May be this can lead to a direct conclusion that Americans listen to their Moms better than Indians when they say ... "Don't let that food go to waste. There are starving kids in ________"

Actually I don't understand one aspect of the crisis. The food habits of Americans (non-desi food) is totally different from Indians. I wonder how much of what America consumes here is prepared from rice, cereals etc. imported from India and China. If diet of American is not made from stuff abroad then main contributing factor to price increase has to be factors like land diversion for biofuels, transportation costs due to gasoline price increase ( which definitely has Indian and Chinese hand ). A way in which Bush could be right is that weakening dollars has led to a surge in exports across many industries. Now coupled with the fact the American agriculture is one of the most heavily subsidized industry, maybe the American grains and cereals are dirt cheap in the world markets and are being bought by Indians and Chinese ? But does India buy any food ( not definitely corn ?) from America.

Anyways a recent news article on ways to fix the problem - 8 Ways to Fix the Global Food Crisis

Amardeep,

if you have an hour to kill (or less, there are smaller segments of the discussion) there's a very good discussion of food supply/aid/production issues on bloggingheads.tv between Raj Patel (lefty economist) and Megan McArdle (center-right libertarian econoblogger).

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10819

Where in Bush's comments does he suggest that Americans deserve to eat more than Indians? Beyond that, Americans have been eating at the current pace well before the current food crisis. So, the current high price of food is not related to Americans' eating habits.

though I have a strong feeling that that demand started to rise more than a decade ago. It’s those other factors that, as I understand it, have really converged this year to drive up prices.

Ajay Shah on Global Food Prices

On May 2, George W. Bush explained that the current spike in food prices worldwide is primarily a consequence of rising demand from China and India

I think that the question of whether or not Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians (or any other foreign country) isn't a concious or blatant racial superiority issue, but a reflection of the mindset brought about by an economically prosperous history. America, while experiencing its own bouts with famine, has generally been advantaged enough to be able to provide food for its citizens. I think that what comes off as "blaming" these countries is really a reaction to the strain imposed upon that assumed lifestyle. People attempt to provide a reason for the situation and (inadvertently?) come off as superior. Maybe Americans at large aren't familiar with the food situation in China and India and assume that people there are living as we are here.

I would agree that based on reading these comments, I feel people are way over reacting to his comments. He did not say anything to the effect that people in India and China need to reduce consumption. However, such issues are usually sensitive and this is being looked upon as another 'western politicians' for blaming developing countries for problems arising because those countries are now doing better. This comment by itself would not have evoked such a strong reaction IMHO, but it comes close at the heels of comments in recent times related to global warming and greenhouse gases where the view that historical pollution and per capita pollution should be taken into consideration brings western diplomats at odds with Indian and Chinese ones. And then there is the issue of agricultural subsidies and western hypocrisy related to that which also irks people, all of which has culminated into this over reaction.

Of course, related to this issue, some estimates say that about 40% of the food consumed in the US is actually plain wasted. 40% of a 3000 calorie diet will bring Americans close to other countries and this wastage should be reduced. The good thing about rising food prices is that since it is a supply side inflation issue, it will help reduce excessive consumption and particularly wastage. However, unfortunately with food (unlike gas), it being a necessity means that the poorest will go hungry which is not how it should be.

A more interesting comparison would be the caloric intake of middle/upper class Indians and Americans. My guess is that it would be the same.

Bush always plays to his base. If any of you have read analysis about Bush, he always makes statements that suite well for conservatives (probably except the backing of the McCain-Feingold immigration issue of last year). Plus, he knows the subsidizes in Iowa deal with the rising food prices (plus the Fed's low interest rates). He wants to shift the blame to others, which makes sense politically. Well, it technically is true that Indians and Chinese people are consuming more, the root of the problem is with the lack of foreign farm competition (meaning the subsizies are raising the food prices, which inhibits a decrease in food prices around the world). Not to mention India prohibits future markets for food commodities, which is crazy as well.

Another factor in rising food costs is fuel....and another aspect of the rising fuel costs....that is almost NEVER discussed......is the fact that a great many American "investors" are doing their part to drive the price of gas up by treating it like a commodity....much like Gold is traded....this was not so much a factor before the Bush administration took office....some think more than half the risingf fuel cost problem is due to "investors," most of which have enough goddamned money already.....

“Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?”

My guess is that most Americans now know that they should be eating more like Indians (more vegetarian, less calories etc), but just can't help themselves.

As for Bush's comment - it just shows how out of touch he can be. Supply side inflation and instability has so much more to do with food prices this year, than any demand spike. This link shows commodity prices since Jan 1. Some food prices have spiked 30% in four months. Those Chindians are not just eating, they must be purging too! Those gluttons!

....a reflection of the mindset brought about by an economically prosperous history.... ....I think that what comes off as "blaming" these countries is really a reaction to the strain imposed upon that assumed lifestyle....

This kind of conflicts ( who is blame, who has to pay and who ahs to sacrifice ) will become more and more common on many fronts as the rest of the world rises. Look at global warming and other environmental issues, food crisis, CTBT/NPT and in general arms control etc. to mention a few.

11 · Vedauwoo said

Another factor in rising food costs is fuel....and another aspect of the rising fuel costs....that is almost NEVER discussed......is the fact that a great many American "investors" are doing their part to drive the price of gas up by treating it like a commodity....much like Gold is traded....this was not so much a factor before the Bush administration took office....some think more than half the risingf fuel cost problem is due to "investors," most of which have enough goddamned money already.....

