NationStates Jolt Archive

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you? It's gonna kill my grocery budget. I got an email from a friend who makes rice flour who said the price will probably jump to double in June........she wants me to stockpile, but that seems to be adding to the problem.

So, do I stockpile to ensure food for my family and make the problem worse? Should I drop other luxuries to afford rice?

I went to Sams club this morning and they had big signs about how much rice you were allowed to get.........it's kinda alarming. I've read they are blaming it on biofuel too. I thought that was made from corn.
(which is also getting more expensive lately doh!)

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you? It's gonna kill my grocery budget. I got an email from a friend who makes rice flour who said the price will probably jump to double in June........she wants me to stockpile, but that seems to be adding to the problem.

So, do I stockpile to ensure food for my family and make the problem worse? Should I drop other luxuries to afford rice?

I went to Sams club this morning and they had big signs about how much rice you were allowed to get.........it's kinda alarming. I've read they are blaming it on biofuel too. I thought that was made from corn.
(which is also getting more expensive lately doh!)

with more corn going to biofuel, more other grains are being used to feed livestock, leading to overall reductions...atleast that is what I think it is.

with more corn going to biofuel, more other grains are being used to feed livestock, leading to overall reductions...atleast that is what I think it is.

You know I was fine when wheat was getting expensive, because companies stopped using it in foods, and started doing rice or corn, but now.....what are they going to use?

You know I was fine when wheat was getting expensive, because companies stopped using it in foods, and started doing rice or corn, but now.....what are they going to use?

Good question...I'm not sure there is anything else.

I've managed to sneak around higher food costs by just cutting back on some basics (using water in alot of things instead of milk, for example), but that's starting to run out. I've seen several analysists saying that this recession will be very long and very bad, and that America's "shopping spree", in effect since the 80's, has come to an end in no small part because of these higher food prices. Mix high food costs (which Americans have never really had...we've spent about half of what Europeans spend on food for the same ammount), with high fuel costs (again, Americans have never really had this), with a credit crunch, and...well....yeah. Badness.

I am helping reduce the shortage, as I don't like rice. Unless it's coconut rice, and that is damn impossible for me to find. So, I won't be one of the people hoarding rice. I eat pasta, which is still nice and cheap.

I am helping reduce the shortage, as I don't like rice. Unless it's coconut rice, and that is damn impossible for me to find. So, I won't be one of the people hoarding rice. I eat pasta, which is still nice and cheap.

I eat rice pasta. :(

I wonder how much of your pre-packaged food contains rice and you just don't know.....

You know I was fine when wheat was getting expensive, because companies stopped using it in foods, and started doing rice or corn, but now.....what are they going to use?

They could just stop making biofuel from food and start making it from non-food biomass.

Right now they can blame everything on bio-fuel because the farmers are all switching their fields to grow corn because that is where the money is.

You should try being in the resturant business this is killing us on food cost.

Right now they can blame everything on bio-fuel because the farmers are all switching their fields to grow corn because that is where the money is.

You should try being in the resturant business this is killing us on food cost.

Just wait for it to hit beer and, later, liquors.

Just wait for it to hit beer and, later, liquors.

I heard about a year ago that barley was getting scarce.......beer prices were supposed to be rising. I'm sure as the wheat price rises most alcohol will get more expensive too.

Just wait for it to hit beer and, later, liquors.

Good thing I don't drink!

I heard about a year ago that barley was getting scarce.......beer prices were supposed to be rising. I'm sure as the wheat price rises most alcohol will get more expensive too.

Barley will kill the good beers, rice and corn will kill the American lagers (Bud, Busch, et. al.). Some hard liquors will be spared (they are aged for quite a while, and not all use grains), but even then, shipping costs will be going up.

Strange to think that rice and corn rule the world with such a delicious fist.

Good thing I don't drink!

I'm sure some of your customers might enjoy a cold beer or vodka martini, however ;)


damnit, now I'm thirsty.

"What's really hurting the food markets is America moving into ethanol. People there are moving into corn and you have pasta riots in Italy related to what some people are doing in farming in America."

Linky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/nriots107.xml)

Pasta riots... hmm!
Whata do wea wanta?
Linguini!
Whena doa we want it?
Ina 6-8 minutes time, cooked al dente with a tomato and basil sauce like a Momma makes!

I barelly eat rice, and here in Sweden I haven't noticed any lack of it, actually I've seen more and more different rice brands show up. So I'm not sure if I will notice.

And as I saw somewhere, it's funny that americans pay half as much as we do for the same amount of food. That's just mean, damn europe!

And my diet kinda sucks anyway, I live mostly of bread since I'm too lazy too cook, one bread for 2$ lasts about 2 days to make me feel full, on the third day I cook something nice :) and eat vitamin pills everyday to get most of the missing vitamins.

Other than that, coca-cola and bread, yummy diet ;)

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you?
It has affected us a lot already.

Rice is the staple food here in my country, people are queuing up in long lines to buy cheaper government-subsidized rice. The amount you can buy is strictly limited, and the government is also initiating a crackdown on rice hoarders. Contrary to what BBC had claimed, there wasn't any food riots in my country (they had since edited the articles, methinks). Still, there is a potential for unrest and we do have protests on the rising costs of food, petrol, electricity... everything! :(

I was wondering when a thread about this would spring up what with all the food riots and such...

I'm actually kind of glad the CAP treaty now, all those French farmers will prove useful:p

I heard about a year ago that barley was getting scarce.......beer prices were supposed to be rising. I'm sure as the wheat price rises most alcohol will get more expensive too.

what with Tequila also dying out I think its safe to say that my world is coming to an end :eek:

with more corn going to biofuel, more other grains are being used to feed livestock, leading to overall reductions...atleast that is what I think it is.
Plus, the price of potash is being driven up by the increased demand for fertilizer. Potash Corp just negotiated a 227% price increase in its contract to provide potash to China.

I barelly eat rice, and here in Sweden I haven't noticed any lack of it, actually I've seen more and more different rice brands show up. So I'm not sure if I will notice.

And as I saw somewhere, it's funny that americans pay half as much as we do for the same amount of food. That's just mean, damn europe!

And my diet kinda sucks anyway, I live mostly of bread since I'm too lazy too cook, one bread for 2$ lasts about 2 days to make me feel full, on the third day I cook something nice :) and eat vitamin pills everyday to get most of the missing vitamins.

Other than that, coca-cola and bread, yummy diet ;)

iirc, Americans pay about 11% of disposable income, with Europeans paying around 22%. I'll see if I can find the article I got that from


Got it:
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/soaring-food-prices

You live in the richest nation on earth. So what if rice costs a little extra?

Between the increased costs of transportation (because of the increase in fuel costs) and the use of other materials for fuel production (which, in turn, means more land being used to produce fuel and less to produce food for humans and livestock) of course food prices are going up. I'm retired and am finding what was a comfortable retirement income to be getting dangerously close to inadequate.

I've been buying more rice because it's comparatively cheap, a pound of generic white rice being approximately $.70 a bag. At that, 10 lbs of raw rice would be comparable to 10 lbs of potatoes (10 lbs of potatoes costs about $3.50) since rice doubles in volume when it cooks. It's, perhaps, twice the cost of 10 lbs. of generic flour, but to use flour you have to add things like shortening, milk, leavening and seasonings and prepping it takes more labor and heat than prepping rice. Rice is a bargain. If the price doubles it will still be a bargain, because the cost of potatoes and flour and other foods will also rise due to increased demand as well as diminishing resources allocated to food crops and rising transportation costs.

This doesn't change the fact that retired people, people with sensitivities and people with limited incomes will be adversely impacted.

It looks like American party is over. I had looked forward to a retirement filled with leisure activities - reading, volunteer work, classes and hobbies - now I'm going to have to get a job just to keep up.

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you?

will it affect me? Japanese, living in Hawaii... can you say "Oh Hell Yes!" :headbang:

I'm just glad I weaned myself away from rice and can now partake of the substitutes like Mashed Potatoes and bread...

You live in the richest nation on earth. So what if rice costs a little extra?
:rolleyes:

will it affect me? Japanese, living in Hawaii... can you say "Oh Hell Yes!" :headbang:

I'm just glad I weaned myself away from rice and can now partake of the substitutes like Mashed Potatoes and bread...

Have no fear...wheat prices are rising too, and potatos won't be far behind

You live in the richest nation on earth. So what if rice costs a little extra?
Right, because poor people don't matter...

You live in the richest nation on earth. So what if rice costs a little extra?

Say it with me now..."gloooooooooobal"

Good. I knew you could.


Not to mention that just because the US is the richest nation on Earth by some measures does not mean every citizen can afford higher food and fuel costs. Rice costing "a little extra" (food in general up nearly 100%, wheat up nearly 200%...this isn't small change exactly) can be a huge deal.

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you? It's gonna kill my grocery budget. I got an email from a friend who makes rice flour who said the price will probably jump to double in June........she wants me to stockpile, but that seems to be adding to the problem.

So, do I stockpile to ensure food for my family and make the problem worse? Should I drop other luxuries to afford rice?

I went to Sams club this morning and they had big signs about how much rice you were allowed to get.........it's kinda alarming. I've read they are blaming it on biofuel too. I thought that was made from corn.
(which is also getting more expensive lately doh!)

I'll just eat more bulgar, quinoa and millet :D

Say it with me now..."gloooooooooobal"

Good. I knew you could.


Yeah, way to get the point. I care about the people who are rioting because they don't have enough to eat. Why anyone should care about Smunkeeville's grocery budget is beyond me.

Have no fear...wheat prices are rising too, and potatos won't be far behind
Potatos? :confused: oh, The-not-instant-stuff! :p

hmmm... good time to take out the bread maker my mother gave me...

Supporting biofuels is a kind of race and class warfare because diverts the world food supply to the generation of a substandard fuel, thereby exacerbating world hunger by driving food prices out of the range of what poor brown people in the less developed regions of the world can afford.

If you care about the poor suffering in the crappier parts of the world and are looking to assuage your guilt then don't support biofuels. Write a letter to your representative telling them not to support biofuels. Remember, emails get cast aside without a second thought and no one will listen to you if you don't justify your position.

That's nothing, compared to food in Australia at the moment everything is going up Bread, Milk, Meat, Vegetables Flour the lot average cost of groceries went up 11% in the last three months. Then there's petrol prices interest rates going up again and housing prices, only thing that's not is my pay packet.

Oh and I forgot Woolies and Coles just had another record breaking quater on profits :headbang: ..... but there not profiteering off the drought or fuel prices :sniper: .......

I don't know, I don't live in a rich country and I can buy cheap rice everywhere. More or less 1$ the kilogram.

I eat rice each and everyday, is my main carbohydrate giver. I eat rice at both at lunch and at dinner. Mainly because my brother is gluten intolerant, I have to cook for him too, I like rice, and it is both cheap, and easy to prepare. I know like 10 different ways to make rice. Onion rice, garlic rice, risottos, green rice, fried rice cakes, chinatown rice, shrimp rice, tuna rice.

Plus, I drink a lot of chicha. Chicha is a venezuelan beverage made of milk and rice cream. IT's like your shakes, but with rice. Tastes wonderful, and it will one of the three things I'll miss the most when I move from this country.

Yeah, way to get the point. I care about the people who are rioting because they don't have enough to eat. Why anyone should care about Smunkeeville's grocery budget is beyond me.

Because it is a different branch of the same tree? I didn't miss your point.

I didn't say you had to care about Smunkee. You chose to focus this discussion upon Smunk, to which I stated "Global", implying that the discussion did not need to nor was originally intended to focus solely upon one woman's spending habits (actually, it was meant to focus upon each of us as an individual, but with the corollary of the title and subsequent discussion). That you took it as such is beyond me.

