That’s the provocative headline of this website story, which discusses a Cambridge computer model.
Thoughts on the model and its conclusions, especially from those in the know either in computing or agriculture? The Slashdot story on this certainly seems to believe it, at least in the commentary. The original, though, definitely has an agenda based on the writing on this story alone (haven’t explored the rest), so I’d love some more objective thoughts on all this.
And the definition of “global” in this context appears to be a select few countries in the Middle East and Africa that fucked up. Europe produces more food than it can consume (Denmark produce five times as much food as it can eat), so do Russia, Canada, the USA, countries in South America, etc. Even China is a net food exporter. Why should these country riot if the prices increase and they get more money? The extra income can be taxed and be distributed to the population through tax/vat reductions, and in this way keep the population isolated from price increases.
^^ Send it to us in the U.S.! We’ll consume it as long as it’s deep fried. 
Danish food exports to the USA is mostly meat I think. But in recent years it has mainly been exports to China that has driven a boost in the exports (and the Danish trade surplus which is bursting at the seams). China wants pigs and furs.
The public effort in Denmark (& the rest of the EU I think) over the last several decades has been to reduce food production by taking land out of production, and by giving the animals better living conditions. A development I fully support, the intensive farming is harming the environment and we have to strike a sensible bargain between animal food production and animal torture.
…and covered in chocolate.
Scotland will have a piece of that action…
Around here lower food prices are more likely to lead to riots than rising food prices. Although it is hard to imagine a Danish farmer riot. A little murmur perhaps. They’ll go to their death sulking. Unlike their French and Belgian colleagues which habitually goes on the most noisy strikes whenever anybody is considering thinking about lower food prices. Or just when they generally feel like it.
Actually, this could happen. Right now, farmers in Brazil, China, Argentina are growing crops for animal feed (in preference for crops to feed humans). There is also pressure to grow energy producing crops (sugar cane in Brazil, palm oil in SE Asia, corn in the USA) to make alcohol. This is driving up the price of basic foods (rice, corn, beans). Take Brazil-the poor people live on rice and beans (with a little low quality meat if they can afford it). These staples have gone up 55% this year alone.
Not a concern for a wealthy American (as he tucks into a steak)…but a big concern for a poor family in a Brazilian favela.
As for India, increases in rice prices spell hunger for millions.
Aren’t we always within a year of food riots?
That’s an important distinction that the sloppy headline masks. Someone is predicting food riots in places with oppressive governments or governments struggling to shake off the shackles of oppression, but haven’t quite done that yet. I’m shocked.
It almost makes you want to stop having children that you know you have absaloutly no chance of feeding doesn’t it ?
Even before conception.
India was the location of some of the past riots, so its not all Middle East/African countries or countries with oppressive gov’ts.
But the point isn’t so much the where as when. Obviously poor countries are much more prone to such riots, but the point is that the past two waves of riots have come when food prices went above a certain threshold, and we’re close to that threshold now, so a third wave of rioting and unrest in poor countries seems likely.
According to some people, certainly. In The Population Bomb, published in 1968, Paul Ehrlich assured us that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 70’s. They didn’t, yet he continues to grind out prophesies of impending famine.
That said, while overall world hunger and extreme poverty have been dropping over the past few decades, the benefits haven’t been shared equally across the whole world. There have been instances in the last few years where policies and natural disasters lead to localized episodes of mass hunger, and that may well happen again. Ralph is absolutely right that much cropland has been diverted away from food crops to energy crops, most notoriously in the United States where corn ethanol is required in gasoline. If we want to help hungry peoplp in the third world, we should end this mandate immediately.
Wasn’t there some huge spike in corn and rice prices in early 2008? I seem to remember something of a rice panic. I drive from Houston to Austin along 290 about once every six weeks. Prime farming and small ranch country. In 2008 I notice that people were growing corn on stupidly small plots that used to grow veggies or serve as haylots to allow the land to recover.
But no food riots will come to food exporting nations, though we may seen some weird crop choices as people try to game the system.
Make what you will with the USDA’s report on the 2012 drought impacting the USA food supply.
Indeed. It makes one want to stop fornicating.
Given the highly perishable nature of many foodstuffs, selling surplus Danish foods to Brazil has always seemed lunacy. Spoilage, cost of transport, etc makes for poor foodonomics.
Better to stop shredding every acre of trees to clear for more cattle land so we can go to Peter Luger’s Steak House and start balancing the use of arable land so that the indigenous populations can grow their own food locally and sustain themselves.
You know. Fertile Crescent and all of that.
And bacon.