Actually, India & China are consuming more oil than ever before (I mean look at their populations), and oil is a finite good. Food isn't finite; the problem is protectionism to aid the farmers in the U.S. Low interest rates, the weak dollar, invading Iraq, and Indian & China are the reasons why oil cost is high.

"I wonder how much of what America consumes here is prepared from rice, cereals etc. imported from India and China"
Amazingly, Japan imported rice from the US--not sure if that's true right now, but it was during the 70s & 80s. The US was the major grain exporter until recent years. This food crisis, at least in western countries, is contrived. Until recent years there was a food surplus in this country. They were paying farmers not grow or milk or feed. Then they sort of paid them to go out of business so the corps. could take over and make a big conglomerate out of food production They who control the seeds, control the world.
But yeah, of course if each overweight American sent at least one cheeseburger a day to Africa, one packet of fries to India, and several Mars bars to Burma, the problem would be solved.

part to drive the price of gas up by treating it like a commodity.

Oil, natural gas, and coal has always been treated, traded, and priced as a commodity. Also, is historically known for it's fluctuations.

Please read Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power

>>Look at global warming and other environmental issues, food crisis,

Everybody and their mother is being blamed for high food prices, except the party that's largely responsible: Environmentalists and the Global Warming brigade. Because of them, America was forced into the ethanol scam, thus diverting scarce resource usage to produce "environment friendly" ethanol.

The poor and hungry should step away from the offices of futures traders and take their pitchforks to the doorsteps of environmentalists (who are suddenly verrry silent) and demand their pound of flesh.

M. Nam

All he is saying is increasing demand, well, is increasing demand.

Why on earth is Indian officialdom so touchy about everything? Chip on shoulder, much? Yes, ethanol policies are ridiculous, but, there is lots of ridiculousness to go around. Bad governance is quite common.

Well, meat intensive diets aren't particularly good for the foodgrains crisis. Beef requires large amounts of grazing ground which means its land not being used for foodgrain production, A vegetarian diet also means that less energy is lost in the transfer of calorific value.

And, where on earth did you get the idea that Americans think they deserve to eat more than the rest of the world? Aren't we a major food exporter? Big bad Americans - we run a successful country and it's our problem other governments can't do much for their own people?

*If I were a politician abroad I would love the Americans. They would be my excuse for, well, every failing of my own.

**No, I'm not saying we never make mistakes. I'm saying the rhetoric is ridiculous.

if each overweight American sent at least one cheeseburger a day to Africa, one packet of fries to India, and several Mars bars to Burma, the problem would be solved.

Yeah, the burgers, frites, candy aid recipients would all be dead. Problem solved ;)

18 · MD said

Why on earth is Indian officialdom so touchy about everything?

I remember reading about Big Brother last year in London (with Shilpa Shetty on it), and this Irish lady said a thing that could be considered offensive (Ms. Poppa Dom). There was an outcry in India (even from the politicians). NRI's face a lot of racism compared to people in India. What she said wasn't the worst thing...same with what Bush said.

20 · MD said

I'm saying the rhetoric is ridiculous

Bush's statement was political rhetoric and Indian politicians are responding with the same. Now people are dissecting the logical, scientific and economic validity which gave rise to the rhetoric in the first place.

MD,

The successful country is looking to blame the problems on other people, with decades of driving gas guzzling cars and excessive consumption the shoe is on the other foot and the successful country is acting high and mighty, with the current president blaming Chindia for the food problem and the Republican nominee wanting to control India and China's energy consumption. The world is happier if the successful country remains successful and the rest of world stays in misery

Oh, I guess I should clarify - I don't much care for our lot of American politicians, pundits, and assorted flunkies these days. Servants of the people? Eh, not so much.

I think we shouldn't allow government officials and bureaucrats to manipulate us so much. We let these silly instances get in the way of true reforms. It's irritating.

Some of you need to look up the difference between blame and explain. It's right there in the dictionary.

I'm not saying it was a good explanation, but an explanation is not the same as blaming. Like I said, touchy touchy!

*When India is the new hegemon, 50 to 100 years from now, it will all be chest-thumping about how you lot earned your success all on your own. You'll be just the same, trust me :)

MD,

Thanks for looking up the dictionary and our future. The distinction between Blame and Explain is entirely your own and not your hon. presidents'

*When India is the new hegemon, 50 to 100 years from now, it will all be chest-thumping about how you lot earned your success all on your own. You'll be just the same, trust me :)

MD Mausi,

How was Fallujah as a medic? You seem all fired up.

It is very understandable a countries that for long struggled (and still does) with food and poverty, would get touchy, if told that the main explanation for food prices upswing were them.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Amardeep:

Shouldn't it be kerfuffle?

25 · MD said

I don't much care for our lot of American politicians, pundits, and assorted flunkies these days

But you reading this blog :)

You are a rude person, Kush Tandon.

And you, in particular and your chickenhawk insults, are the reason I stopped reading and writing on this blog for so very long.

So, since you are back, I am gone now again.

Bye all :)

Ok, I lied.

After this link, I'll go.

Here's what a bunch of people who have served think about the chickenhawk label. It's all over the place, naturally.

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/04/chickenhawk-argument-revisited.html

Okay, really good bye!

20 · MD said

Aren't we a major food exporter?

You forgot to mention the huge subsidies the US provides to its farmers and major agri-businesses to make US produce competitive in international markets and drive third world farmers out of business.
[Or the the exploitative practices of American agri-business abroad (seeds and Monsanto; although, admittedly there is little the US Govt can do to prevent this).]