Potatos? :confused: oh, The-not-instant-stuff! :p

hmmm... good time to take out the bread maker my mother gave me...

flour prices are going up, too.

flour prices are going up, too.

along with milk, butter, eggs...and everything else.

along with milk, butter, eggs...and everything else.

Well, over there in the US, that would actually help you to reduce your obesity percentages.

Because it is a different branch of the same tree? I didn't miss your point.

I didn't say you had to care about Smunkee. You chose to focus this discussion upon Smunk, to which I stated "Global", implying that the discussion did not need to nor was originally intended to focus solely upon one woman's spending habits (actually, it was meant to focus upon each of us as an individual, but with the corollary of the title and subsequent discussion). That you took it as such is beyond me.

Right. Remind me what article is linked to in the OP?

Well, over there in the US, that would actually help you to reduce your obesity percentages.

As I indicated in a previous post, the American party is over. Does that make everyone happy?

Well, over there in the US, that would actually help you to reduce your obesity percentages.

Wow way to get a fat joke in there.
Because we all know that Americans are fat and lazy.

I don't know, I don't live in a rich country and I can buy cheap rice everywhere. More or less 1$ the kilogram.

I eat rice each and everyday, is my main carbohydrate giver. I eat rice at both at lunch and at dinner. Mainly because my brother is gluten intolerant, I have to cook for him too, I like rice, and it is both cheap, and easy to prepare. I know like 10 different ways to make rice. Onion rice, garlic rice, risottos, green rice, fried rice cakes, chinatown rice, shrimp rice, tuna rice.

Plus, I drink a lot of chicha. Chicha is a venezuelan beverage made of milk and rice cream. IT's like your shakes, but with rice. Tastes wonderful, and it will one of the three things I'll miss the most when I move from this country.
The girls and I are gluten intolerant, so we eat a lot of rice, our bread, pasta, cookies, crackers, everything, it's all rice. One of my daughters is also corn intolerant, so it's our only grain. It's not like we can shift around to something cheaper.

Right. Remind me what article is linked to in the OP?

An article about the global rice shortage and about how food prices are rising, to which I asked the question "will this affect you?" and then I answered my question........as per the rules of the forum, you aren't supposed to just link to an article or just ask a question, you are supposed to add commentary. My commentary was how it will affect me, which was a direct answer to the question I asked.

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

So, do I stockpile to ensure food for my family and make the problem worse? Should I drop other luxuries to afford rice?

I went to Sams club this morning and they had big signs about how much rice you were allowed to get.........it's kinda alarming. I've read they are blaming it on biofuel too. I thought that was made from corn.
(which is also getting more expensive lately doh!)

Increasing rice prices, damn. It's probably a knock-off from the increasing fuel prices.
I'm sure it will affect me eventually and other foodstuffs as well. but seeing as i mostly have unhealthy food i'll probably be okay for a while.
I'd suggest trying to find a replacement for rice as a main food source.
If that's not a viable option, then i suppose dropping some luxuries to keep buying rice would be a good idea.

Have no fear...wheat prices are rising too, and potatoes won't be far behind

not the Vodka too!

Supporting biofuels is a kind of race and class warfare because diverts the world food supply to the generation of a substandard fuel, thereby exacerbating world hunger by driving food prices out of the range of what poor brown people in the less developed regions of the world can afford.

honey bun, we have food going to rot in warehouses and farmers barely making ends meat because of competition.

scarcity isn't at fault here as farmers have used cash crops since the dawn of civilization (albeit riots have occurred before with British cotton fields) what happens in the developing world is that wages are more pegged to food prices than anything leading to a dependence on steady prices in a market that is dependent on the weather

An article about the global rice shortage and about how food prices are rising, to which I asked the question "will this affect you?" and then I answered my question........as per the rules of the forum, you aren't supposed to just link to an article or just ask a question, you are supposed to add commentary. My commentary was how it will affect me, which was a direct answer to the question I asked.

Yeah, and it just seems massively immaterial given the context. You have some of the best access to groceries in the world. People are rioting and you might have to start paying prices that Europeans would consider a bargain?

It's like making a thread about 9/11 and saying how it sucks for you because your flight got cancelled

I'm sure some of your customers might enjoy a cold beer or vodka martini, however ;)


damnit, now I'm thirsty.

We are on a college campus, no alcohol allowed. So we wont have to worry about that.

Yeah, and it just seems massively immaterial given the context. You have some of the best access to groceries in the world. People are rioting and you might have to start paying prices that Europeans would consider a bargain?

It's like making a thread about 9/11 and saying how it sucks for you because your flight got cancelled

Ah, I'm being selfish. Got it. I'm so sorry that things affect me while other people are affected more. I'm going to quit going to the doctor for my heart problems because people are dying in Africa.

Yeah, and it just seems massively immaterial given the context. You have some of the best access to groceries in the world. People are rioting and you might have to start paying prices that Europeans would consider a bargain?

It's like making a thread about 9/11 and saying how it sucks for you because your flight got cancelled

Actually it's nothing of the sort. And don't natter on about context when you don't understand that context. Smunkee's particular health concerns (and the health concerns of her family) including whatever financial situation she is in that you are manifestly unqualified to comment on, despite the 'overall prosperity of the west' indeed make this a serious issue for her...as it is a serious issue for other people who don't fit into the comfortable, easily-able-to-absorb-the-higher-cost bracket.

Check your assumptions.

People are rioting and you might have to start paying prices that Europeans would consider a bargain?

to be fair though yanks are poorer than we (I?) are in income (WTF is going on with US minimum wage seriously!) so though we can gorge ourselves to death of Franco-German products as we see fit and have a stable currency, American slave labour must stretch the already crappy disposable income even further

huzzah for high prices and high income!

As I indicated in a previous post, the American party is over. Does that make everyone happy?

It should make americans happy, although.

Wow way to get a fat joke in there.
Because we all know that Americans are fat and lazy.

I wasn't joking. If you want to enter denial regarding your country's obesity figures, fine. More expensive food could reduce indeed the expense in AMOUNT of food your people have. Although well, I don't know, you aren't driving less because of the oil prices.

The girls and I are gluten intolerant, so we eat a lot of rice, our bread, pasta, cookies, crackers, everything, it's all rice. One of my daughters is also corn intolerant, so it's our only grain. It's not like we can shift around to something cheaper.

I understand, yet I can't see how it is so big of a change for that increment. I think your home economy can manage, for now.

Ah, I'm being selfish. Got it. I'm so sorry that things affect me while other people are affected more. I'm going to quit going to the doctor for my heart problems because people are dying in Africa.

Maybe it'd be comparable if there was a worldwide doctor shortage and you were importing Nigerian doctors to attend to your sore knee while people were dying in Africa.

Algae. That's the future of staple crops.

*Invests in pond scum*

I understand, yet I can't see how it is so big of a change for that increment. I think your home economy can manage, for now.
Well, my bread supplier usually charges $6 for a loaf of bread (a small one) it will be $13 a loaf in about a month. It's a huge deal, to selfish, selfish, horribly rich me.

Maybe it'd be comparable if there was a worldwide doctor shortage and you were importing Nigerian doctors to attend to your sore knee while people were dying in Africa.

Well, I suppose I'll quit eating then. I should probably quit working for the food bank too, they feed all kinds of evil rich Americans.

I understand, yet I can't see how it is so big of a change for that increment. I think your home economy can manage, for now.

Rice is, as stated, the staple food in Smunkee’s household....not necessarily out of preference but necessity. And you patronisingly say, ‘your home economy can manage, for now?' Wow! You have amazing powers of perception to take into account her household budget, her ability to absorb the extra cost, and the lack or presence of available alternatives, all over the internet!

Algae. That's the future of staple crops.

*Invests in pond scum*

omg I have two ponds! *licks the delicious surface film*

Well, my bread supplier usually charges $6 for a loaf of bread (a small one) it will be $13 a loaf in about a month. It's a huge deal, to selfish, selfish, horribly rich me.

why not ask for a raise? ;)

Maybe it'd be comparable if there was a worldwide doctor shortage and you were importing Nigerian doctors to attend to your sore knee while people were dying in Africa.

If you're so uninterested in the personal effects on Smunkee and her family, then ignore them. Harping on how her real life concerns makes her so evil and base borders on bating if not flaming.

why not ask for a raise? ;)
:p from who?

Is this much like Americans getting uppity about paying the same for fuel as the rest of the world?

Well, it sucks that the Albertan growing season is so short, but we have land, and we have the means to plant a fair number of crops...so I think with the construction of a root cellar, coupled with canning/freezing of produce, we'll be able to mostly adjust to the general food cost increases. Rice is no longer such a staple with us anyway, but globally this is very worrisome.

Well, my bread supplier usually charges $6 for a loaf of bread (a small one) it will be $13 a loaf in about a month. It's a huge deal, to selfish, selfish, horribly rich me.

Rice bread?

Well, first, those are indeed ridiculous prices. Second, you can go without rice bread, my brother, also a gluten intolerant, does. Just use normal rice. OR make your own rice cakes. I have done some of those, and they are easy to make.

I'm trying to give you solutions, not to criticize you in a direct way.

Regarding shortages, well, you need to learn to manage. I'm sorry to be this blunt, but we have seen around here shortages of milk, beef, rice, sugar, salt and almost anything you can imagine, and we manage.

If you don't want to hear comments, or partial disagreements, and just complain, then again sorry for being blunt, but you can do that with a blog.

If you're so uninterested in the personal effects on Smunkee and her family, then ignore them. Harping on how her real life concerns makes her so evil and base borders on bating if not flaming.

Ignore my posts then :)

The girls and I are gluten intolerant, so we eat a lot of rice, our bread, pasta, cookies, crackers, everything, it's all rice. One of my daughters is also corn intolerant, so it's our only grain. It's not like we can shift around to something cheaper.
I don't think you should have had to share that. If he wants to jump to conclusions, we can't stop him.

I just brought the Mercury News upstairs and read that very headline. It's going to be devestating here, we have very large Asian and Indian populations here and a rice shortage is going to hit us hard. Combined with a bone-dry March and one day of rain so far in April... :(

Rice bread?

Well, first, those are indeed ridiculous prices. Second, you can go without rice bread, my brother, also a gluten intolerant, does. Just use normal rice. OR make your own rice cakes. I have done some of those, and they are easy to make.
Yes, and rice is having a shortage and is currently barely available in my area.

I'm trying to give you solutions, not to criticize you in a direct way.
I know. I'm going to have to yet again rework everything we eat.

Regarding shortages, well, you need to learn to manage. I'm sorry to be this blunt, but we have seen around here shortages of milk, beef, rice, sugar, salt and almost anything you can imagine, and we manage.

I know I'll manage, I'm just spoiled and frustrated with the situation.
If you don't want to hear comments, or partial disagreements, and just complain, then again sorry for being blunt, but you can do that with a blog.
Well, the point of the thread wasn't to talk about me, it was to talk about how this is affecting various posters on this board.

Rice is, as stated, the staple food in Smunkee’s household....not necessarily out of preference but necessity. And you patronisingly say, ‘your home economy can manage, for now?' Wow! You have amazing powers of perception to take into account her household budget, her ability to absorb the extra cost, and the lack or presence of available alternatives, all over the internet!

Rice is, as stated in my post, the staple food in my own home and diet. Not necessarily out of preference. My country's economy is quite precarious too, for some time, and I have managed to achieve some degree of acceptation.

Wow!, have you wondered about taking into account MY household budget, my abilities to having been absorbing the extra cost of an inflation of 15 per cent a year with wage raises of 5 per cent for more than a decade, specially in food goods, and the lack of presence of the same alternatives, all over the internet!

I did wondered about hers, compared to mine, and extracted a conclusion.

