the fire.
We're already choking on our own filth, and turning our planet into a toxic mass faster than it can repair itself. Yet we're told how Third World economic expansion will benefit humanity, ending poverty and starvation. It's nothing more than a pyramid scheme--and we're reaching the point where the whole damn thing collapses.
We need an immediate, open, honest global discussion on how to manage the our species' population in an equitable and humane manner. And we need to move past the antiquated notion of a global economy based on growth, and toward economic systems that fairly manage the distribution of finite resources.
Biofuels may (or may not) be a new contributor to world hunger, but one of the biggest culprits is not a new offender at all. It is the dynamic duo of American agricultural policy and foreign aid programs, which does much more to line the pockets of corporate farms, shipping companies, and farm-state legislators and lobbyists than put food on the table for people in need. By protectively subsidizing American corporate farmers, we effectively prevent Third World farmers from competing in world markets, thus denying them sales that would, in turn, fund expanded production in their own countries. Then, by mandating American sourcing and shipping for humanitarian food aid, we further distort markets while vastly increasing the cost (and thereby lowering the volume) of the aid that actually reaches the poor. It's an old story that doesn't get any better with continuous telling.
--Dave Donelson, author of Heart of Diamonds
http://www
"Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy"
[...] In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
• corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
• wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
• soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
• sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. [...]
Let's not forget (because the sheeple can't think past American Idol, it must be said, I'm only addressing the 1% of you awake and aware enough to realize this) about Peak Oil. The world is running out of it. Starvation is the, and will be, the result.
And it's only starting.
Soon to visit surburbia near you.
I'm soorrryy I used Ethanol as one of just three examples I gave when I could easily have posted 15 ways in which food supplies are drying up or becoming unaffordable!!! I obviously cannot match the serious and studious environment people on this but I do know that there are:
A. Food Riots in more countries than I listed above, and
B. Something is causing them.
My post was a clarion call to raise the level of concern and not refight the corn vs. sugar vs crab grass etc methods of making ethanol. We all agree petroleum is killing us economically and environmentally but lack of food and/or disease will do it much quicker.
please focus on the rest of my post and enlighten all of us!
I'm fine with biofuels including ethanol BUT it does have an impact on food availability and prices. If it can also be made the way Brazil does it with sugar cane and other materials WHY protect just the corn producers by keeping other methodologies out?
I think Al Gore towers over Bush and the others who politically assassinated him. Criticizing corn based ethanol because of its affect on prices is not environmental heresy.
It isn't heresy, sir, it's just wrong for reasons I've stated. I appreciate your willingness to respond to a post, and promptly at that, unlike Bill Maher who doesn't mind pulling the pin on this hand grenade, throwing it into a crowded room, and running away.
Again, the impact of biofuels has a negligible effect on food prices and availability, which is quite small in comparison to petroleum costs (diesel fuel still being required to plant, cultivate, and harvest ALL crops), speculation by hedge funds and others (CalPERS, etc.) in ALL commodities, and massively increased demand for these products as the rest of the world seeks a larger share of world resources which the U.S. has long felt was its God-given provenance.
Ethanol's contribution to this is a fly-speck, and that's BEFORE you consider that most of the corn grown in the U.S. goes to feeding animals, a fact which corn-ethanol actually complements (see below).
The world's food shortage is not in the realm of carbohydrates (e.g., starch, sugars, etc.) -- it is protein, a fact with which you must be well aware. Getting it to those in need is a huge problem, too.
This is NOT to say that the U.S. and the world cannot do a better job of developing biofuels and other resources in a more sustainable manner, taking all externalities and variables into account. We're far from perfect, but we are moving in the right direction globally.
You make some extremely sweeping claims here without the benefit of offering any supporting documentation. Merely asserting something doesn't make it true.
While you may be correct, those who read your comments are provided with no basis for evaluating their truth or falsity. Those who make extreme claims, such as yours, have an obligation to more carefully explain and source their conclusions.
You are wrong because you think the "BIG" picture is the right way to examine the problem. Biofuel subsidizes are the problem at the margin because they are distorting choices of what crops to grow and what use will be made of them. A roughly similar problem is occuring in oil markets. The rise in total use isn't all that great, but oil being a oligopoly, the market produces rising prices. The oil producers could pump more, shortening the lifetime of the fields of course, but won't...to keep prices rising. And the key is marginal demand.
And, of course, the continued rise in global population is a factor in the demand for food. Thanks be to George 1/2 for ending US support for birth control. Another gift from the ass that never fails to fail.
This was a very intelligent post, thank you. Unfortunately, people like atticus continue to keep destructive, Eurocentric attidudes alive - and it is precisely this sort of attitude that has brought about climate change, widespread poverty and disease. The intellectuals of the world will soon step forward and acknowledge that there needs to an epistemic shift in the way that the world operates. Until then, we will continue to bicker about meaningless, superficial nonsense.