Funny how conveniently principles of free trade are forgotten when it comes to agriculture and then the amnesia wears away when US diplomats negotiate WTO provisions on behalf of the pharma industry. Not to mention the selective recall of the democratic principle of equality. The world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol -- because India and China won't. If every individual in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country. In that case, India and China can justifiably emit more than the US (which they don't -- per capita emission, resource consumption, and waste generation is several times lower) simply because they have more people.

We might be used to gaffes from our president as a matter of routine. No reason why the rest of the world shouldn't call him out on his rather peculiar rendering of facts and tolerate his fudging (no mention of ethanol? bad weather because of global warming?). After all, they didn't make the mistake of electing him in the first place.

And you, in particular and your chickenhawk insults, are the reason I stopped reading and writing on this blog for so very long.

Who would have thought that a poor dehati like Kush Tandom from village Sukanda could scare a battle hardened, gizillion military blogs reading warrior like MD!

The 2400 calorie/per desi figure doesn't seem right at all given the amount of malnourished Indians. Or if it is the top 20% is eating over 4,000/day. I have seen the number of UKG students per rickshaw decrease from 10 in 1985 to to 2 in 2008. Upper middle class Indian kids wouldn't have anything to fear sitting on a seesaw with little Johnny from Cleveland.

If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India,many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates, Mehta said

Why do people persist in portraying INDIA as starving, when its clearly a problem exclusive to sub-Saharan Africa?

fat city# 15 said They who control the seeds, control the world.

I've read several Op-Ed's and other stuff on how the EU and America's "left" have contributed to problems in food production ,by its resistance to GMO crops etc, which hurts underdeveloped countries;which sounds plausible at points. I've just finished the Vanity Fair piece on Monsanto, and I have to suspect if they can push American farmers around with such impunity that a poor farmer in the developing world Africa would have no hope.

For centuries millennia farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head. Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. It's not like describing a widget, says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto's activities in rural America for years. Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world's food supply"

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "what's this got to do with the price of tea in China?"

9 · ata said

A more interesting comparison would be the caloric intake of middle/upper class Indians and Americans. My guess is that it would be the same.

no -- just the consumption of animal and dairy products in america would tip the scale heavier on their side. food in india (in terms of PPP) is more expensive (especially calorie dense processed food which is still expensive in india). you would spend a greater percentage of an equivalent salary on food in india than in america.

however, if you compared physical activity of upper middle class indian and american women who stay at home and are not employed in the paid jobs, i suspect that will be similar.

MD, I wondered where you had gone. Come back. Contribute. I like reading your posts.

Some of the rise in prices of commodities, grains included, must be attributed to the drop in the USD. With a negative rate of return (after factoring inflation), I suspect that large investors are in euros, oil, precious metals and now commodities like grains.
I did not hear Indian politicians complain when rise in oil was attributed to Chindia. At that time it probably played well with the Indian psyche due to oil's connection growth, industrialization and mobility.

Dilettante:

Why do people persist in portraying INDIA as starving, when its clearly a problem exclusive to sub-Saharan Africa?

It might be an issue of semantics, but that large numbers of Indians are malnourished to the point of negatively impacting full growth potential and cognitive ability is not a misconception. I do agree that starvation leading to death in the near term is not as prevalent, but certainly India suffers from diminished potential due to caloric deficit at a level that does not exist anywhere else outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

Oh, why do I bother to pretend I won't come back to a thread? I'm really a fool to pretend that I'm not interested in what people have to say. It's like I'm an 18 year old in a chat room

First, I was responding to the silly rhetoric. I'm not talking about the substantive disagreements on trade and trade policy. I'm against the farm subsidies and I'm from Iowa, okay? It's the article and the quotes that got me thinking. They are over the top. They really are.

Second,I started reading milblogs, not because I am some kind of chest thumping warmonger, but because I was genuinely curious about their experiences. Also, I felt guilty. My illness precludes me from serving and the least I could do is read and learn as much as I possibly can. There.

Third, if I feel any shame, it's not because I had a political belief that differed from those on this blog, but that I was too light-hearted and playful in comments about things that are to be taken seriously.

Fourth, In that vein, the chickenhawk insult is just the other side of the coin. It's no different in tone than the warmongery milbloggers, because it's just snark. Those who use the term often haven't served themselves, and of those, there are people who supported the interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. And yet, they don't serve. Are they not also chickenhawks? I'll accept the term from someone in the military, but not another civilian blogger.

Fifth, I'm not scared off by anyone. Why should this comment section be polluted by a back and forth between two people who don't like each other? It's disrespectful to everyone here.

Okay, who knows if I'll be back. I obviously have a blogging problem and addiction :)

Ughh, no matter who ends up being the next president, I am certain (and grateful) we won't have to deal with these tactless cringe-inducers anymore.

There are too many koenigseggs on the road.

If every individual in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.

I would prefer this to be:
If every individual and cattle in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.

However, in all fairness, it should be:
The GDP ratio of a country with respect to the total world GDP should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.

When John McCain is elected President, the subsidies will disappear, and thus, food will be a little cheaper. Once the dollar appreciates, food will be even cheaper.

The GDP ratio of a country with respect to the total world GDP should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.

Why should basic principles of democracy get thrown out the window when it comes to the world order (except for the obvious reason that it favors the wealthy and powerful)? Although I guess we have that same logic for the crimes that the rich and the famous can get away with in our criminal system, so it is a logical extension.

Not to mention the selective recall of the democratic principle of equality.