Sorry, but here you are the gypsy witch, not me.

Yes, and rice is having a shortage and is currently barely available in my area.


I know. I'm going to have to yet again rework everything we eat.


I know I'll manage, I'm just spoiled and frustrated with the situation.

Well, the point of the thread wasn't to talk about me, it was to talk about how this is affecting various posters on this board.

I understand now. Well, eventually, as you said, you'll learn to cope with the situation, and will get used to it, so the spoiling and frustation will go away, (because the situation, sadly, is not going to improve soon, and in soon, I mean years), and well, I tried to give my own situation now, the only problem is that this thing isn't new for us.

I understand now. Well, eventually, as you said, you'll learn to cope with the situation, and will get used to it, so the spoiling and frustation will go away, (because the situation, sadly, is not going to improve soon, and in soon, I mean years), and well, I tried to give my own situation now, the only problem is that this thing isn't new for us.
:( Is there anything that can be done?

If you don't want to hear comments, or partial disagreements, and just complain, then again sorry for being blunt, but you can do that with a blog.
She brought up personal issues
1) to make the OP relevant and not just copy/paste spam
2) to answer people who claimed it wouldn't have an effect (by providing anecdotal evidence of an effect)
3) Not to have you get on your high horse and tell her to manage.

That you seem to think #3 is indeed your expected purpose speaks volumes.

It always amazes me how Smunkee attracts such attention from snippy, patronising posters.

It's a cascade effect, resulting from the combination of American corn and soybean grower greed along with harvest shortfalls.

Brazil has the right idea, using sugarcane (which you can hardly consider a staple crop like wheat, corn and rice) for biofuel and if there was serious research investment they'd be extracting fuel from grass as well.

Ignore my posts then :)

It's up to you to refrain from asshattery actually.

You live in the richest nation on earth. So what if rice costs a little extra?

True. Thank god the wealth is evenly distributed and there isn't a huge working class that barely scrapes on minimum wage that will be hit hard by this shortage. That would suck. Oh, wait.

will it affect me? Japanese, living in Hawaii... can you say "Oh Hell Yes!" :headbang:

Ouch. :(

Yeah, way to get the point. I care about the people who are rioting because they don't have enough to eat. Why anyone should care about Smunkeeville's grocery budget is beyond me.

I care about people rioting and Smunkee. I can also walk and chew gum at the same time.

Well, over there in the US, that would actually help you to reduce your obesity percentages.

I know you're going for the cheap laugh/outrage, but instead I will tell you why you're wrong. People in the US are not, by and large, obese because they buy a lot of basic ingredients like flour, eggs, butter, etc. and cook tons of food. They are, by and large, obese because we are a fastfood, take-away, frozen meal nation. This is especially true in poorer neighborhoods of big cities where there are fewer true grocery stores and more liquor stores, convenience stores and other small stores that sell ready-made products. Therefor, a shortage of essential staples like eggs, milk and butter will in fact hurt the obese and poverty-stricken populations even harder. That is why you are wrong.

Good question...I'm not sure there is anything else.

I've managed to sneak around higher food costs by just cutting back on some basics (using water in alot of things instead of milk, for example), but that's starting to run out. I've seen several analysists saying that this recession will be very long and very bad, and that America's "shopping spree", in effect since the 80's, has come to an end in no small part because of these higher food prices. Mix high food costs (which Americans have never really had...we've spent about half of what Europeans spend on food for the same ammount), with high fuel costs (again, Americans have never really had this), with a credit crunch, and...well....yeah. Badness.

:(...well f*ck this...

*jumps out of window*





....now if only I wasn't on the first floor....

It's up to you to refrain from asshattery actually.

I don't view it as asshattery. But given that I'm not the one who's concerned with the idea of baiting/flaming/whathaveyou, I think it's probably you who wants to check the usage of words like asshattery if you're really going to stay on the high horse that you accuse me of being on.

:( Is there anything that can be done?

Sadly, not by us. Just buy any World Leader rubber doll and hit him everyday to cope with the frustration, apart from that, I don't think so. At least you have milk, imagine the milk shortages for mothers with babies in other countries. Some can breastfeed, others just can't. For instance, import regulations, economical problems and our own greedy food producers, alongside with the ineptitude of our goverment, reduced our diet and feeding budgets to a sad state.

Since january, I have to stand in line for 2 hours just to get one kilo of sugar, one kilo of rice, and a can of powder milk, in the only place you can get some in miles, because "you are not allowed to stockpile food". Viva la revolución. As a side note, the rice was of the worse quality imaginable, and the sugar was unprocessed. And I need to add, all the bags and the can had political propaganda printed on them on how good was the goverment by giving you at least this overpriced, underquality crap.

I just hope your situation do not degenerate that much. But eventually, you learn to manouver around. Just get used to it. Sorry to not been able to provide you with a better solution.

I just brought the Mercury News upstairs and read that very headline. It's going to be devestating here, we have very large Asian and Indian populations here and a rice shortage is going to hit us hard. Combined with a bone-dry March and one day of rain so far in April... :(

Yeah, god forbid you might have to endure a little hardship, or, heavne forfend, change your diet! How dare such a contingency arise, when one might have to change one's diet a little. Honestly, there might well be a 25% AIDS rate in areas of southern Africa, and starvation and disease endemic across much of the world, but an increase in the price of rice is just the limit eh?

It always amazes me how Smunkee attracts such attention from snippy, patronising posters.

And still deals with it so politely!

She brought up personal issues
1) to make the OP relevant and not just copy/paste spam
2) to answer people who claimed it wouldn't have an effect (by providing anecdotal evidence of an effect)
3) Not to have you get on your high horse and tell her to manage.

That you seem to think #3 is indeed your expected purpose speaks volumes.

It always amazes me how Smunkee attracts such attention from snippy, patronising posters.


Really? You see, I'm never all that astounded that the complaints of an all-american household are deemed somewhat limited in scale in comparison to global metereological, economic and political trends.

Sadly, not by us. Just buy any World Leader rubber doll and hit him everyday to cope with the frustration, apart from that, I don't think so. At least you have milk, imagine the milk shortages for mothers with babies in other countries. Some can breastfeed, others just can't. For instance, import regulations, economical problems and our own greedy food producers, alongside with the ineptitude of our goverment, reduced our diet and feeding budgets to a sad state.

Since january, I have to stand in line for 2 hours just to get one kilo of sugar, one kilo of rice, and a can of powder milk, in the only place you can get some in miles, because "you are not allowed to stockpile food". Viva la revolución. As a side note, the rice was of the worse quality imaginable, and the sugar was unprocessed. And I need to add, all the bags and the can had political propaganda printed on them on how good was the goverment by giving you at least this overpriced, underquality crap.

I just hope your situation do not degenerate that much. But eventually, you learn to manouver around. Just get used to it. Sorry to not been able to provide you with a better solution.

That sucks. :( I wish there was something we could do to help.

She brought up personal issues
1) to make the OP relevant and not just copy/paste spam
2) to answer people who claimed it wouldn't have an effect (by providing anecdotal evidence of an effect)
3) Not to have you get on your high horse and tell her to manage.

That you seem to think #3 is indeed your expected purpose speaks volumes.

It always amazes me how Smunkee attracts such attention from snippy, patronising posters.

1) I brought up personal issues, as asked, to make my point relevant.
2) I answered that the effect has been there for some time in other places, with the people trying to cope with it
3) I can't tell her anything else but "you'll have to manage". What is your proposal? Go and steal a rice silo? You are the one here riding a high horse telling everyone how wrong are them in their posts and views, without adding anything by yourself.

I know you're going for the cheap laugh/outrage, but instead I will tell you why you're wrong. People in the US are not, by and large, obese because they buy a lot of basic ingredients like flour, eggs, butter, etc. and cook tons of food. They are, by and large, obese because we are a fastfood, take-away, frozen meal nation. This is especially true in poorer neighborhoods of big cities where there are fewer true grocery stores and more liquor stores, convenience stores and other small stores that sell ready-made products. Therefor, a shortage of essential staples like eggs, milk and butter will in fact hurt the obese and poverty-stricken populations even harder. That is why you are wrong.

Again, I'm not joking, not sucker punching the US, not going for a cheap laugh. However, you make a good point there. I wonder if precanned, frozen food price has risen, as I do not have access to inside US information.

Good question...I'm not sure there is anything else.

I've managed to sneak around higher food costs by just cutting back on some basics (using water in alot of things instead of milk, for example), but that's starting to run out. I've seen several analysists saying that this recession will be very long and very bad, and that America's "shopping spree", in effect since the 80's, has come to an end in no small part because of these higher food prices. Mix high food costs (which Americans have never really had...we've spent about half of what Europeans spend on food for the same ammount), with high fuel costs (again, Americans have never really had this), with a credit crunch, and...well....yeah. Badness.


We have had a solution for a long time..."A Modest Proposal" was written by Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/swift/jonathan/s97m/

:D

Again, I'm not joking, not sucker punching the US, not going for a cheap laugh. However, you make a good point there. I wonder if precanned, frozen food price has risen, as I do not have access to inside US information.

I'm not sure because I can't have most of it. Basically I eat meat (expensive), produce (expensive), and rice (expensive). I know quite a few people who are in financial straights who can't afford those things and have to eat pre-packaged food, I'm pretty sure the price of that has gone up because our traffic at the food bank has picked up.

That sucks. :( I wish there was something we could do to help.

Yeah, it sucks, big time. And you cannot actually try to harvest rice in your home, as you could do with tomatoes, for instance. You need to trust in the bloody market and in the damn industry.

I'm only talking about the North American condition, I'm not familiar with other countries agricultural practices over the last half a century.

For fifty years family and small farmers have been going out of business hand over foot, mainly because they didn't make enough money selling their crops in the bulk at the end of even good years. The only farmers that could make a profit were mega-corporate farming sites. Now that the American population is less then 3% farmers (having reached the lowest level in human history now), we've successfully converted the family farmers into nothing but hobby farmers who don't grow enough to produce the over production required to keep the price of crops low...

Since 1933 and the Agricultural Adjustment Act we've been paying farmers to NOT grow certain crops for decades, and the government has been buying excess crops to keep the prices high (high enough so that all the farmers don't go out of business in the same year anyway), and farmers unions have been asking their members to grow even 20% less corn than that in recent years above and beyond what the government has been doing (also trying to get the price of corn high enough to pay for itself)...

So NOW people are blaming bio-fuel production as a demand we can't afford because we can't grow enough corn??? LMAO!!!

Give the system a couple of years to figure out if the bulk price of selling corn (or rice or whatever) is going to stay high enough for farmers to maximize their yields again and the US can grow enough corn for food AND bio-fuels without a problem.

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you? It's gonna kill my grocery budget. I got an email from a friend who makes rice flour who said the price will probably jump to double in June........she wants me to stockpile, but that seems to be adding to the problem.

So, do I stockpile to ensure food for my family and make the problem worse? Should I drop other luxuries to afford rice?

I went to Sams club this morning and they had big signs about how much rice you were allowed to get.........it's kinda alarming. I've read they are blaming it on biofuel too. I thought that was made from corn.
(which is also getting more expensive lately doh!)

Acually stockpiling rice will make the problem better. There will be an increase in demand, an increase in price, and farmers will respond by making more rice. In theory.

Acually stockpiling rice will make the problem better. There will be an increase in demand, an increase in price, and farmers will respond by making more rice. In theory.
If that theory was accurate, we wouldn't be in this mess.

If that theory was accurate, we wouldn't be in this mess.

How fast can you grow corn or rice?

I just brought the Mercury News upstairs and read that very headline. It's going to be devestating here, we have very large Asian and Indian populations here and a rice shortage is going to hit us hard. Combined with a bone-dry March and one day of rain so far in April... :(

India is a part of Asia.

