Why food inflation has skyrocketed out of control
electricsheep.substack.com
electricsheep.substack.com
In truth, the planet produces enough food to feed its billions, but most of this is produced in affluent, developed nations where supply outstrips demand by a large margin, so a third of the supply ends in landfills as food waste (https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048452) instead of going where it's needed, particularly Africa and South America where "undernourishment and severe food insecurity are on the rise" (from the UN article linked earlier).
This is not a bureaucratic issue, or an issue with regulations etc. Rather, the people who make the food that feed us all don't make it because they want to feed us, but because they want to turn a profit. If they can't turn a profit, then they don't sell the food. So it's a matter of distribution, and economics and not a matter of regulation, or technology.
As to GMOs, green hysteria aside, GMOs address the wrong problem at best, throw fuel to the fire at worst: where there is a problem of distribution, as in the developing world, GMOs address a non-existent problem of supply. Where there is oversupply, as in the developed world, they just exacerbate it.
To be perfectly honest I'm not an expert in any of this and the above is my clunky, probably half-wrong version of what's going on, that I've pieced together from my patchy knowledge of the food production business (I make cheese, not for a living, but it has given me a narrow perspective from which I think I can safely extrapolate, up to a point). The most alarming part of the truth is that most people -in developed and developing nations alike- do not understand where their food comes from, who makes it, how they make it and where it ends up when they don't eat it. We have centralised food production, made our lives in cities far away from wher the food is made, built our societies around producing all sorts of things we can't eat- and now we're all paying the price. Because, what it all comes down to is that human needs food badly and there's no way around that.
Here's a paper (I am certain there are a lot, expressing every possible view point) http://www.fao.org/3/ag301t/ag301t.pdf
I think the abstract sums things up well:
> Although food aid can have negative unintended consequences, the empirical evidence is thin and often contradictory. The available evidence suggests that harmful effects are most likely to occur when food aid arrives or is purchased at the wrong time, when food aid distribution is not well targeted to the most food insecure households, and when the local market is relatively poorly integrated with broader national, regional and global markets
This assertion (which I think is sound) re-emphasis the importance of the entire system working well, not just having cheap supply.
Another thing to help think about the first world's "food waste" problem (and I do think its something we need to manage), is to imagine what the target food waste goal should be. How much over-supply on average do we want to insure us against shocks and disruptions? For shits and giggles, I looked at the USDA's stats on bushels of wheat harvested (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/result.php?9...) from 2000 to 2019. The average (both mean and median) production divided by minimal over that time frame is ~1.3. I think that helps set an useful scale.
Reading more carefully, and thinking more, I am not disagreeing with you, except maybe when you say it's not a matter of regulation, in the sense that I believe that regulation hugely impacts distribution.
Your statement is very general in nature. I assume you mean humans, and I assume by feeding you mean a sustainable process. Would you please quote your sources here? The modern industrial agriculture that keeps modern society alive is based on efficiency innovations such as the Haber Bosch process, soil management, antibiotics, automation, transportation etc that being huge scale effects. Personally, I have no idea of the human population ceiling if all were optimally distributed home farmers. It sure would come with inefficiencies.
source: had some interesting conversions with individuals from the from BASF/Cargill/Tyson Foods.
> To be perfectly honest I'm not an expert (...)
It is a super complex topic - biology, farming, engineering, markets. Hard to be an expert here. Let us hope one shows up and writes a comment :^)
Enough food is produced today to feed everyone on the planet, but hunger is on the rise in some parts of the world, and some 821 million people are considered to be “chronically undernourished”. What steps are being taken to ensure that everyone, worldwide, receives sufficient food?
The first sentence includes a link to the source of the claim.
What do you mean by "inefficiecies" at the end of your second paragraph?
> What do you mean by "inefficiecies" at the end of your second paragraph?
I mostly mean the effects of scale that large food production centers can bring. These usually manifests in specialized workforce and efficient use of financial resources e.g. 2-3 shift slaughterhouses, use of large mashines for agriculture, soil management. In effect, this allows for a larger part of the populace to take another role in society than being a farmer e.g. ideally doctor, professor, teacher, construction worker, taxi driver, et cetera.
PS (1) I am a fan of permaculture and eating from my own garden, and I see that there are many a defect in the way we are producing food these days. (2) The World Food Program has some great successes to show for, and I admire many of those systemic grass roots projects.