This is key. Bush and Condi's statements about the ravaging hordes of Chindians are just a logical extension of their way of thinking about pollution and how much they think the US is entitled to spit gases, based on this bogus calculation on a country basis with no accounting of population. Or the fact that a large fraction of Chinese pollution is, at least, outsourced from the US.

And more directly on topic: Last I knew, India and China have been growing for a tad longer than since last year. Maybe, just maybe, the massive weather fluctuations and the claiming of farm land for ethanol have led to a supply crunch. But what do I know? I don't control the free world.

43 · amaun said

The GDP ratio of a country with respect to the total world GDP should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.

really? in that case, since women not doing any wage labor should have zero emissions rate because technically their contribution to the GDP is zilch, nada. But that is no problem because everyone knows well-bred ladies don't fart or burp.

really now, proportional GDP contribution?

1. so if you're rich, you can consume all the energy you like because you contribute more to the world GDP? what about structural factors which do not allow poor people to contribute to the GDP as much as they like? because bill gates makes so much contribution to US GDP, he/microsoft should be allowed to pollute more than other individuals/industries? your metric will encourage countries with big GDPs to give up efforts to curb emissions. given their high GDPs, they will be allowed to emit more. consequently, they will acquire an even bigger competitive advantage because they won't have to bear costs associated with lowering emissions. as a result their GDPs will grow even larger, increasing the amount they are allowed to emit. what a virtuous, er, vicious cycle.

2. and given that GDP of big countries is going to large (multiply a small number even by a billion or 2, it looks big) your metric will favor india and china over countries with lower fertility rates. it will also favor resource rich nations because they will tend to have higher GDPs because of their natural endowments such as minerals or oil (eg the saudi arabia, south africa). the fortunate made even more fortunate, thanks to asinine policy.

3. you should get in touch with cheney's people. you guys will see eye to eye on this one (see point #1, the section in bold font).

44 · Rahul S said

When John McCain is elected President, the subsidies will disappear, and thus, food will be a little cheaper.

Subsidies make food cheaper for the consumer. Remember, subsidies subsidize. It's easy.

your metric will encourage countries with big GDPs to give up efforts to curb emissions. given their high GDPs, they will be allowed to emit more. consequently, they will acquire an even bigger competitive advantage because they won't have to bear costs associated with lowering emissions. as a result their GDPs will grow even larger, increasing the amount they are allowed to emit. what a virtuous, er, vicious cycle.

In fact, this is the kind of cycle that was induced by carbon caps based on current usage. Of course, "current usage" was high for big polluters already, and additionally, it was calibrated in a way that encouraged people to rapidly increase their emissions so that they would get higher caps.

I have actually wondered about some environmentalists who smoke and are fatasses, yet will judge anyone with an SUV. I am overweight too and I feel like I need to clean up my own house first because I am part of the problem. I eat a lot of meat and will not make any apologies for it. However, for my own health, and for the environment, and for my tiny role in global food supply, I need to lose weight and eat moderately. There are just too many benefits from a personal and community perspective in doing so. Not just that, but it will also play a part in reducing healthcare costs.

Just to highlight something that was mentioned above since people are talking calorific values which I think does not paint a full picture. Americans have a much more higher percentage of meat in their diet than Indians and the equivalent amount of grains would be much higher per capita. Thus just considering pure calories is not a good approach.

Moornam - ethanol has played some part but it's not as substantial as you seem to suggest. For that matter rising oil prices (which influence both cost of production and transportation), droughts in places like Australia for a few years, and a messed up trading system in agriculture are all to blame to small extents. Speculative hoarding has also been cited by some economists but some recent articles show that reserves are going down and thus hoarding at least in the open market is not happening. The major reason for food price hike is that reserves have been diminishing for a few year because demand has gone up while supply has not. Now that the reserves are getting over, we are seeing a sudden spike as the world wakes up to a shortage.

47 · portmanteau said

44 · Rahul S said

When John McCain is elected President, the subsidies will disappear, and thus, food will be a little cheaper.

Subsidies make food cheaper for the consumer. Remember, subsidies subsidize. It's easy.

No. Subsidies protect the American farmer, and thus kills third world competition. Since this inhibits world competition of farmers, food prices go up. You're being sarcastic right? It's simply protectionism.

Dilettante asked:

Why do people persist in portraying INDIA as starving, when its clearly a problem exclusive to sub-Saharan Africa?

Maybe because Unicef said:

More than 1.5m children in India are at risk of becoming malnourished because of rising global food prices, the UN children's charity, Unicef, says. It warns that food inflation could be devastating for vulnerable women and children right across South Asia.
The region already has the largest number of malnourished children in the world and levels could get even worse. Even before the current crisis almost half of all Indian children showed signs of stunted growth, Unicef says. [Link]

You're right that they're not starving to death, Africa has high infant mortality, higher than India. However, and this isn't well known, India has higher morbidity, i.e. illness and malnutrition than African countries do.

MD - this also explains why people in India might be touchy about the food price issue. When a large number of children have their health at risk, being told that you were the cause of rising food prices (which isn't even analytically accurate) stings.

If every individual and cattle in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country

The GDP ratio of a country with respect to the total world GDP should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country

I think contributions are nmeasured by how much carbon dioxide is emitted and not which source is equal to some other or not. And since it is usually some kind of cost being transferred to people then "per capita" has to be taken it into account. What I don't understand is that Republican talk about entitlement spending but what abt entitlement consumption ?

US farm subsidies cost $320 / household.

No. Subsidies protect the American farmer, and thus kills third world competition. Since this inhibits world competition of farmers, food prices go up. You're being sarcastic right? It's simply protectionism.