Again, I'm not joking, not sucker punching the US, not going for a cheap laugh. However, you make a good point there. I wonder if precanned, frozen food price has risen, as I do not have access to inside US information.

*nod* Thank you. I didn't know your situation either, so I shouldn't be so cross. It would be interesting to investigate the frozen/pre-fab food prices. I know fast food prices have increased steadily, with McDonalds at the forefront, but a lot of that is probably due to all the complications with crappy tainted beef.

India is a part of Asia.

It is, indeed, but the Indian people I know do not like to be called Asian, just like the black people I know don't like to be called African American, so I usually distinguish between the two.

Again, I'm not joking, not sucker punching the US, not going for a cheap laugh. However, you make a good point there. I wonder if precanned, frozen food price has risen, as I do not have access to inside US information.

It's gone up, but from personal experience it lags behind the price of unprepared food.

Acually stockpiling rice will make the problem better. There will be an increase in demand, an increase in price, and farmers will respond by making more rice. In theory.

The problem is that rice is very location dependent plant.

Some other plants fit for human consumption, on the other hand, are not.

Cutting back on meat would also be a good thing in the long run....however, at least here, certain meat products cost less than alternative plant products - It makes sense too, in a way, as the winters here preclude any plant growth but (theoretically) allows for animal substenance using energy & nutrient poor (for a human) fodder stored during summer. The downside is that they probably feed imported fodder - soy products, et al - for most cattle during the winter.

There are two sides to the story - high food prices are a boon for farmers.
You are forgetting the rural farmer who is making enough to potentially lift them out of horrible poverty.

This is why it is abhorrent for governments to impose export restrictions and price controls - not only do they exasperate poverty in rural areas to the benefit of the urban poor (who are typically wealthier than the rural poor), but they prolong further shortages by discouraging investing in higher yields and can even reduce output.

Obviously the farm subsidies of industrialized nations have drastically intensified the problems with food production - various subsidies and distorted incentives cause havoc in the global markets. The answer is not 'more government', it is to let the market work itself out. This means an end to subsidies (implicit or explicit), price controls, barriers to trade, and all the idiocy of politicians trying to buy votes with counterproductive policies.

In the example of corn, the US has a long history of distorting the market. High fructose corn syrup is in everything because there are massive subsidies to make it (to both the detriment of our health and higher tax burden). The last decade especially has seen massive increases due to ethanol production using one of the most inefficient crops around - with a 31% hike in just the last year, because of corn subsidies. This puts pressure on other crops as the high corn price, plus all the subsidies, makes it more profitable to grow than crops actually for food. Were ethanol anything more than a boondoggle, there would not be massive tariffs on sugar nor on sugar-based ethanol.

Perhaps, if we are lucky, people will learn from the mistakes being made now. The cost in terms of death and suffering will be high, and unfortunately there will be many who blame the farmers, not the politicians. But I can always hope.

The answer is not 'more government', it is to let the market work itself out. This means an end to subsidies (implicit or explicit), price controls, barriers to trade, and all the idiocy of politicians trying to buy votes with counterproductive policies.

I whemenently disagree with this.

Every country should strive to be maximally food independent - and should strive to export the excess to where there's a food shortage.

The problem with free market is that agriculture will naturally thrive only where there's a profit to be made ie. where the crop yield is big enough.

This leads to multitude of problems:
- Food will be *globally* more expensive (think of the poor & developing countries)
- Food production will concentrate on areas which are *currently* best suited for food production. If there's a drought, monsoon or perhaps due to global climate change you'd have global famine because majority of food production would be concentrated to smaller areas. In other words, the chance of a critical food supply failure would be bigger.
- There would be more incentives and possibilities to artifically pump up the prices. Just think OPEC & oil.
- The increased need for longer food transports would mean less fresh goods and would increase the energy expenditure of transit hence further increasing food costs and advancing global climate change
- The need to maximize crop yield at any cost leading to erosion, greater use of pesticides, impoverished land, monocultural farming....


What is needed is more and better targeted subsidies for farmers *worldwide* so that more people take on farming hence producing more food in more places in more sustainable manner.

edit:
In one way you're right...We need less government but more global thinking.

bleh, not a big fan of rice, or most carbs to be honest except potatoes. they always leave me feeling hungry. but then the price of the other carbs will prolly go up as demand as a result, so booo!

The problem is that rice is very location dependent plant.

Some other plants fit for human consumption, on the other hand, are not.

Cutting back on meat would also be a good thing in the long run....however, at least here, certain meat products cost less than alternative plant products - It makes sense too, in a way, as the winters here preclude any plant growth but (theoretically) allows for animal substenance using energy & nutrient poor (for a human) fodder stored during summer. The downside is that they probably feed imported fodder - soy products, et al - for most cattle during the winter.

So then maybe we should make less rice and more of other food products. Whatever may happen, the market will sort this mess out. I just hope that governments don't start fixing prices and mandating change because that might cause a real crisis.

bleh, not a big fan of rice, or most carbs to be honest except potatoes. they always leave me feeling hungry. but then the price of the other carbs will prolly go up as demand as a result, so booo!

Rice is a much better Carb for you the potatoes or just about any other carb because it has very low (for carbs)on the glycemic index.

the reason Rice cost is important is because it is the staple food of the majority of the world(Asia).

the reason Rice prices have gone up in the world is because Several Asian countries that are normally net food exporters had bad harvest this year and they are having to be a net importer.
The reason Americans are noticing the food price increase this year is because of the devaluation of the dollars, which until now was countered by increasing imports from Asia because most Asian countries tie their currency to the dollar. Have to now import food from currencies not pegged to the dollar (either floating or euro pegged) means it takes more US dollars to get the needed food.

I'm not sure because I can't have most of it. Basically I eat meat (expensive), produce (expensive), and rice (expensive). I know quite a few people who are in financial straights who can't afford those things and have to eat pre-packaged food, I'm pretty sure the price of that has gone up because our traffic at the food bank has picked up.

Rice, even if the price went up 100%, 200% or 500%, would still be cheaper than meat.

I mean, what the hell? For the price of a single, pre-packaged meal I can get rice to feed myself for weeks. Do you only buy rice as an ingredient in other goods, such as bread? If you really need to save money on rice, you need to start looking at the 10-20kg sacks.

I guess I just don't get it. Rice is still incredibly cheap, and much better value than pretty much anything else.

Rice is a much better Carb for you the potatoes or just about any other carb because it has very low (for carbs)on the glycemic index.

the reason Rice cost is important is because it is the staple food of the majority of the world(Asia).

the reason Rice prices have gone up in the world is because Several Asian countries that are normally net food exporters had bad harvest this year and they are having to be a net importer.
The reason Americans are noticing the food price increase this year is because of the devaluation of the dollars, which until now was countered by increasing imports from Asia because most Asian countries tie their currency to the dollar. Have to now import food from currencies not pegged to the dollar (either floating or euro pegged) means it takes more US dollars to get the needed food.

rice blows though, tasteless and boring and i always feel hungry after. potatoes are nice and filling, especially mash, and they have flavour. i don't even know what the glycemic index is but i have a strong suspicion i don't care.

Oh noes!! There goes my sushi!!!:(

Right. Remind me what article is linked to in the OP?You could just go look yourself

We are on a college campus, no alcohol allowed. So we wont have to worry about that.
Like that ever stopped us ;)

Yeah, I lived on a dry campus for two years. Managed to drink quite a bit in those dorms too.

Ah, the simple joys of private apartment life.

It should make americans happy, although.
Unless you're one of those poor Americans who are already only scraping by. But wait, they aren't in Africa or Haiti, and haven't rioted, so they don't count.
No, this isn't all directed at you, Aelosia...just the general sentiment that all Americans have it easy. We don't all. Many do. Not all.

I'll say it again for any that have failed to catch on thus far.

NOT. ALL.

*breathes*

living in lincolnshire i haven't really noticed the raise of food price, most food of my food is locally grown. Though what i have noticed is that many a field has been built upon reducing the acreage for crops to be grown

Just wait for it to hit beer and, later, liquors.
....WHAT!!!! *Runs to nearest liquor store to stock up*

....WHAT!!!! *Runs to nearest liquor store to stock up*

see? Personalize the issue and people will care more ;)

easy solution:

just plain DONT export national surplus of foods to inferior 3rd world countries
These will NEVER develop, so why keep feeding them in the hopes that they will

thats like getting a midget and having someone feeding it vegetables because eating your greens will 'help them grow up big and strong'

If they were meant to go anywhere, they are now as far as they can go, and thats where they stay, stop playing make believe that they could go any further

If you americans want to send food to a bunch of retarded idiots, the white house is much closer and doesnt require international shipping

Keep on making those biofuels, guys...what could possibly go wrong with tearing up all of your rice crops to grow corn? I mean, it's not like anybody relies on rice for their basic sustenance anyways.

....WHAT!!!! *Runs to nearest liquor store to stock up*

Follow Him!!!

*blows trumpet and calls the charge*

There are two sides to the story - high food prices are a boon for farmers.
You are forgetting the rural farmer who is making enough to potentially lift them out of horrible poverty.

This is why it is abhorrent for governments to impose export restrictions and price controls - not only do they exasperate poverty in rural areas to the benefit of the urban poor (who are typically wealthier than the rural poor), but they prolong further shortages by discouraging investing in higher yields and can even reduce output.

Obviously the farm subsidies of industrialized nations have drastically intensified the problems with food production - various subsidies and distorted incentives cause havoc in the global markets. The answer is not 'more government', it is to let the market work itself out. This means an end to subsidies (implicit or explicit), price controls, barriers to trade, and all the idiocy of politicians trying to buy votes with counterproductive policies.

In the example of corn, the US has a long history of distorting the market. High fructose corn syrup is in everything because there are massive subsidies to make it (to both the detriment of our health and higher tax burden). The last decade especially has seen massive increases due to ethanol production using one of the most inefficient crops around - with a 31% hike in just the last year, because of corn subsidies. This puts pressure on other crops as the high corn price, plus all the subsidies, makes it more profitable to grow than crops actually for food. Were ethanol anything more than a boondoggle, there would not be massive tariffs on sugar nor on sugar-based ethanol.

Perhaps, if we are lucky, people will learn from the mistakes being made now. The cost in terms of death and suffering will be high, and unfortunately there will be many who blame the farmers, not the politicians. But I can always hope.

No, not really. The farmer's overhead pretty much eats up any profit. Overhead includes fuel for tractors, harversters, transporting and processing: pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers (don't tell them to grow it all organically, that raises the cost even more because it's labor intensive and not as productive): labor: seed: insurance: taxes: equipment maintenance: payment to the middleman (most farmers don't sell at farmer's markets or at the roadside) - this, incidentally, is where the greatest markup is - the farmers aren't making the money, the distributors, marketers and grocery stores are.

- the farmers aren't making the money, the distributors, marketers and grocery stores are.

Grocery stores actually have very, very low margins on their sales. Markups are pretty much next to nothing for most retailers; for example, Kroger has a profit margin on sales of 1.9%, and a gross margin of only 23.5%; those are very low compared to other sectors, even within retailing.

Overall, agriculture is a very low-margin industry. However, the money's made in volume, not in per-unit profits.

Grocery stores actually have very, very low margins on their sales. Markups are pretty much next to nothing for most retailers; for example, Kroger has a profit margin on sales of 1.9%, and a gross margin of only 23.5%; those are very low compared to other sectors, even within retailing.

Overall, agriculture is a very low-margin industry. However, the money's made in volume, not in per-unit profits.

Meaning small farmers are making nothing. Factory farming is the money maker and they grow what's profitable, not what's needed. And even there the margin is low, they still contract to middleman marketers who buy low and sell high.

