China, the world’s largest grain producer, has raised taxes on fertiliser exports and the Philippines, the biggest rice importer, failed to fill a tender as record prices again suggest the world is running short of food. Rice futures in Chicago surged to a record on Thursday, following gains in wheat, corn, palm oil and soya beans, which have all risen to their highest yet this year. The rally, including record crude prices, has stoked concerns inflation will rise and civil unrest may spread.
The food crisis was of “emergency proportions”, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said last Monday. And The World Bank has forecast that 33 nations from Mexico to Yemen may face social unrest after food and energy costs increased for six straight years. So, perhaps now is the time to ask the big question: Will changing our diet prevent the crisis?
Why are we asking this now?
People are dying because of the global food shortage, which has sparked a sudden surge in food prices. The global food bill has risen 57 per cent in the past year, the price of rice is up by three quarters and wheat has more than doubled. The head of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, warned last week that riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso over soaring prices could spread.
World grain stocks have fallen to a 25-year low of five million tonnes, enough for two to three months, and World Food Programme officials say 33 countries in Asia and Africa face political instability as the urban poor struggle to feed their families.
Are we growing too little food to feed the world?
Bizarrely, no. There was a record global grain harvest last year. It topped 2.1 billion tonnes, up five per cent on the previous year. The problem is that a diminishing proportion of it is being turned into food. This year less than half the total grown – 1.01 billion tonnes – will find its way on to people’s plates, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. And this crisis is hitting before world food supplies are further damaged by climate change.
So where is the grain going?
There are two reasons why the record amount of grain is proving insufficient to feed the world. First, a large amount is being diverted to make biofuels. From Saturday, all transport fuel sold in the UK must be mixed with at least 2.5 per cent biofuel made from crops. The idea is that this will make cars greener.
But the consequence is that there is less grain available for food. This year, global production of biofuels will consume almost 100 million tonnes of grain – grain that could have been used to feed the starving. According to the UN, it takes 232 kilograms of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol – enough to feed a child for a year. The UN last week predicted “massacres” unless the biofuel policy is halted. Jean Ziegler, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food, said biofuels were “a crime against humanity”, and called for a five-year moratorium.
Would cutting car use solve the crisis?
Not on its own. Of course we should be reducing our reliance on the car, and on jet travel and other profligate uses of energy, for environmental reasons. Cutting car use, and reducing energy demands overall, would cut demand for biofuels, leaving more grain available for food. But while 100 million tonnes of grain are being diverted to make fuel this year, over seven times as much (760 million tonnes) will be used to feed animals. The world’s passion for meat is a much bigger cause of global hunger than its passion for the car.
How does eating meat cause hunger?
Because it is a very inefficient way of producing food. It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, and large tracts of forest have been cleared for grazing land that might have been used to grow crops. Chicken is more efficient to produce – it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. To maximise food production it is best to be vegan. According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just three million hectares of land to meet Britain’s food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan.
Isn’t it completely unrealistic for large groups to go vegan?
Most people will not take readily to a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruit and nuts. This is about the direction we should be moving in, not the ultimate destination. We should be aiming to reduce our meat and dairy consumption, and increase consumption of fruit and vegetables.
We are eating 50 per cent more meat than in the 1960s, and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050.
What about the rest of the world?
China, India and other parts of the developing world are behind the soaring demand for meat. Eating meat is a mark of affluence, and as societies in the east grow wealthier they are demanding the same benefits of a diet that the west has enjoyed for more than a century. In China meat consumption has risen from 20kg a head in 1980 to 50kg a head today. As meat consumption rises there is less grain for (human) food, adding to the pressure on grain prices
Food export controls have been imposed by Russia, China, India, Vietnam, Argentina and Serbia in response to the crisis. Last week the Philippines had to hunt for grain supplies after China withheld shipments, prompting the US to step in to guarantee grain supplies. Tensions are growing now over food.
Are there other reasons for cutting back on meat-eating?
Yes. The largest study of the link between diet and health published by the World Cancer Research Fund last November concluded that animal flesh occupies too big a place in the western diet, contributing to high rates of cancer and heart disease. There are also environmental benefits from cutting down on meat. Each cow produces more greenhouse gases in the form of methane per day than the average 4x4 on a 33-mile drive. Giving up meat could have a comparable impact on climate change to giving up flying.
Finally, there could be animal welfare benefits. The less meat we eat, the more we can afford to pay – and farmers selling fewer animals at higher prices should be able to provide them with better conditions.
So what diet should we be aiming for?
One that does not eschew meat altogether but that puts more emphasis on the vegetarian elements. In many countries meat is regarded as a relish, with the bulk of the meal coming from carbohydrates and vegetables. We should get used to thinking of meat as a treat – it could help to save the world’s poor from starvation. (The Independent)
57%: The increase in the global food bill in the past year – the price of rice is up by three quarters and wheat has more than doubled
5 million tonnes: World grain stocks hit a 25-year low
232kg: Of corn is needed to fill a 50-litre petrol tank with ethanol. This is enough to feed a child for a year
No more meat?
Should we be trying to cut out meat to help save the world’s poor from starvation?
- Producing meat is less efficient than growing grain – it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef
- Growing crops to feed animals means there is less land on which to grow crops for humans
- There is a shortage of grain for human consumption, and global food prices have leapt by 57 per cent in a year
- It is not realistic to expect people to switch to a vegan diet of vegetables, pulses, fruit and nuts
- China and India should not be denied the same diet as the West
- An alternative way of tackling the food crisis would be to reverse the policy of diverting grain to make biofuels
Diet of salvation