The mechanism you refer to is more for tariffs. There competition is hindered by making their produce costlier through import duties. In subsidization, you are actually reducing the cost of production and thus other producers cannot compete because the produce is too cheap.

Of course, it's us the tax payer who is paying for these subsidies - thus indirectly its not cheaper since you are paying higher tax to ensure these subsidies. You have a point since we are paying for our own subsidy which then gets sold to the rest of the world at our expense for a below production cost rate. Also, A fair playing field/free market will allow producers in other parts of the world to innovate and eventually drive down true costs of production.

Long term subsidies are always a bad thing. Short term ones provide stimulus for investment and innovation, long term ones kill it.

No. Subsidies protect the American farmer, and thus kills third world competition. Since this inhibits world competition of farmers, food prices go up. You're being sarcastic right? It's simply protectionism.

yeah, all this is true, but the immediate short-term shock to food prices from removal of subsidies will result in a temporary increase in food prices. there will be some lag until various food producers adjust production. i'm not saying removing subsidies is a bad idea: only pointing out that increases in food prices is likely (contrary to your claim). subsidies do pass on cheaper food prices to consumers, but also take away from tax-paying households which finance them (i see that ennis has linked to a precise net figure).

Everybody and their mother is being blamed for high food prices, except the party that's largely responsible: Environmentalists and the Global Warming brigade.

Thank goodness not everybody is as ill-informed as Moornam. The rise of ethanol has a lot to do with the influential corn grower and farming lobby in the midwest, not because shaggy haired Birkenstock wearing hippies suddenly convinced the Bush administration to stick it to Detroit.

As for ethanol itself, there were many warnings from serious environmentalists even before it was adopted, both in terms of its efficiency directly as a fuel, and its carbon footprint purely in the process of converting corn to ethanol. In addition, many of the supporters - even those who believe in the obvious myth of global warming - wanted it as a stop gap, not a long term solution to all of the world's environmental problems. Furthermore, with ethanol, the devil is in the details. There are multiple forms: corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. The latter is usually from farming waste, and has fewer bad environmental implications than corn ethanol.

54 · Ennis said

US farm subsidies cost $320 / household.

No problem. That's like two tax rebate checks, so it's really a net positive for us.

(though I've admittedly never been able to count it out: how many calories in roti? rajma-chaval? chicken biryani?)

Me neither. The Diabetes India calorie counter has some suggestions, though:
Various styles of roti without ghee/oil - 92-94 calories each
Chicken biryani, 1 plate - 524 calories

Actually, Indians and Chinese peeps are consuming too much food. Diabetes is on the rise for these two groups. Plus, people don't work on the farms any more, and they eat gulab jamons (however you spell it) all the time. It especially happens to NRI's (like my grandma).

Rahul S,

Are you for real? Do you think before you type or you have to type the first thought that comes to your mind? Everyone in India eating Gulab Jamuns and people not working on farms, I have heard everything now

61 · Umber Desi said

Rahul S,

Are you for real? Do you think before you type or you have to type the first thought that comes to your mind? Everyone in India eating Gulab Jamuns and people not working on farms, I have heard everything now

Naw man. I'm for real. Let's analyze this. Diabetes has been on the run in India & China. Why? Their diet is changing & their ways of living are also. Indians & Chinese peeps used to farm like crazy, but now it's becoming more industrialized. Less working out, and Indians diet (not to stereotype), is based on sweets. I mean, desis eat a lot of sweets. I also read a study that stated that lot of NRI's get diabetes in 1st world countries because they have the opportunity to eat foods that their ancestors didn't (plus we really don't farm as much as we used to).

Various styles of roti without ghee/oil - 92-94 calories each Chicken biryani, 1 plate - 524 calories

Starving whitey by gorging on too many gulab jamuns - priceless.

GWB needs to shut the eff up and pack his bags.

That is all.

Plus, people don't work on the farms any more, and they eat gulab jamons (however you spell it) all the time. It especially happens to NRI's (like my grandma).

due to caloric deficit at a level that does not exist anywhere else outside of sub-Saharan Africa

Often overlooked by people like us (not living in India) is the fact that malnourishment exists in India at rates equal to or eclipsing what we find in sub-Saharan Africa.

That's a fact. It doesn't fit into the whole "India rising" or "India shining" message so it gets thrown aside.

The global food production/trading framework is perhaps the clearest example of how colonialist/mercantilist policies of yesterday still very much underpin the international trading order.

What this 'disagreement' between India and the US signals more than anything is how two countries on very different trajectories view the problem (and who is at fault).

The US will increasingly find itself challenged for control of the global system. This is just one small example: food. What about things like giving India a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Or, allowing for a non-westerner to be head of the IMF or World Bank?

You will find America increasingly unwilling to share it's plate when it comes to these fundamental issues of being more democratic in maintaining the new world order.

62 · Rahul S said

Indians diet (not to stereotype), is based on sweets. I mean, desis eat a lot of sweets.

really? as far as i know most of india can't even afford milk and sugar on a regular basis. now, would you kindly point us to some sources, or stop generalizing based on anecdotal data?

The money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead, he added.

And so could that excess fat.

Jus' sayin'.

as far as i know most of india can't even afford milk and sugar on a regular basis.

Things are a little better if you have a heart of stone, though.

Bush should listen to Volcker instead of looking eastward. The "Related Videos" section on top right has Volcker's testimony to the congressional Joint Economic Committee in Washington today.

Rice and dollar/Euro 1-year chart.