I worked for 23 years as an admin person for a farm, after the contract marketers subtracted their overhead from our bottom line, we were quite frequently in the hole - even before subtracting our overhead.

Meaning small farmers are making nothing. Factory farming is the money maker and they grow what's profitable, not what's needed. And even there the margin is low, they still contract to middleman marketers who buy low and sell high.

I worked for 23 years as an admin person for a farm, after the contract marketers subtracted their overhead from our bottom line, we were quite frequently in the hole - even before subtracting our overhead.

Very true.

I eat rice pasta. :(

I wonder how much of your pre-packaged food contains rice and you just don't know.....

I actually don't eat a lot of packaged food. And any pre-packaged food I eat is generally produced at the store itself. (ie: tonight's dinner for me is Hummus, Tabouleh with pita for scooping up the goods).

In fact, the only thing with rice I eat is sushi and that is rarely because of the cost of ordering.

The closest thing to rice in my house is a type of pasta called "Orzo". And the only thing that makes it even rice-like is the shape of the noodles. :) Orzo is good.

Could be a very big deal, but Japan has been stockpiling rice for years and its rice crop is probably the only food item it is (currently) self-sufficient at, not to mention this strange Japanese insistence that ONLY Japanese rice tastes right.

Ironically, if and when the problem hits Japan, it will not be because farmers are growing bio-fuel instead of rice, but because the farmers are dying. A lot of the rice farmers are old and their children are heading off to Tokyo with no real interest in continuing the family rice farm.

That said, the price of wheat and dairy products have shot up like crazy in Japan so my household is eating far more rice than bread these days.

Tell me about it. Here in New York, rice paper prices have gone through the roof. Now I can't eat out at my favorite Asian new wave restaurants anymore.

I fucking hate rice.

They could just stop making biofuel from food and start making it from non-food biomass.

I would think a ban on biofuel from food stocks is coming.

Keep on making those biofuels, guys...what could possibly go wrong with tearing up all of your rice crops to grow corn? I mean, it's not like anybody relies on rice for their basic sustenance anyways.

But, but...... Al Gore says to use biofuels!

I fucking hate rice.

It hates you too. Have a rice day. ;)

It hates you too. Have a rice day. ;)

:headbang:

:mad:

:upyours: to rice!

:D

http://origin.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_9036860

Will this affect you? It's gonna kill my grocery budget. I got an email from a friend who makes rice flour who said the price will probably jump to double in June........she wants me to stockpile, but that seems to be adding to the problem.

So, do I stockpile to ensure food for my family and make the problem worse? Should I drop other luxuries to afford rice?

I went to Sams club this morning and they had big signs about how much rice you were allowed to get.........it's kinda alarming. I've read they are blaming it on biofuel too. I thought that was made from corn.
(which is also getting more expensive lately doh!)

More people gotta switch to potatoes.

No crop can feed more people per square foot than potatoes.

But, but...... Al Gore says to use biofuels!

We all know hydrogen is the wave of the future. Forget about electric cars.. pfft, it isn't like the technology has been well established and relatively reliable for decades or anything.

On topic: Don't buy rice. Grow your own.

They could just stop making biofuel from food and start making it from non-food biomass.

They don't need to use the CORN to make biofuel -- stems and husks and cobs work fine.

More people gotta switch to potatoes.

No crop can feed more people per square foot than potatoes.

Both the UN and I agree with you (http://www.potato2008.org/en/index.html).

Both the UN and I agree with you (http://www.potato2008.org/en/index.html).

Two reasons this is a bad idea.

1. Potato Famine
2. More immigrants coming to America because of a worldwide Potato Famine.
3. This is a good idea.

More people gotta switch to potatoes.

No crop can feed more people per square foot than potatoes.

I love potatoes!

Two reasons this is a bad idea.

1. Potato Famine
2. More immigrants coming to America because of a worldwide Potato Famine.
3. This is a good idea.

I don't think they want to create dependence on a single crop, but potatoes are very underused despite their usefulness.

I don't think they want to create dependence on a single crop, but potatoes are very underused despite their usefulness.

I was thinking about growing potatoes this year, but I didn't.

Since I don't want to use the easily accessible internet and would rather bother a random internet persona for questionable advice: Do you by any chance know what the best soil/climate to grow potatoes is?

Recent food news makes me wonder a lot of things.

-- I wonder how the hell I'm going to make ends meet if things don't turn around in a couple of years.

-- I wonder if rising food prices will finally get Americans to stop wasting food. I'm thinking of all those gigantic restaurant portions that can each feed 2-3 people. I saw a CNN report last week about how restaurants are already starting to reduce portion sizes, and buying smaller plates to try to hide it. And actually, I'm glad of that because I'm tired of eating off huge, huge plates on tiny, tiny tables. Better habits would be a possible positive outcome to this.

-- I wonder how bad the public health hit will be, as more Americans are forced to eat the poor man's diet of fast food and processed foods, which are cheaper than raw because of the volume of buying and selling for the manufacturers.

-- I wonder when people are going to evolve beyond the need to keep their heads up their own asses. I wonder why some people are so caught up in bitching at Americans that they can't figure out that if the US is feeling the pressure, then the global problem is really, really, really bad. Rather than cop attitude, if I were from any other continent but North America, I'd be pretty damned alarmed by Smunkee's thread.

-- And I wonder if it's time to buy a foreclosed mini-farm in Vermont and start living sustenance-style like a medieval peasant.

Gods, if there´s a rice shortage, how in the world am I gonna have my delicious sushi?! I´m about to panic!:eek:

Gods, if there´s a rice shortage, how in the world am I gonna have my delicious sushi?! I´m about to panic!:eek:

Eat beef and potatoes instead.

*nods*

Eat beef and potatoes instead.

*nods*

But... but... but... I like sushi.

Eat beef and potatoes instead.

What has become of the noble turnip?

Recent food news makes me wonder a lot of things.

-- I wonder how the hell I'm going to make ends meet if things don't turn around in a couple of years.

-- I wonder if rising food prices will finally get Americans to stop wasting food. I'm thinking of all those gigantic restaurant portions that can each feed 2-3 people. I saw a CNN report last week about how restaurants are already starting to reduce portion sizes, and buying smaller plates to try to hide it. And actually, I'm glad of that because I'm tired of eating off huge, huge plates on tiny, tiny tables. Better habits would be a possible positive outcome to this.

-- I wonder how bad the public health hit will be, as more Americans are forced to eat the poor man's diet of fast food and processed foods, which are cheaper than raw because of the volume of buying and selling for the manufacturers.

-- I wonder when people are going to evolve beyond the need to keep their heads up their own asses. I wonder why some people are so caught up in bitching at Americans that they can't figure out that if the US is feeling the pressure, then the global problem is really, really, really bad. Rather than cop attitude, if I were from any other continent but North America, I'd be pretty damned alarmed by Smunkee's thread.

-- And I wonder if it's time to buy a foreclosed mini-farm in Vermont and start living sustenance-style like a medieval peasant.

I happen to like those large portions, thank you. I can take hope the left overs and eat it later!

I eat fast food quite a bit, probably a bit too much, but my metabolism is good, so I'm fine!

I really doubt the average American eats enough rice to be impacted that much.

But... but... but... I like sushi.

Hmm..

Eat raw beef and potatoes cut into rice shapes!

What has become of the noble turnip?

Dunno. I don't eat them that often.

Beef and potatoes is a staple in my diet, however, in various forms such as steak, roast beef, burgers, baked potatoes, mashed potatoes, and french fries!

Hmm..

Eat raw beef and potatoes cut into rice shapes!

I´ll think about it.;)

Gods, if there´s a rice shortage, how in the world am I gonna have my delicious sushi?! I´m about to panic!:eek:

There is a decreasing amount of fish in the sea, but more are probably dead than alive, so your sushi supply will most likely be undiminished.

Or maybe rice is entirely necessary for something to be considered sushi and I am just being nitpicky about his.

There is a decreasing amount of fish in the sea, but more are probably dead than alive, so your sushi supply will most likely be undiminished.

Or maybe rice is entirely necessary for something to be considered sushi and I am just being nitpicky about his.

Nitpicky, definitely.;) Rice is essential for sushi and sashimi. But I guess I could settle for just raw fish. It´s equally good.

What has become of the noble turnip?

That's not a turnip, that's Baldrick's...

...

Nitpicky, definitely.;)
Oh.
Rice is essential for sushi and sashimi.
I thought that said salami and went 'Ehwhat!? Nooooooooo!' and panicked for a second. All in my head.
But I guess I could settle for just raw fish. It´s equally good.
Whatever floats your boat.

*napalms cod and then rolls in in some breadcrumbs*

Oh.

I thought that said salami and went 'Ehwhat!? Nooooooooo!' and panicked for a second. All in my head.

Whatever floats your boat.

*napalms cod and then rolls in in some breadcrumbs*

Well, I´ve heard pretty odd combinations in sushi so, there may be a salami roll somewhere.:D

*stares at the cod roll and chuckles*

Two reasons this is a bad idea.

1. Potato Famine
2. More immigrants coming to America because of a worldwide Potato Famine.
3. This is a good idea.

The potato famine was only a problem because the English wouldn't allow all the other food that the Irish grew to stay in Ireland. They argued that charity would breed dependence, and so decided not to charitably allow them to grow food on their own land.

It was also very localized. If potatoes were grown all over the world, and in several varieties, no single potato blight would be a serious problem.

I was thinking about growing potatoes this year, but I didn't.

Since I don't want to use the easily accessible internet and would rather bother a random internet persona for questionable advice: Do you by any chance know what the best soil/climate to grow potatoes is?

There are many varieties of potato. A little research will tell you the best variety for where you live. And they're really easy to grow. They even start to sprout if you leave them in your fridge.

Maybe it'd be comparable if there was a worldwide doctor shortage and you were importing Nigerian doctors to attend to your sore knee while people were dying in Africa.
Surprise, surprise! This actually happens... sort of. The increasing demand for nurses and caregivers for elderly in America and other developed countries is sucking out our health professionals fast that even secondary hospitals in the provinces lack even a single doctor. Ever heard of doctors becoming nurses? Yup, we have lots of 'em. 'cause the pay there as a nurse is much higher than the pay here as doctors! :eek:

Acually stockpiling rice will make the problem better. There will be an increase in demand, an increase in price, and farmers will respond by making more rice. In theory.
Stockpiling and hoarding is most likely to jack up prices more by creating an artificial shortage in supply. Than greedy people will sell their stockpile/hoard when the prices are very high to make huge huge profits.

How fast can you grow corn or rice?
Depends on the rice. Upland varieties grown here can take up to as long as six months.

Obviously the farm subsidies of industrialized nations have drastically intensified the problems with food production - various subsidies and distorted incentives cause havoc in the global markets. The answer is not 'more government', it is to let the market work itself out. This means an end to subsidies (implicit or explicit), price controls, barriers to trade, and all the idiocy of politicians trying to buy votes with counterproductive policies.
This.

For our situation here, there are several factors that contributed to the rice shortage. First, of course, is the hunger for biofuels. Of course if biofuels are more proftable to produce and sell, farmers will switch to it rather than producing staple crops. Second, there is the problem of dumping. Surplus harvests by bigger countries are being sold ("dumped") in smaller, poorer countries. Of course, in developed countries, much of the agriculture is subsidized, and so the cost of production, and the ultimate product, is cheaper. Sometimes it is even cheaper to buy dumped foreign produce than locally-produced food! :eek: What we have there is the distortion of markets by many of the developed countries. And third, peculiar to our situation, is the neglect of agriculture sector. The government had neglected to improve our agricultural sector, failed to implement agrarian reform, and even facilitated the conversion of agricultural land into suburbs. Hell, our farmers still plants and harvests rice by hand!