(Of course we could just do it by force, but that has other issues)
Because supplementation programs failed, that's two.
Because people most in need are simultaneously too poor and in areas that aren't well served by modern distribution networks, that's three.
What the target, people suffering from lack of vitamin A in among other places India, however, do have:
Diet that is heavily dependant on rice, that's one
Considerable access to rice as locally produced staple crop, that's two.
Don't need any new distribution or support in order to grow Golden Rice vs. existant local cultivars and have a supply network for it already in place, that's three.
Can anyone find this?
Their latest bulletin[1] doesn't seem to say this as far as I can see.
There is "East Africa: Prices of coarse grains followed mixed trends in April; exceptionally high levels persist in the Sudan and South Sudan" but that seems to be offset by "Domestic prices of rice generally stable in April with exception of some main exporters where they decreased; those of wheat followed mixed trends"
Their price trend release[2] is also mixed news.
[1] http://www.fao.org/3/cb4720en/cb4720en.pdf
[2] http://www.fao.org/giews/food-prices/international-prices/de...
"It also marked the twelfth consecutive monthly rise in the value of the FFPI to its highest value since September 2011"
Chart: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/images/home...
Historical chart: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/images/home...
Summary page is here: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/
The specific graph that captures that point would be here:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/worldfood/images/home...
Note that the 'real' line (yellow) hit its last peak in 2011.
1) Famines (not the same thing as food inflation) are typically man-made, or CERTAINLY man amplified
2) While the biggest 20th century famine events can easily be laid at the feet of authoritarian governments, our current global system has capitalism playing a similar threat. I feel like the heart of this article is wrapped up in this paragraph:
> The cartel of western farmers want to export their product as cheaply as possible, which opens them up to all sorts of Black Swan risks. When the music inevitably stops, the countries that were net-importers of these commodities take the hit while these massive cartels, many of whom are subsidized by their governments, can afford to do so and live another day.
Now, of course the hilarious reason why western farmers (partly) have so much to export is because of food security incentives that their domestic governments have in place to ensure enough capacity in production to absorb various shocks. Which I felt that the author should have brought up.
The systematic overproduction of agricultural product by rich countries for food security has actually kept global prices low, even with the increase in demand from population growth. The recent movements in the price index are not obviously part of a long term trend (and with all that passed in 2020-21 it will be difficult to distinguish what is a trend and what is a one-off shock).
I would like to read an article that looks at these themes in more depth.
Unfortunately, when you stomp efficiency in one place, it'll tend to pop up somewhere else. Usually in the places without money, because they can't afford the luxury of inefficiency. That that makes them really, really susceptible to your point (1): they're vulnerable to anybody in power with their finger on the artery.
It's aggravating, because we've got so much technology that we managed to get out ahead of the arithmetic/exponential conflicts that were reasonably predicted to cause serious hardship. We can feed 8 billion people. It's hateful that a relatively small number of people in just the right places can starve billions at once.
So the problem worthy of note with GDP is veracity of the figure? Not an economist, but I thought the problem was that it doesn't illuminate important aspects of the economy we'd want to know-- e.g., whether there's an increasing income disparity in the given nation.
huh?
GMO: Don't trust the science.
Choose one or the other. Hypocrisy isn't a good look.
But seriously, some sources would be appreciated.
They are not my claims, it's the current state of the art regarding GMOs, and one which anyone with a cursory interest in the subject is very well aware.
If you honestly have any interest in the subject, you can start by reading articles such as:
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-0...
I have very little interest at all about GMOs, but I realize that it's good to know things about things I don't really care about. It's not curiosity that will carry me through the paper but more obligation that I should know more about these things.
Some times you have to read through long articles because it might change your mind on current events even if what you really want to do is stick it all in a drawer and never open it again.
"GMO is bad" may be true but I never seen a good sources supporting it.
What I encountered was always on a level of astrology, new age, homeopathy, vaccines-cause-autism quackery.
But any good anti-vaxxer can shower you with links to published papers.
Any source should have to pass three tests.
1: is it good science? Does it even say what you think it does?
2: Does it indict a specific varietal? For instance a paper identifying a risk with Bt Corn may or may not identify a risk with Golden Rice.
3: What's the risk/benefit?
But I would gladly be educated on this matter of course.
Any more, I regard GMO as just another form of rent seeking (corporatism). In this context, I haven't thought of a way the GMO trait would change the trend towards monocultures. Maybe accelerate it?