2006 Comparison Consumption of wheat, rice, corn, vegetable oil, milk, beef and chicken in USA, Europe, India and China. (in pounds per person) [link]

GRIN (great unreported inflation) acres: US farmer's costs per acre of corn -- fertlizer, land rent, seed, fuel, crop insurance -- in 2007 and 2008.

67 · let them eat cake said

62 · Rahul S said

Indians diet (not to stereotype), is based on sweets. I mean, desis eat a lot of sweets.

really? as far as i know most of india can't even afford milk and sugar on a regular basis. now, would you kindly point us to some sources, or stop generalizing based on anecdotal data?

Let me clarify. Desi's who are middle class (or richer) eat a lot of sweets. True. Stereotypes are true to a degree. No lie. Cultures retain certain aspects. Read Dinesh D'Souza's End of Racism. Good book.

desis are more prone to heart disease as reported by JAMA-pajama.

"Genes load the gun and environment pulls the trigger."

Read Dinesh D'Souza's End of Racism. Good book.

That's a good one... you made me laugh... tell another one.

What's so Great About America.

By Dinesh D'souza.

71 · Rahul S said

Let me clarify. Desi's who are middle class (or richer) eat a lot of sweets. True. Stereotypes are true to a degree. No lie. Cultures retain certain aspects. Read Dinesh D'Souza's End of Racism. Good book.

keeping in mind that in his latest 'scholarly' work (try citing it in a paper at any undergrad institution) he encouraged the reader to make common cause with OBL's friends on the social-con wing of extremist Islam and walk hand-in-hand, blaming teh gays/hollywood/teletubbies for all the ills in the world. Oh yeah, and according to him, 9/11 WAS an inside job--teh gays again!

What's so great about America? Brown guys can move here from third-world countries, drop contentious aspects of their identities (like difficult to pronounce first names--though this is more true of Bobby than Dinesh), make pathetic overtures to a right-wing conservatism looking for token posterboys, maybe find a politically well-connected spouse, pander relentlessly, feed the oversimplification of American history, extrapolate from the relatively easy experience you had getting a voice in this country, and write books for intellectual light-weights.

Is that what makes Amerika so gRRRReat?

I suggest looking up a real scholar... maybe Ron Takaki, his book "A Different Mirror" should be required reading. It deals with real history, not fitting scholarship to fit the needs of the Republican platform.

I seriously doubt that Dinesh's intellectual light bulb has the wattage to illuminate issues like the current food crisis.

Maybe the title of his next book can be, "Why is America's Food so Great?" There he can martial cherry-picked factoids, sprinle it with truisms, pander to people's sense of insecurity, and then leave them feeling better about themselves by reassuring them that only America's climate of freedom and market dynamic could bring us innovations like french fries smothered in cheese.

USA is a convenient symbol, the dreaded "foreign hand" (remember indira G. and her paranoia?) thats getting in the way of indians getting food. Its an easy way for indian politicians to focus attention away from their inability to build roads or schools or provide market infrastructure in rural areas.

Take a bus ride to 50 miles outside any indian city. Suddenly you will have gone back 1000 years. Dirt lanes, sewage flowing thru open drains, lack of any infrastructure. Farmers have no access to markets or storage facilities, food is still routinely dried and preserved in the open.

But as long as the votes are coming in, who cares?

Read more about it - India's Forgotten Farmers

If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, “many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates,” Mehta said. The money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead, he added.

i can point to instances from canadian media (including the publicly funded cbc), where the interviewer deliberately seeds the conversation to present an us and them slant - with the darkies usually getting the sharp end of the stick. one popular way the interviewer loads the discussion is by asking a closed end question on a hypothesis that reflects a partial but biased view of the situation. for instance - in stead of saying - "what do you think caused the famine?", they would ask, "do you think the corrupt government officials exacerbated the famine?". Why is this wrong? I agree that local corruption could be part of the problem, but what of the generational poverty, the poor supply chain, the multinational that squeezed out local grain and forced the farmer to grow gm crops, and what of the country that promised drought relief but sent thick woollen blankets to a land scorched by the sun. There is much more under the surface. I expect a well thought out essay and the soundbites infuriate me. These are just low brow maneuvers masked under the plummy tone and the sanctimonious claim to balanced canadian reporting.

OF COURSE the media has a role in propagating the myth that white is right - especially when the loudest, farthest reaching mouthpieces speak with a tongue that is not native to the non-european nations. as recently as a few years back it was not uncommon to see some desi government official repudiate a western pov in arcane, floral angrezi, in love with himself for his knowledge of the master's language. even if the counterpoint was valid, without the benefit of a hinglish-english translater, that spokesperson never stood a chance in the policy debate. it was easy to dismiss the counterpoint as the ramblings of an unintelligent gnome[because of the grade 7 language skills]. some shifts have occurred recently. al jazeera is the biggest counter-offensive; more real for the rest of us there is growing multiculti rep in the media, at least in canada. Much more exciting to me personally, the voices out of desh [i dont have visibility into china and africa owned media] are genuinely entertaining [entertainment trumps truth any day of course].

p.s. pliss excuse. the effect on the reader of my runon thoughts notwithstanding i know what i want to say.

Naw man. I'm for real. Let's analyze this. Diabetes has been on the run in India & China. Why? Their diet is changing & their ways of living are also. Indians & Chinese peeps used to farm like crazy, but now it's becoming more industrialized. Less working out, and Indians diet (not to stereotype), is based on sweets. I mean, desis eat a lot of sweets. I also read a study that stated that lot of NRI's get diabetes in 1st world countries because they have the opportunity to eat foods that their ancestors didn't (plus we really don't farm as much as we used to).

