On the Global Food Crisis and Crimes Against Humanity

As I'm sure you're aware, there is a global food crisis which has already caused food riots in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Haiti and other developing nations. Thirty-seven countries currently face food crises, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. Trade imbalances will be worsened, and major economies are being affected.

In the Washington Post's "World Band Chief Calls for Immediate Action on Deepening Food Crisis," Harry Dunphy writes:

Mexican Finance Secretary Agustin Carstens, who heads the bank's policy-setting Development Committee, said officials "need to redouble our efforts" to help the poorest people. He said there had been "a very welcome increase in money" from governments, but all donors need to "reach into their pockets."

I don't deny that money is needed, but something else is needed in order to create sustainability . . .

You may also be aware that the demand for biofuel is being blamed for driving up food prices. In the New York Times' "Finance Ministers Emphasize Food Crisis Over Credit Crisis," Steven R.Weisman writes:

Mr. Strauss-Kahn [the managing director of the International Monetary Fund] said he had heard from many financial officials this weekend that the West’s focus on fuel, at the expense of food, was a “crime against humanity.”

I won't say that the focus on biofuel isn't a problem, but it's not the root of the problem: it has merely exacerbated an already existing problem. Part of the root of the crisis (this is hardly a one-issue situation), as many people do indeed note (but then move on) is, as the New York Times editorial, "The World Food Crisis," suggests:

The United States and other developed countries need to step up to the plate. The rise in food prices is partly because of uncontrollable forces — including rising energy costs and the growth of the middle class in China and India. This has increased demand for animal protein, which requires large amounts of grain.

I go back to Strauss-Kahn's comment that the West's focus on fuel at the expense of food was a "crime against humanity." What about the other crime against humanity (to say nothing of billions of nonhuman animals)? In Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYT a coupld of weeks ago called "Grains Gone Wild," he gets to the root of the crime, but then passes the blame onto the Chinese (after saying "things aren't anyone's fault--" a comment he will soon revise):

First, there’s the march of the meat-eating Chinese — that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories’ worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.

Why isn't humanity's obsession with eating animals viewed as a crime against humanity? This problem didn't start with the Chinese. Enormous quantities of grains have been diverted from the mouths of the starving for decades. It is the desire to satisfy the palate of part of the human race (the haves) that is largely responsible for the starvation of the other part (the have-nots). If people in the developed world saw it as their moral obligation to help remedy this situation, they'd do more than "reach into their pockets;" they'd change the way they eat.

Say it with me: Supply and demand