food shortage

Nothing drives home the image a serious food shortage like seeing obese people hauling 25lbs bags of rice and 24 packs of soda to their cars while complaining of not being able to afford food. While you may accuse me of being overly cynical that was exactly the image that Channel 2 news in the Bay Area chose for its special report a few days ago. If they were trying to rally empathy for those in need, they could have done better. The people they interviewed looked like they would be better off in the long run with some forced dieting.

Truth is there is a real food shortage and current conditions are making it worse. In response to the emergency President Bush quickly decided to announce millions more in food aid. The question is of course, who is he trying to aid? Food aid means the US government buys staples from US farmers and then gives them to starving people in Africa and elsewhere. This type of aid does very little to alleviate the real problem as people need to keep eating and a one time handout is no solution. But don't say that to the farmers in the midwest. Food aid is a very popular item in an election year.

Before we say more nasty things about President Bush, we should realize that this is the only type of aid our beloved farmers are willing to accept. They are 100% opposed to a more efficient type of aid consisting of donating money to poor countries to help develop their agricultural infrastructure. That type of aid, favored by the United Nations and Europeans puts money into other farmers pockets and risks to stimulate the competition. That smacks of communism to us.

The food crisis is exacerbated by the oil crisis and the two markets are now marching in lockstep. So much oil is needed to produce food at current yields that any price movement in oil is immediately reflected in food. This mechanism is key but often ignored in the media. Nobody likes to be reminded that it takes us on average 8-9 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. The other problem is one known as a vicious circle. The higher food prices go, the more demand there is for pesticides and fertilizers in order to drive up yields. Because money can be made. That puts further pressure on oil prices, effectively nullifying all yield gains and making food even more pricey.

The second player is biofuels. This brain-dead idea is wreaking havoc with all agricultural planning. It too is especially powerful in the midwest, a major food exporter and provider for the world. Here farmers can see dollar bills in ethanol and ethanol plants are springing up quicker than bars after Prohibition. No wonder Iowans think biofuels are manna from heaven.

As for their impact on global warming, it is 100% negative. I have already pointed out the biofuels can only hope to affect global warming by driving food prices so high that many people will starve. And less people will mean less pollution. At least for a while until we all catch up. Meanwhile in the West, we could do with some high prices. That way we may be able to cure our latest health threat, the epidemic of obesity that is about to overwhelm our health care system.

All of these concerns are temporary of course. It is estimated that before 2025 the US will stop exporting food in any case. If the population keeps growing and keeps consuming at today's rates there won't be enough land to produce a surplus crop. And considering all the runoff into the Gulf of Mexico, there won't be any more seafood there either.

Time to get out the SUV. Gentlemen, start your engines.