Aparna Ray from Kolkata coins her protest in a limerick:

"Prez George Bush, it has come to pass,
Has laid blame on our Middle Class.
It seems we have hurled,
The rest of the world,
Into crisis by not chewing grass!"

Rahul, I can't believe that you like D'Souza, he is a Desi Uncle Tom.

Read Dinesh D'Souza's End of Racism. Good book.

If you want decontextualized readings of things yeah.

76 · Krish**** said

What's so great about America? Brown guys can move here from third-world countries, drop contentious aspects of their identities (like difficult to pronounce first names--though this is more true of Bobby than Dinesh), make pathetic overtures to a right-wing conservatism looking for token posterboys, maybe find a politically well-connected spouse, pander relentlessly, feed the oversimplification of American history, extrapolate from the relatively easy experience you had getting a voice in this country, and write books for intellectual light-weights.

Is that what makes Amerika so gRRRReat?

I suggest looking up a real scholar... maybe Ron Takaki, his book "A Different Mirror" should be required reading. It deals with real history, not fitting scholarship to fit the needs of the Republican platform.

I seriously doubt that Dinesh's intellectual light bulb has the wattage to illuminate issues like the current food crisis.

Maybe the title of his next book can be, "Why is America's Food so Great?" There he can martial cherry-picked factoids, sprinle it with truisms, pander to people's sense of insecurity, and then leave them feeling better about themselves by reassuring them that only America's climate of freedom and market dynamic could bring us innovations like french fries smothered in cheese.

At least he has assimilated. Yea, you may disagree with his politics. But the thing is that new immigrants (mainly from south of the border) aren't assimilating. Worse off, their kids are are clinging on to their culture without assimilating to American culture. The fact is, the "new immigrants" are having way more kids out of wedlock than African Americans, and degrading our society. Not all, but a huge chunk. Check this national review article.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTY4NzEyODcxNTYxZWViYWQyOTAzNGI4YzZhMDlkNDg=

md, you aren't the only one (i don't agree with you about evertyhing, but the way people disagree on this weblog seems to have shifted).

anyway, i skimmed the comments so please excuse if others brought this up but i didn't notice

1) yes, south asians have issues with their metabolisms which are different from whites. in short, we need to be thinner/lighter to have the same risk of diabetes and other diseases of obesity. this is probably because our mitochondria are more efficient at converting nutrients into energy (i will post the study later when i have time to look it up)

2) let's remember variance. it is true that obesity & diabetes are a problem in developing nations because the middle and upper middle classes are using their marginal income to purchase energy rich foods. that being said

3) yes, if you look at the data south asians are often less well fed that people in many african nations. south asia is 'naturally' closer to its malthusian limit.

4) in 1800 the average english laborer took in well over 3,000 calories per day. they weren't fat. but obviously their lifestyles differed in terms of energy expended.

5) so what you see in a place like india are calorie increases going to the sector where energy expenditure is decreasing because of shifts toward white collar work. go figure that obesity and diabetes are problems....

6) what famines were there in america? the dustbowl? my understanding is that north america was exceptional in never having famines like europe or asia. americans were until the late 20th century taller than europeans for that reason.

Here's an interesting blog-post on the food price topic. Shat argues that increasing world affluence --> decreased elasticity of demand for food --> higher price increases necessary to reduce demand when there are supply shocks (from, e.g., drought or the biofuel boom).

Here's an interesting blog-post on the food price topic. Shah argues that increasing world affluence --> decreased elasticity of demand for food --> higher price increases necessary to reduce demand when there are supply shocks (from, e.g., drought or the biofuel boom).

I agree with the sentiments that adopting vegetarian diet would alleviate the food crisis and even benefit the environment. This would work only if large portions or a critical mass of the world's meat eaters gave up all or most of the meat in their diets, in my opinion. Somehow I doubt most omnivores would give up meat or even reduce their consumption because they will perceive it as a drastic change.

Unsure if the US will get affected by the food crisis as badly as the rest of the world at least in the near future. Americans (and the Desis settled in the US) waste food like crazy, based on my observations. I don't see the food crisis changing the average American's eating habits. Just observe the tons of food left on the table as people leave a restaurant, etc. It doesn't help that restaurants also super size most of the greasy/starchy/oversalted/sugary stuff like sodas, french fries, etc. Of course, I have no problem in trashing food that is spoiled or unfit to consume. Restaurants are not the only places to toss perfectly good food. Even when we attend dinners/lunches at neighbors', people - especially kids, pile up their plates and end up wasting tons of food. Same thing happens in the elementary and middle schools during lunch.

In my household, I have raised my little one to never waste food and to just take much smaller portions of starches and more of the vegetables/fruits, dals, beans and whole grains. When going (rarely) to restaurants like Friendly's or Bertuccis, my daughter orders mac n cheese, grilled cheese from the "kid menus" and those items always comes with a large amount of fries. On top of that, there is usually a huge dessert at the end of the kids meals. I don't know how most kids can stomach these insanely big portions of food. I usually never order anything because I end up eating her leftovers. To those without kids yet, it probably sounds gross and disgusting. However, if my daughter can't finish an ice cream sundae or fries, my husband and I are like vultures waiting for her leftovers.

If we do want to be non-vegetarian, the only meat we should eat is other humans. Addresses the food problem by simultaneously increasing supply and reducing demand. Not to mention the other salubrious effects on the environment.

In my last post, I meant to say my daughter orders things like mac n cheese OR a grilled cheese. We never order both of those grease laden dishes at the same time from a menu at a restaurant ever! One of those "kids" portions is plenty of food for one child and a petite adult (like me.).