Rice, even if the price went up 100%, 200% or 500%, would still be cheaper than meat.

I guess I just don't get it. Rice is still incredibly cheap, and much better value than pretty much anything else.
You don't eat meat as a staple food, do you? Unless you are a meat-arian or a lion.

Rice is not incredibly cheap. For you, maybe. But for us, it isn't. The view of "cheap" usually depends on where you are and your economic status.

Gods, if there´s a rice shortage, how in the world am I gonna have my delicious sushi?! I´m about to panic!:eek:
Potato Sushi! ;)

-- I wonder how bad the public health hit will be, as more Americans are forced to eat the poor man's diet of fast food and processed foods, which are cheaper than raw because of the volume of buying and selling for the manufacturers.

This is a myth. Last Sunday I spend $1.50 on one red and one green pepper. $1.29 on a bunch of celery $7.00 on some skinless chicken breast, and $3.00 on a bag of potatoes. I then made a pot of chicken soup that I ate for dinner every day this week. Add the $2.00 for the bag of whole wheat bread that I've been eating with it, and the food cost $14.30. I only used half the chicken and about a third of the potatoes, so it really only cost $8.50. That means that my dinner was $1.70 per day.

At work my lunch is usually a turkey sandwich and a cup of tea, which I bring from home. A half-pound of sliced turkey costs between 4 and 6 dollars, depending on brand and sales. Tea costs about a seventh of a cent per bag. I don't eat the whole half-pound by the end of the week, but we can round up and call it a dollar a day.

So Monday to Friday my food budget is about $14 each week.

Most fast food "value meals," are in the neighborhood of $3.80-$5.20. Let's call it $4.50. Twice a day five days a week, this works out to $45 per week. Real food with real ingredients is much more cost effective, if you know what you're doing.

You don't eat meat as a staple food, do you? Unless you are a meat-arian or a lion.

What's wrong with meat as a staple in your diet?

Meat is a staple in my diet! I usually have it with every meal!

Potato Sushi! ;)

Um, I like the sound of that.

The potato famine was only a problem because the English wouldn't allow all the other food that the Irish grew to stay in Ireland. They argued that charity would breed dependence, and so decided not to charitably allow them to grow food on their own land.

It was also very localized. If potatoes were grown all over the world, and in several varieties, no single potato blight would be a serious problem.
I wasn't being entirely serious, but I wasn't entirely aware of the reasons behind the famine. So I still learned something.
There are many varieties of potato. A little research will tell you the best variety for where you live. And they're really easy to grow. They even start to sprout if you leave them in your fridge.

Thankee.
*tosses dirt and potatoes in fridge*
Now I can just pick them whenever I want.

This is a myth. Last Sunday I spend $1.50 on one red and one green pepper. $1.29 on a bunch of celery $7.00 on some skinless chicken breast, and $3.00 on a bag of potatoes. I then made a pot of chicken soup that I ate for dinner every day this week. Add the $2.00 for the bag of whole wheat bread that I've been eating with it, and the food cost $14.30. I only used half the chicken and about a third of the potatoes, so it really only cost $8.50. That means that my dinner was $1.70 per day.

At work my lunch is usually a turkey sandwich and a cup of tea, which I bring from home. A half-pound of sliced turkey costs between 4 and 6 dollars, depending on brand and sales. Tea costs about a seventh of a cent per bag. I don't eat the whole half-pound by the end of the week, but we can round up and call it a dollar a day.

So Monday to Friday my food budget is about $14 each week.

Most fast food "value meals," are in the neighborhood of $3.80-$5.20. Let's call it $4.50. Twice a day five days a week, this works out to $45 per week. Real food with real ingredients is much more cost effective, if you know what you're doing.
I guess it depends on where you live. I'm in the metro Boston area, Massachusetts, one of the most expensive states in the US. At the cheapest market available to me, green bell peppers cost ~$1.29/lb, and red bell peppers vary greatly from ~$1.50/lb up to as much as $2.99/lb. Approximately 2 bell peppers = 1 lb. There is no way I could get two bell peppers, including a red one for $1.50. And I buy peppers every week. They are one of my staple vegetables.

I eat a mostly vegetarian diet (because for some reason, cooking meat is a big annoyance to me, so I only eat it in restaurants), and except for hummus, yogurt, cheese and breakfast cereals, I make everything myself from scratch, from raw. If I ate half my meals from a fast food dollar menu instead, I would save money, but lose health.

I guess it depends on where you live. I'm in the metro Boston area, Massachusetts, one of the most expensive states in the US. At the cheapest market available to me, green bell peppers cost ~$1.29/lb, and red bell peppers vary greatly from ~$1.50/lb up to as much as $2.99/lb. Approximately 2 bell peppers = 1 lb. There is no way I could get two bell peppers, including a red one for $1.50. And I buy peppers every week. They are one of my staple vegetables.

I eat a mostly vegetarian diet (because for some reason, cooking meat is a big annoyance to me, so I only eat it in restaurants), and except for hummus, yogurt, cheese and breakfast cereals, I make everything myself from scratch, from raw. If I ate half my meals from a fast food dollar menu instead, I would save money, but lose health.

How often and for how long does one have to eat fast food before it starts adversely affecting their health? (on average?) I would assume it would take several years. Possibly even a decade or two.

Nitpicky, definitely.;) Rice is essential for sushi and sashimi. But I guess I could settle for just raw fish. It´s equally good.
Er... rice isn't essential for sashimi, unless you're referring to the Japanese notion that a meal isn't complete without rice.

*Typed while working on the huge bowl of rice that is a major component of my school's daily lunch*

How often and for how long does one have to eat fast food before it starts adversely affecting their health? (on average?) I would assume it would take several years. Possibly even a decade or two.

Depends on frequency and what you actually eat, I would think. If you're mainlining fast food for three meals a day, probably in a short span of time (if Supersize Me was any indication).

How often and for how long does one have to eat fast food before it starts adversely affecting their health? (on average?) I would assume it would take several years. Possibly even a decade or two.

About 30 days. Didn't you see that movie? haha.

Probably less btw, fast food is really high in fat, sodium, and other badness.

Er... rice isn't essential for sashimi, unless you're referring to the Japanese notion that a meal isn't complete without rice.

*Typed while working on the huge bowl of rice that is a major component of my school's daily lunch*

*drools*
Japanese rice bowls are glorious.

Btw, I was a bit out of line critisising Smunkeeville but because someone answered quite hostilely I thought I'd give as good as I got.

But now, in the aftermath of the battle with e-corpses strewn all around I would like to say sorry Smunkee :)

About 30 days. Didn't you see that movie? haha.

Probably less btw, fast food is really high in fat, sodium, and other badness.

Well, I don't know anyone who east fast food every day for every meal...

Let's say you eat fast food three 4 times a week. Would that have any adverse affects on your health? (assuming you don't exercize regularly)

True fast food is filled with badness, but so much tastiness!

How often and for how long does one have to eat fast food before it starts adversely affecting their health? (on average?) I would assume it would take several years. Possibly even a decade or two.
Eat it regularly -- I mean maybe 5 times a week for work-day lunch -- and you will see negative effects in less than a month. The first very noticeable effect will be weight gain because fast foods are high in fat, carbs and sugar. If you pay attention to your body you will next notice a bad effect from the excess salt in fast food. That effect is actually more immediate than the weight gain, but many people don't start to feel it for a while (beyond the thirst it creates when you eat it). The longer term effects will be loss of healthfulness in skin, hair, nails, and increasing lack of energy, because the over-cooking of fast foods pretty much destroys most of their vitamins. It might take a few months for you to see that effect, but it will be much less than a year.

I pay attention to such stuff because I love Big Macs, but I also love life. I indulge my McD jones maybe two or three times a year.

EDIT: Btw, I know plenty of people who work in downtown Boston offices and stores, who hit McD's, BK, or Wendy's every day, Monday through Friday, for lunch. They neither look nor feel as good as the ones who get their lunches from the much more expensive health-burrito-and-smoothie joints like Boloco -- but if they can't afford the organic tofu burritos...

Eat it regularly -- I mean maybe 5 times a week for work-day lunch -- and you will see negative effects in less than a month. The first very noticeable effect will be weight gain because fast foods are high in fat, carbs and sugar. If you pay attention to your body you will next notice a bad effect from the excess salt in fast food. That effect is actually more immediate than the weight gain, but many people don't start to feel it for a while (beyond the thirst it creates when you eat it). The longer term effects will be loss of healthfulness in skin, hair, nails, and increasing lack of energy, because the over-cooking of fast foods pretty much destroys most of their vitamins. It might take a few months for you to see that effect, but it will be much less than a year.

I pay attention to such stuff because I love Big Macs, but I also love life. I indulge my McD jones maybe two or three times a year.

Hmm.

Interesting.

I need to cut back on fast food then. I've been eating it a bit too much for the past 3 weeks or so.

Edit:

I could never cut back to eating fast food just 3 times a year though!

*drools*
Japanese rice bowls are glorious.
Alas... this is a Japanese school lunch, meaning just a large bowl of plain, white rice. Which I'll get again for dinner as well as my wife cooks traditional Japanese foods and also thinks rice is a basic part of any meal.

And then everyone here wonders why I insist on having bread for breakfast instead of rice and miso soup.

Well, I don't know anyone who east fast food every day for every meal...

Let's say you eat fast food three 4 times a week. Would that have any adverse affects on your health? (assuming you don't exercize regularly)

True fast food is filled with badness, but so much tastiness!
I wouldn't recommend eating it that much, especially if you are prone to gain weight or are often tired or have any vitamin deficiency. I can guarantee you if you go on a whole food diet for about 3 weeks you will feel better (even if you don't feel bad now) and when you go back and even try some fast food, it will be nasty.

I quit soda for 3 weeks, the first drink of it, was horrible. I can't drink it anymore. It's acidy and gross.

Alas... this is a Japanese school lunch, meaning just a large bowl of plain, white rice. Which I'll get again for dinner as well as my wife cooks traditional Japanese foods and also thinks rice is a basic part of any meal.

And then everyone here wonders why I insist on having bread for breakfast instead of rice and miso soup.

Wait...

all they get for lunch is PLAIN white rice?

How can people eat that?! They don't get any meat or vegetable in the rice? Or some type of sauce?!

If not, then Japan is committing crimes against its children! And you, poor, poor Nervun!

I wouldn't recommend eating it that much, especially if you are prone to gain weight or are often tired or have any vitamin deficiency. I can guarantee you if you go on a whole food diet for about 3 weeks you will feel better (even if you don't feel bad now) and when you go back and even try some fast food, it will be nasty.

I quit soda for 3 weeks, the first drink of it, was horrible. I can't drink it anymore. It's acidy and gross.

Luckily I'm good on vitamins, and not prone to weight gain! Though I have cut back on fast food recently. I ate it too much for about 3-4 weeks.

And giving up soda? What would be the point of life without it? ;) (I call it pop, btw)

I love me some pop!

I wouldn't recommend eating it that much, especially if you are prone to gain weight or are often tired or have any vitamin deficiency. I can guarantee you if you go on a whole food diet for about 3 weeks you will feel better (even if you don't feel bad now) and when you go back and even try some fast food, it will be nasty.

I quit soda for 3 weeks, the first drink of it, was horrible. I can't drink it anymore. It's acidy and gross.
I can confirm the truth of that. After being in Japan for a few years I've gotten really used to drinking teas and juices instead of soda (I have a Coke from time to time) as well as being used to the much lower levels of sugar and sweetinings in Japanese products. Everyone I go back home or get food from the US I find that I can barely eat it any more, or at least not in the same amount that I used to be able to shovel away.

Wait...

all they get for lunch is PLAIN white rice?

