Where's the global food crisis taking us?
Written by: Ruth Gidley

Slum dwellers collect drinking water from a submerged hand-pump after heavy rains in the northern Indian city of Allahabad, June 2008. REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash
In five years' time, we could be living in a world where millions are dying in famines with no food aid to hand, regular storms and droughts wipe out acres of crops, and skyrocketing food prices have created global political panic, food experts say. But there might be a way out. Or a combination of ways. "(The) tectonic plates are shifting on food... the fundamentals are changing." Timothy Lang, a researcher for British-based foreign policy think tank Chatham House, said at a talk in London this week. Food costs have shot upwards so quickly that even a consumer in a rich country who doesn't usually keep track of the price of bread will have noticed it. And anyone who counts the pennies has been feeling the pinch already, as global food prices have risen 83 percent over the last three years. The food crisis is intimately linked to energy factors and environmental issues, Lang and his colleagues argue, and they need to be tackled together. Consumers might have a stake in pushing companies and governments towards change. Lang suggests there might come a point where customers are as concerned about their "grain footprint" as their "carbon footprint" and will want to buy products safe in the knowledge they're not inadvertently taking food out of someone else's mouth. "It puts the Western diet in question," Lang says. Cutting down on inappropriate consumption of meat and dairy foods would be in everyone's interests. It's the least efficient kind of food production, and these are the foods that create health problems when people eat too much of them. Getting away from intensive meat production and back to seasonal farming would make a big difference, Lang argues. Obesity is costing the developed world more and more, and it's not just a rich-world problem. Something like 5 percent of people in sub-Saharan Africa are obese too, Lang says. When it comes to tackling the amount of food we waste, Japan and South Korea are already working on this, Lang says. But everyone else needs to follow. JUST A BLIP? Politicians are also going to have to back off biofuels to avoid descending into the worst-case food crisis scenario. Evans argues they not only compete with food for land use, but require more energy to produce than they generate. And there'll need to be some major changes to international trade and to the humanitarian system. As hunger becomes endemic, he argues development experts will have to move away from the concept of short-term emergency relief. But maybe this food crisis is just a blip? The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests prices will spike and then fall again. Sadly, that's unlikely, Chatham House's experts say. Lang's colleage, Alex Evans says the OECD prediction underplays climate change and energy prices, and the factors that have led us here are only going to get bigger. Oil prices - which hit the food industry hard, not just in transport costs but in fertilisers too - are unlikely to fall as we get closer to using up the world's reserves. India and China's growth shows no sign of slowing, and the hunger for meat among their growing middle classes is a major factor in pushing grain prices up. It's not just that demand is getting bigger, but there are limits on how much it's possible to increase supply. Climate change is a major factor, reducing land that's available for cultivation and generating more weather disasters that wipe out food crops. And the amount of land that could be cultivated with food is finite. The Chatham House researchers quote estimates from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation that at most 12 percent more of the world's land could be planted with crops to eat. WORLD POPULATION Speculation on commodity markets as investors look for a safe bet away from the weak dollar and falling equity and bond markets has contributed to price rises, but probably not that much, Evans says. The world's population is rising, of course, although Evans says that's not really a big issue in the long term. It will probably stabilise mid-century at around 8 to 12 billion, which is nonetheless an increase on our current size of around 6.2 billion. The biggest issue isn't really food production, either - there's enough to go round if it's distributed fairly. Evans says that as inequality between countries is falling, it is rocketing within them, particularly within developing countries, and above all in emerging economies such as China, where the difference between the top 20 percent and the bottom 20 percent has grown by 40 percent over the last three years. And when water shortages really start to hit, Lang says it could affect food costs even more than oil prices have. So 60 years of low food prices have come to an abrupt end. What happens if the world doesn't adapt, and food costs just keep on rising? In the worst-case scenario, humanity will be struggling to cope with wars and deadly famines, new diseases, water shortages, and storms and droughts that wipe out crops. Oil will cost something like $200 a barrel, and there will probably be a global recession as food prices keep on rising. How will governments respond to citizens' anger about the cost of food? Evans points out that this is the year humanity becomes predominantly urban. "Consumers are more visible in cities, especially when they riot," he says. There were demonstrations or riots over food in 37 countries last year, and governments mostly responded by shutting down exports and trying to protect their own supplies. RIOTS AND UPRISINGS Even in wealthier countries, unrest could be on the cards. In Britain, for example, we've had 90 years with no trouble about land. "That might be coming to an end," he says. So far, governments have tended to react to political crises in their own countries with short-term economic policies that are ultimately counterproductive. Right now it's hard to see how governments, world bodies, corporations and ordinary people in both developing and developed countries can come together to tackle this crisis, even if analysts identify the steps we'd need to take. Evans says: "We may well reach a situation in which relative inequality can have absolute implications for the world's poor, and in which a burgeoning middle class inadvertently takes food beyond the purchasing power of the world's poorest people. Indeed, we may already be there." Chatham House briefing papers are online:
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
5 responses to “Where's the global food crisis taking us?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
Ruth Gidley has been on the AlertNet team since late 1999. Before that, she lived in Guatemala, working first with a small local NGO and then as a journalist for a Central American news service. Ruth, who has a Masters in Latin American Studies, has edited a book on human rights in Guatemala, and written chapters for books on truth monuments and on Native American traditions.