Mr. Walden:
Along with so many otherwise intelligent people, you appear to have fallen into the same tired uncritical thinking as it pertains to ethanol in particular and biofuels in general. This general laziness plays right into the hands of Big Oil which I sure is most grateful for your essay, giving them the necessary cover for their crimes to the environment and humanity.
The facts, in the event you care, are that ethanol made from corn ONLY uses the starch portion of the corn kernel, which is converted into sugar and then fermented to make ethanol. The remaining high-protein distillers grains are fed to animals (livestock, poultry, and swine) as this "feed" corn would be anyway, except for that portion which is exported or used to make high fructose corn sweeteners.
Using corn to make ethanol ranks about 3rd or 4th on the list of its uses, none of which involve directly feedin human beings. In fact, only 10% of the corn (that is, that lovely yellow sweet corn you see at the market) is used in the DIRECT human food chain.
On top of it all, the world does NOT have a carbohydrate crisis -- it has a protein supply problem, and rising prices most significantly due to the sharply increased price of energy, new demand, and a host of factors unrelated to ethanol.
See www.25x25.
The point of his article wasn't to criticize ethanol use. You missed the point. He was making a statement about how Americans prioritize - or better, how we generally don't. I'm beginning to see that folks jump at the chance to try and control the conversation about biofuel research - this IS the problem. Let the conversation stay open. Let us learn, and let us think.
With all due respect to you and Mr. Walden, I don't think I missed the point about our country's seeming inability to set and keep priorities in recent times, a discussion which opens a Pandora's Box of policies and decisions that are quickly making the U.S. a second-rate and almost universally hated country.
I'm more than willing to discuss in depth with anyone the pros and cons of biofuels, where there are many of the former and fewer of the latter, especially in the context of our country's need to become less dependent on fossil fuels from any source derived, more efficient in our use of all fuels, and more cautious when we make decisions about when and how much fuel/energy we use on a personal basis.
Those are huge and consequential issues, about which there is much misinformation being disseminated by those clever bastards in the petroleum industry who make no mistake is behind much of this "anti-ethanol" propaganda which is so eagerly absorbed by those with their own , unrelated but nevertheless worthy axes to grind, like Mr. Walden.
Look, biofuels are in their infancy and have a long way to go before it will displace petroleum, which has had a 100-year head start and now controls nearly every facet of our lives. We need renewable alternatives now, imperfect though they may yet be, but to quote one of the oil company ads, "it's a start."
Well, everyone tiptoes carefully over the bones of the 800 pound skeleton in the room.
By feeding the Third World we are guaranteeing that there will be more hands and fingers to pull triggers against us (and Europe) when the spillover crosses our borders.
FACE IT! There are too0 many ignorant, useless, poverty sticken humans copulating!
Obviously, you share the opinion of the greedy mutlinational corporattions that are running the world. They don't care who suffers and dies, as long as they don't; it only means more for them.
If you believe this in your secret heart-of-hearts, that's evil enough. To state it publicly is despicable.
I thought Hitler was dead...did
How about that Al Gore one of his favorite environmental solutions ethanol. why don't you have him explain to some of these starving folks how the increased production of ethanol is helping to adversely impact their lives?
Ethanol what a stupid waste - it takes lots of energy to produce and that energy all comes from using petro or nuclear power ethanol
Too bad Al Gore didn't understand Earth In the Balance - but why would he Katie McGinty wrote it for him
You use death and misfortune to score political points. How sad.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, and your ignorance is not bliss. But that explains why you would of course take yet another tiresome and gratuitous swipe at every environmental denier's favorite whipping boy, Al Gore.
The second most favorite target is, of course, ethanol. As my post hereabouts makes clear, making ethanol from the starch portion of a feed corn kernel DOES NOT TAKE FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS STARVING PEOPLE!
This feed corn in question is used to feed animals, make high fructose corn sweeteners, or for export. Of all corn grown in the U.S., ONLY 10% of it is that wonderful, yellow, "sweet" corn you see at the grocery store, since you like so many Americans wouldn't likely know a corn field if you fell head first into a newly-fertilized corn field.
Ethanol from any feedstock is NOT "a stupid waste," and corn ethanol is only the beginning -- a limited one at that. We've got to get "beyond petroleum" and fast -- ethanol and other biofuels are but the first step, as important as it is.
Not convinced? Do you even want to learn more? If so, see www.25x25.
Actually your logic: "The second most favorite target is, of course, ethanol. As my post hereabouts makes clear, making ethanol from the starch portion of a feed corn kernel DOES NOT TAKE FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS STARVING PEOPLE!" is falsified even by your own remarks. The residue of corn used to provide biofuel is then fed to animals. Ahhhh, but animals as food is (IIRC) ten times more consumptive of grains than human use. And feeding animals residue increases that ratio. (By how much, I don't know.)
Furthermore, the world does not have excess food production, any additional cropland is even more energy intensive than what is currently used. (In the US, a large amount of good farmland is being converted to housing, meaning some of the best farmland is being lost.) And the key here is not that people are without any food, but too little is available and they remain hungry.The
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