How can people eat that?! They don't get any meat or vegetable in the rice? Or some type of sauce?!

If not, then Japan is committing crimes against its children! And you, poor, poor Nervun!
Er, no. We get a BOWL of plain white rice WITH the lunch. My lunch today consisted of the said bowl of white rice, pickled veggies with some rice noodles and tiny bits of ham, a bowl of miso soup, and a baked fish with sweet miso (Which I couldn't eat). Add in a small bottle of milk and that's what I got to fill me up after teaching this morning.

Usually though, most Japanese do NOT put anything in the rice. Or rather, you can find rice with seaweed or other small additions, but you never pour some sort of sauce on the rice. My wife was absolutely horrified when the first time she fed me rice, I poured soy sauce on it. I got a half an hour lecture on how doing that is an insult to the cook, the rice, and the rice farmer who worked so hard to grow me this beautiful, delicious, white rice. :D

Meat is a staple in my diet! I usually have it with every meal!
Yeah! Me too!

Um, I like the sound of that.
*makes potato sushi*

I rika da lice.

*makes potato sushi*

*sits and waits for her potato sushi, chopstix in hand, tamari sauce in the other*

Well, I don't know anyone who east fast food every day for every meal...

I do. When the nearest grocery store is 5 miles away and there are approximately 5 fast food places and 10 liquor stores in the four blocks around you, it happens a lot. :(

You don't eat meat as a staple food, do you? Unless you are a meat-arian or a lion.

Rice is not incredibly cheap. For you, maybe. But for us, it isn't. The view of "cheap" usually depends on where you are and your economic status.

I live in Sweden and I'm far from rich.

I looked up the portion size of rice in my cooking book, and it said 3/4 dl or 60g. I felt this was a bit small, so I increased it to 1 dl which is 80g. The rice I buy, a basmati rice, costs about 35 SEK for a 2kg bag. 2kg is enough for 25 80g meals at a cost of 1.4 SEK or 0.24 USD per meal. If that's too much, there are cheaper brands, and you can get some great prices if you buy larger bags.

I don't dispute that there are people, even Americans, who would be hurt by an increase in the price of rice. But what I don't understand is how people talk like they're going to stop eating rice because it's too expensive. What are you going to replace it with that is cheaper? Potatoes is the by far most popular staple around here, and many local farmers grow it, but it's still more expensive than rice. Much more, even.

If you need to save money, you start with the meat. And maybe cut down on the absurdly expensive rice bread, and eat plain rice instead.

You know I was fine when wheat was getting expensive, because companies stopped using it in foods, and started doing rice or corn, but now.....what are they going to use?

Mushrooms!

*sits and waits for her potato sushi, chopstix in hand, tamari sauce in the other*
*hands over potato sushi*

Just like mashed potatoes?

And maybe cut down on the absurdly expensive rice bread, and eat plain rice instead.
We already eat plain rice. There are a lot of people already who eat only rice for lunch, without any viand... beacuse they cannot buy meat, fish, or even vegetables. Sometimes they use soy sauce or even salt just to give the rice some flavor... that is, if they can still buy rice.

I do. When the nearest grocery store is 5 miles away and there are approximately 5 fast food places and 10 liquor stores in the four blocks around you, it happens a lot. :(

You could ride a bike 5 mi in 30 minutes. And grocery store food is a lot cheaper.

*hands over potato sushi*

Just like mashed potatoes?

But with a twist.

Every country should strive to be maximally food independent - and should strive to export the excess to where there's a food shortage.Why should some locale spend excessive amounts of money on food when it is demonstrably cheaper to import it? Do you really think it is better for Sweden to import pineapples or to raise taxes to subsidize domestic pineapple growers? This is obviously a simplification of the issues, but hopefully illustrates my point. What is efficient to produce locally, will be produced locally, otherwise why exactly should people lower their income for the dubious privilege of eating locally produced foods?

The problem with free market is that agriculture will naturally thrive only where there's a profit to be made ie. where the crop yield is big enough.I got a laugh at this because that is a good thing, yet you seem to say it as if it had a negative connotation. Growing pineapples in the arctic or raising salmon in the desert is fundamentally unprofitable - far better to grow it where it takes the lowest amount of resources to produce and send it to where it is most needed (ie, most profitable).

This leads to multitude of problems:
- Food will be *globally* more expensive (think of the poor & developing countries)Farmers in developing countries will be able to make more money in a global market with free trade, and thus more will be produced. This both provides for the needs of the population and alleviates poverty.

- Food production will concentrate on areas which are *currently* best suited for food production. If there's a drought, monsoon or perhaps due to global climate change you'd have global famine because majority of food production would be concentrated to smaller areas. In other words, the chance of a critical food supply failure would be bigger.There is not one single place in the world that is so amazingly fertile that it can grow all the food, and all varieties of food, for the entire world. That is simply so far beyond the capabilities of mankind as to be a ludicrous point. Even if arguing over simply marginal production, production is so vastly diversified that any changes to local weather will have little impact as opposed to requiring food be produced where it is least efficient to do so. Likewise, one could argue that climate change will make currently unproductive areas highly productive: basing agricultural production on possibilities is a very inefficient idea. Letting individuals make choices about production is far better as you take the sum total of estimates which will provide a far better return than betting entirely upon the decisions of one bureaucrat.

- There would be more incentives and possibilities to artifically pump up the prices. Just think OPEC & oil.A cartel relies upon the ability to restrict supply - with global free markets, any attempt by one area to restrict supply will simply result in other areas producing more foodstuffs. Production, without government restrictions, is so vastly distributed, and with such high substitutibility that a cartel is impossible. Thus the OPEC example is entirely spurious.

- The increased need for longer food transports would mean less fresh goods and would increase the energy expenditure of transit hence further increasing food costs and advancing global climate changeThe cost of transport is so minuscule that moving goods even great distances is generally more efficient than localized production. Growing fresh fruits and vegetables in wintry areas is substantially more expensive than importing them from the other side of the world (presuming a location with reasonable transportation infrastructure - for example, shipping fresh raspberries from Argentina to Boston in February is considerably less expensive, and has a lower environmental impact, than attempting to grow raspberries in Boston for a February harvest).

- The need to maximize crop yield at any cost leading to erosion, greater use of pesticides, impoverished land, monocultural farming....Your very choice of words, "at any cost" belies the basic economics of a free market - if the costs of production exceed the value of that production, it will not be produced. Only with government subsides and production mandates will an unprofitable product be made. Unless distortionary incentives for production (subsidies, restricted competition, mandates, etc) alter production choices, farmers will grow what they can to maximize profitability - this means reducing input requirements and maintaining the highest yields possible. Splurging on excessive inputs and reducing the value of the field is not economically rational - that occurs because the farmer has little choice due to restrictions placed upon them by well meaning bureaucrats who think they know better, to the extent that they consider the likelihood of a farmer knowing what crops to plant better than they do to be ridiculous.

What is needed is more and better targeted subsidies for farmers *worldwide* so that more people take on farming hence producing more food in more places in more sustainable manner.So how much should we subsidize farming? Should we all spend 200 days a year working to earn enough to make sure that Inuit pineapple growers get the largest crop they can? Yes, I do overuse the arctic pineapple growers union as an example simply because I think everyone can agree to just how ridiculous it really is.

Free markets are the collected wisdom of every market participant (many of whom are rather experienced and knowledgeable in the field - I am told that some of the people buying food in the marketplace have been buying food for decades and anticipate continuing to buy food for the foreseeable future) rather than placing the fate of mankind on the judgment of a handful of bureaucrats.

edit: In one way you're right...We need less government but more global thinking.You agree that there should be less government, yet all of your statements are in support of more government control over individual production and consumption. That is more than a little cognitive dissonance.

You could ride a bike 5 mi in 30 minutes. And grocery store food is a lot cheaper.

Yes, but you can't bring back too many groceries on a bike. I know people who do that, too, but my point is that urban poor areas often have less access to good produce and quality foods. I live in an affluent neighborhood, I have plenty of access, but I know people who don't and it's difficult for them.

Yes, but you can't bring back too many groceries on a bike. I know people who do that, too, but my point is that urban poor areas often have less access to good produce and quality foods. I live in an affluent neighborhood, I have plenty of access, but I know people who don't and it's difficult for them.

Not only do they have less access to good food, but the prices are much higher. Stores in poor neighborhoods have a captive audience and exploit that.

Yes, but you can't bring back too many groceries on a bike. I know people who do that, too, but my point is that urban poor areas often have less access to good produce and quality foods. I live in an affluent neighborhood, I have plenty of access, but I know people who don't and it's difficult for them.

urban areas have whats called the bus. pretty easy to carry groceries that way. as you get more mouths to fee make them come with you on the bus and help carry stuff.

Not only do they have less access to good food, but the prices are much higher. Stores in poor neighborhoods have a captive audience and exploit that.

Ive seen that attempted. normally by slightly less poor shop owners from the same population. What then normally happens is other groups compete and open their own shops.
for instance in Houston a lot of the shops were run by local African Americans whom in my opinion over charged their fellow urbanites. Well another group also living in the ghetto in this case the Koreans began opening their own stores and and charged a much more reasonable price.

Some theorize a lot of the Korean Vs African Rap lyrics comes from similar situations.

Why should some locale spend excessive amounts of money on food when it is demonstrably cheaper to import it?
Because it WILL not be cheaper to import food when the overall food output decreases because a large global supply is practically killed off - If subsidies are taken away then what happens is rapid decline of agriculture in areas where agriculture depends on subsidies, expensive irrigation or expensive use of pesticides and fertilizers.

This will not be compensated by cheap 3rd world supply fast enough - or if it is the cost will be enormous, both literally & environmentally: Say hello to DDT, deforestation, erosion and completely unsustainable farming methods.

What is efficient to produce locally, will be produced locally, otherwise why exactly should people lower their income for the dubious privilege of eating locally produced foods?

Eating locally growable food is ecologically sound principle: Transport of goods takes a lot of energy, energy usually produced by fossil fuels. And no I'm not talking about growing fresh fruits during winter in a greenhouse but naturally growing agricultural products.

I got a laugh at this because that is a good thing, yet you seem to say it as if it had a negative connotation. Growing pineapples in the arctic or raising salmon in the desert is fundamentally unprofitable - far better to grow it where it takes the lowest amount of resources to produce and send it to where it is most needed (ie, most profitable).

The problem is that for most of Western World *nothing* is efficiently, no make that, produced cheaply enough for human consumption - We cannot compete against 3rd world because our labor costs are high, our winters chillier and work, health & environmental standards higher. We can't even use child or slave labor let alone labor in exchange for substinence (food salary).

This would lead to a tremendous waste of valuable food producing area - We cannot simply mow down rainforests in order to replace food production that is currently done in less optimal zones. Or rather we could, but it's not a long term solution.

Concentrating food production is not sustainable developement and would introduce greater risk of global famine.

Farmers in developing countries will be able to make more money in a global market with free trade, and thus more will be produced. This both provides for the needs of the population and alleviates poverty.

Only in fantasy world conditions.

What happens is that Western corporations will take over farming if it becomes lucrative business - Think Chiquita vs. fair trade. Heck, even now with most efficient crops the farmers are not allowed to collect their own seeds because EULA denies it but are forced to buy them from a vendor every year.

There is not one single place in the world that is so amazingly fertile that it can grow all the food, and all varieties of food, for the entire world. That is simply so far beyond the capabilities of mankind as to be a ludicrous point.
FFS, I'm not talking about single place but concentration of food production.

There are only few climate & economic zones that would be able to support large scale agriculture without subsidies.