05 Jul 2008 12:20:31 GMT
The "war on terror" came along just in time to justify all the police state laws required in the near future to control the masses. Some of us don't see this as in any way a coincidence. If we really had a free press in the West, others might come to the same conclusion.
05 Jul 2008 12:21:39 GMT
Before hyper-inflation completely destroys the dollar, buy tools, non-GM seeds, "how to" books, canning supplies, etc. Given the facts, which no one disputes, if you are not taking steps to feed yourself and loved ones you are in DENIAL. We either change our priorities and learn the time-tested (though largely forgotten) arts of self-sufficiency; or, when the food runs out, we sit on the curb and wait for FEMA to bus us to a government detention center; or, we tough it out on our own and watch our familiies slowly STARVE.
In other words, consciously or unconsiously, every morning we look at ourselves in the mirror and choose between freedom, slavery, or death. To live as a free man or woman, to live as a slave, or die. Dying's not so hard; people do it all the time. For some, it's an improvement. Slavery's a little harder, but even a slave can look forward to three (well, one, anyway) "hots and a cot." Some people actually enjoy being slaves and can't function unless they're being told what to do and what to think. For some, even slavery will be an improvement. Freedom, though. Whew. As hard as it gets.15 Jul 2008 09:40:44 GMT
I agree with Timothy Lang. According to various studies (e.g. check out http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-big-question-is-changing-our-diet-the-key-to-resolving-the-global-food-crisis-809566.html , 100 million tons of grain are being diverted to make biofuel this year, but over seven times as much (760 million tons) will be used to feed animals to produce meat. Depending on the type of animal, it takes up to, and sometimes more than, 10 plant calories to deliver 1 meat calorie. Meat consumption is therefore by far the biggest waste of grain globally.
Possible ways of future nutrition without livestock are presented at http://www.futurefood.org30 Jul 2008 10:41:06 GMT
A very sobering comment on the death struggle of our Western economic CAPITALIST lifestyle. We need to form groups of people with knowledge on systems for growing food organically in what we may call "Community Gardens" for the aged & infirm staffed by unemployed youth!
31 Jul 2008 07:42:24 GMT
What is missed by those "making the decisions" is that the baseline assets of the Planet are soil water vegetation atmosphere all else commodities. While the so called developed nations delay in implementing true Global CO2e reduction here in China we are sequestering C4 the assets are interlocked. The sink vegetation(photosynthesis pathway) sequesters CO2 to Kyoto articles 3.3 and 3.4 restarting the Carbon (and elements) cycle and in time re-start the rain cycle to Alps. Much of the "biofuels" strips in time the carbon (carbon transfer)from the soil desert follow again plus energy to used in deliver produce disposal of waste in CO2e emission terms the process is totally negative. The rush to plant out C3 trees like most rice cotton grains ultimate result in deserts. A rain forest is total dependent upon the C4 under-storey. We will capture 25bt CO2 minimum here by 2011. Trees are much needed but need soil carbon. We need a new manner of thinking and global "leadership" if mankind is to survive to hand over to the historians of tomorrow. we need hands on replicating Natures billion year model of adjust and re-balancing the baseline assets. It ain't hard in-fact with know-how it makes money if that is the driving motive of Current advisers from industry to current "leaders". Robert Vincin China (hands on)See WWW