To those without kids yet, it probably sounds gross and disgusting.

88 · Democralypse now said

If we do want to be non-vegetarian, the only meat we should eat is other humans. Addresses the food problem by simultaneously increasing supply and reducing demand. Not to mention the other salubrious effects on the environment.

That might work well if your name is Idi Amin or you are a practicing satan worshipper/vampire.

Jonathan Swift had a similar idea to yours in his essay "A Modest Proposal" about 300 years ago. http://grammar.about.com/od/60essays/a/modpropoessay.htm

khoofia:

they would ask, "do you think the corrupt government officials exacerbated the famine?". Why is this wrong? I agree that local corruption could be part of the problem, but what of the generational poverty, the poor supply chain, the multinational that squeezed out local grain and forced the farmer to grow gm crops, and what of the country that promised drought relief but sent thick woollen blankets to a land scorched by the sun. There is much more under the surface. I expect a well thought out essay and the soundbites infuriate me.

Why is that wrong? Isn't it the govts incompetence and corruption that is responsible for the "poor supply chain", "generational poverty", endemic hunger and other problems that plague India and other backward nations?

Rahul_S:

Actually, Indians and Chinese peeps are consuming too much food. Diabetes is on the rise for these two groups. Plus, people don't work on the farms any more, and they eat gulab jamons (however you spell it) all the time

The level of ignorance/delusion/deceit here is staggering. Far from eating too much indians are the most malnourished people on the planet. Secondly, the great majority of indians still live in villages.

Often overlooked by people like us (not living in India) is the fact that malnourishment exists in India at rates equal to or eclipsing what we find in sub-Saharan Africa. That's a fact. It doesn't fit into the whole "India rising" or "India shining" message so it gets thrown aside.

True dat Krish. Its disgusting how stubbornly indians close their eyes to the widespread hunger and malnourishment in India which leads the world in this damning measure in both absolute and percentage terms.

Observe how typically shameless Pradeep Mehta is in the blog post above, using hungry africans instead of hungrier fellow indians to make his point:

If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, “many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates,” Mehta said.

I agree with the sentiments that adopting vegetarian diet would alleviate the food crisis and even benefit the environment. This would work only if large portions or a critical mass of the world's meat eaters gave up all or most of the meat in their diets, in my opinion. Somehow I doubt most omnivores would give up meat or even reduce their consumption because they will perceive it as a drastic change.

vegetarianism is fine as long as people take creatine supplements. there's a fair amount of evidence that creatine increasese IQ in vegetarians, but not meat eaters, because meat already has the necessary goodies.

6 · my_dog_jagat said

On May 2, George W. Bush explained that the current spike in food prices worldwide is primarily a consequence of rising demand from China and India

As stupid as Dubya is, I think the rising standard of living in China and India has got to play some oblique part. Here are some possible India related factors:
1) Back in the days when India had no foreign currency reserves--around 1990 it was close to 0-- it was selling rice at below cost.
2) Only a small portion of Indian rice was exported then or is now. Rice is thinly traded in the world's markets and is more susceptible to big price swings.

Mere_kutha_Jagat_hai, hello bhaiya. I've got a couple of economics questions for you and all the other lurkers here. I'm trying to understand why economies sell at below costs, and maybe you folks can help me out. I read on newsgroups that China sells at below-costs to encourage manufacturing operations within their own countries. Other reasons why entities sell at below-costs is to create a market, and then, they raise prices once again. This is a predatory pricing tactic, and one of the benefits of this (to the predatory pricers) is that it prevents market entrants.

What does India have to gain by selling at below costs their rice?
Are there goods/services which Americans export that are underpriced?

Fact 1: Here is what Bush said: "There are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.� See http://themoderatevoice.com/science/environment/nature/19461/in-defense-of-bushs-gaffe-on-rising-food-prices/ This is not factually incorrect. Prosperity in two of the world's largest countries is changing their eating habits. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042503096_pf.html for how eating hapbtis are changing

Fact 2: The "crisis" is being precipitated by speculation. "We have enough food to feed the world" says the UN. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080428/un_food_080428/20080428?hub=World

7 · Neil Bansal said

I think that the question of whether or not Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians (or any other foreign country) isn't a concious or blatant racial superiority issue, but a reflection of the mindset brought about by an economically prosperous history. America, while experiencing its own bouts with famine, has generally been advantaged enough to be able to provide food for its citizens. I think that what comes off as "blaming" these countries is really a reaction to the strain imposed upon that assumed lifestyle. People attempt to provide a reason for the situation and (inadvertently?) come off as superior. Maybe Americans at large aren't familiar with the food situation in China and India and assume that people there are living as we are here.

Neil:

I'm actually concerned that there is going to be an anti-Chindian rhetoric in the USA with respect to rising commodity prices. I do suspect that Americans feel that Indians are accustomed to malnutrition, and that they are entitled to a richer diet. Condi Rice's comments sure seems to lay blame on Chindians (NOTE: no quotes are around the word 'blame' when I use it). Finally, there is a way to scholarly discuss why commodities, esp. foods, are rising without having to finger point and creating an 'us-against-them' attitude. The Bush Administration could have been truthful and said that some of the blame was due to the weakened dollar, since we import so much foods. The Bush Administration could have also talked about how their failed ethanol policy exacerbated this rise in costs. Now that's being truthful and not laying blame on the Chindians.

Another thing: I am VERY VERY concerned about this rise in costs in India. Could this lead to a mass starvation like the one Ethiopia faced in '84?