Or alternatively the global food prices rise high enough to compensate.....an interesting mechanic, that price is.
Even if arguing over simply marginal production, production is so vastly diversified that any changes to local weather will have little impact as
opposed to requiring food be produced where it is least efficient to do so.
For a single farmer living directly off the land with no subsidies in free market economy a single poor year could be devastating. Especially in a 3rd world where there are no safety nets beyond what you can scrape up.

Consequently the food yield would be highly chaotic from year-to-year basis even without any particular environmental disaster.

BUT if there was a drought *one year* that affected, say, 10% of normally good crop area the food prices and demand in rest of the world would greatly rise and would drive more people to poverty and even more people to famine.

In current globally distributed food production system an overall loss of 10% of specific crop is *highly* unlikely BUT what if 10% of the output would be concentrated on thin band or even an area like, say, China or India? Oh wait, there's a rice shortage - Gee, didn't see that one coming.

This topic itself is a good reminder of the fallacy: Rice production IS - and HAS to be due to the needs of rice cultivation - highly concentrated farming project with China and India producing nearly half of all rice. Countries which most likely aren't giving that big subsidies to farmers let alone having work or environmental standards anywhere near Western Countries.

Likewise, one could argue that climate change will make currently unproductive areas highly productive: basing agricultural production on possibilities is a very inefficient idea.

In principle, I agree with both of these statements.

Letting individuals make choices about production is far better as you take the sum total of estimates which will provide a far better return than betting entirely upon the decisions of one bureaucrat.
However individual ONLY thinks for him or herself.

If farm might produce big enough yield in 10 years for solid income then it's better to educate yourself to another profession and let the farmland forest itself.

Then boom, a drought in India - Food prices rise and there's no extra supply anywhere. The educated would-be-farmer will live on because he now has a high income job but can afford less goods leading to local depression and increased poverty, and even famine across the globe.

A bureaucrat - a global council - can foresee and stabilize human some aspects of greed and shortsightedness. When you don't have all eggs in the same basket you're much better off.

A cartel relies upon the ability to restrict supply - with global free markets, any attempt by one area to restrict supply will simply result in other areas producing more foodstuffs.

This is exactly what will NOT happen - At least not in any sort of rapid scale that would lead to sustainable practices.

There are only so few areas where farming is possible - You simply cannot start up a large scale farming operation in a random place on Earth.

Agriculture is a form of primary production, it requires investment of time, money, resources and education to start up - Especially if your primary goal HAS to be economic profitability in global free market from year one onwards.

Production, without government restrictions, is so vastly distributed, and with such high substitutibility that a cartel is impossible. Thus the OPEC example is entirely spurious.

Production is NOW vastly distributed if the crop allows it, eg wheat is produced all around the globe - even here, up north.

Production in completely free market economy would on the other hand be vastly concentrated because you cannot achieve great enough yield/dollar invested beyond certain restricted climate zones that CURRENTLY have favourable climate.

The cost of transport is so minuscule that moving goods even great distances is generally more efficient than localized production.

I concur, if the goods are moved using bulk freighters or trains for relatively short distances (~2,000-4,000 km)....

Growing fresh fruits and vegetables in wintry areas is substantially more expensive than importing them from the other side of the world
While you're right and personally think we should reduce our fresh fruit quota....

I'm not just talking about monetary expense but also about energy expense and carbon footprint.

(presuming a location with reasonable transportation infrastructure - for example, shipping fresh raspberries from Argentina to Boston in February is considerably less expensive, and has a lower environmental impact, than attempting to grow raspberries in Boston for a February harvest).
Would you think raspberries grown in Boston during summer would be less or more expensive than importing them from overseas from a country where land & labour costs are cheaper?

Your very choice of words, "at any cost" belies the basic economics of a free market - if the costs of production exceed the value of that production, it will not be produced.

So they must lower costs while increasing the yield - at any cost to nature or labour used.

It was a figure of speech, and you know it as well as I do.

Only with government subsides and production mandates will an unprofitable product be made.

Commonly affordable food IS an unprofitable product.
Splurging on excessive inputs and reducing the value of the field is not economically rational
An individual does not thing long term economic rationality - When your livelyhood depends on your crop yield, then an INDIVIDUAL will do what ever it takes to increase crop yield NOW without taking into account long term - a decade, maybe two, perhaps a century - sustainability.

Think of slash & burn farming - In short term you get better yields, in long term you run out of nutrients ending up with unarable barren land. There is no long term rationality in slash & burn farming yet it is still practiced.

Or what do you think of this:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/problems/forest_conversion_agriculture/deforestation_erosion/index.cfm

Long term sustainability IS NOT one of the creeds of free market, short term income - quarterly profits - are.

So how much should we subsidize farming? Should we all spend 200 days a year working to earn enough to make sure that Inuit pineapple growers get the largest crop they can? Yes, I do overuse the arctic pineapple growers union as an example simply because I think everyone can agree to just how ridiculous it really is.

Slippery slope fallacy - Subsiding globally diversified and sustainable agricultural production does not mean pineapple in Greenland....yet.

Free markets are the collected wisdom of every market participant
Free markets are formed from the collected stupidity of individuals.

Free markets work as badly as the worst participiant does, the lowest work & environmental standards and most short-sighted maximized short term profits ARE favoured over longer term sustainable developement IF there is no government/supranational entity intervention (eg. labour & environmental laws).

You agree that there should be less government, yet all of your statements are in support of more government control over individual production and consumption. That is more than a little cognitive dissonance.
I'm saying less governments because the issue of sustainable food production is a global issue.

We need international scheme for food production to survive global climate change and ever burgeoning population.

We cannot simply trust that we can replace sustainably global food production with production concentrated on good climate zones with better yields. In my opinion it would lead to widescale deforestation, erosion - environmental disaster - and global economic problems combined with more easily disrupted food production in general. Signs of this are already visible, just look at the topic.

I'm also utterly amazed how you seem to think that arable land - or agricultural knowhow - is an unlimited resource and immediately replacable elsewhere in the world - An idea that is so utterly preposterous that I'm frankly speechless.

Luckily I'm good on vitamins, and not prone to weight gain! Though I have cut back on fast food recently. I ate it too much for about 3-4 weeks.

And giving up soda? What would be the point of life without it? ;) (I call it pop, btw)

I love me some pop!

Soda Pop Kills!! Rots you out from the inside. That's another thing I cut down on drastically years ago. I think I have a glass of Coke about half-filled with ice, maybe 7 times a years. At most. And only if I really need a caffiene hit and it's too hot for coffee.

Yes, but you can't bring back too many groceries on a bike. I know people who do that, too, but my point is that urban poor areas often have less access to good produce and quality foods. I live in an affluent neighborhood, I have plenty of access, but I know people who don't and it's difficult for them.

Not only do they have less access to good food, but the prices are much higher. Stores in poor neighborhoods have a captive audience and exploit that.

urban areas have whats called the bus. pretty easy to carry groceries that way. as you get more mouths to fee make them come with you on the bus and help carry stuff.

I also live in what's known as an urban "food desert." I am in the middle of metro Boston, but my neighborhood is a triangle effectively cut off from the surrounding city by highways on two sides and trainyards on the third. The highways (with their on/off ramps) where rammed through the neighborhood in the 1970s when the State decided to use this area as a "gateway" in and out of the city for suburban car commuters (happened in lots of cities back then; gosh, thanks, Robert Moses). Among other bad efffects, this put up physical barriers that cut off pedestrian traffic from this residential area to the surrounding commercial districts, except for a few, indirect routes.

Now that this old, established neighborhood of Victorian houses is all converted to apartments, it has the population density to support at least one full service supermarket -- but there is not one supermarket on my side of any of the highways. There are only convenience stores, they all price gouge, and none of them carries healthful food or a full range of foods. Every now and then, one of the supermarket chains tries to get into the nearly defunct Assembly Mall, but they run into obstacles from either the landlords or the municipality, and the deals fall through every time.

So what does this mean in the real world? It means that I cannot buy food in my own neighborhood. I must travel A MINIMUM OF TWO AND A HALF HOURS ROUND TRIP to buy groceries. It doesn't matter which of the available markets I go to or if I walk or take the bus(es) -- food shopping requires a minimum of 2.5 hours. Take into consideration that in Boston, there is no such thing as a supermarket in a professional/commercial district (because of zoning) so there is no way for me to attach grocery shopping to a work commute, and consider that I have no car, and you start to see the challenge of working a 2.5 hour time block into my schedule. Then consider that because of their limited schedules, taking buses is actually not faster than walking, but does cost more. In fact, if I were to take buses to the cheapest of the markets, which is the farthest away, the food price savings would be reduced because I have to pay fares for two buses to get there (and two fares again to get back).

I don't think I'm the only person who feels the pressure from this. The single most common sight on our streets is bone-tired people trudging the long routes between here and the Market Basket or Foodmaster, loaded down with grocery bags, like frigging refugees. The elderly and people with small children have an even harder time of it.

Urban planning and public health studies over the past 20 years have strongly indicated that living in a "food desert" is bad for people's health. Where there is no full service market that sells "real" food within WALKING DISTANCE of a residential area, that residential area will see a significant increase in diet related health problems over surrounding areas. "Walking distance" is typically described by urban planners as a 10-20 minute walk. Not 2.5 hours.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/24/news/companies/rice_issues/index.htm?postversion=2008042418

Apparently, it's only certain types of rice that may have a shortage. The types of rice grown in the US aren't looking at any problems this year.

Hopefully, it won't all be hoarded here and exports to countries with shortages will increase. But maybe this makes things look a little better for people like Smunkee?

This is a myth. Last Sunday I spend $1.50 on one red and one green pepper. $1.29 on a bunch of celery $7.00 on some skinless chicken breast, and $3.00 on a bag of potatoes. I then made a pot of chicken soup that I ate for dinner every day this week. Add the $2.00 for the bag of whole wheat bread that I've been eating with it, and the food cost $14.30. I only used half the chicken and about a third of the potatoes, so it really only cost $8.50. That means that my dinner was $1.70 per day.

At work my lunch is usually a turkey sandwich and a cup of tea, which I bring from home. A half-pound of sliced turkey costs between 4 and 6 dollars, depending on brand and sales. Tea costs about a seventh of a cent per bag. I don't eat the whole half-pound by the end of the week, but we can round up and call it a dollar a day.

So Monday to Friday my food budget is about $14 each week.

Most fast food "value meals," are in the neighborhood of $3.80-$5.20. Let's call it $4.50. Twice a day five days a week, this works out to $45 per week. Real food with real ingredients is much more cost effective, if you know what you're doing.

Generally I'd agree with you. My food bill is significantly cheaper through shopping at local butchers/greengrocers/farmer's market and cooking everything from scratch (and that's including the somewhat higher price I pay from getting good quality local produce rather than shopping at the supermarket). However, it does depend if you have easy access to the raw ingredients, either through supermarkets or local shops as opposed to convenience stores. And also ability/time to cook which is why a lot of people buy pre-packaged.

Generally I'd agree with you. My food bill is significantly cheaper through shopping at local butchers/greengrocers/farmer's market and cooking everything from scratch (and that's including the somewhat higher price I pay from getting good quality local produce rather than shopping at the supermarket). However, it does depend if you have easy access to the raw ingredients, either through supermarkets or local shops as opposed to convenience stores. And also ability/time to cook which is why a lot of people buy pre-packaged.

Microwavable meals from Budget Gormet, $0.66 - $0.88 apc at Walmart. So that's $1.32 to $1.76 per day for lunch and dinner compared to the $2.70 per day that your quoted section states.

Microwavable meals from Budget Gormet, $0.66 - $0.88 apc at Walmart. So that's $1.32 to $1.76 per day for lunch and dinner compared to the $2.70 per day that your quoted section states.

When I was younger I ate Ramen once a day and that was all. Ramen could be purchased at the time for 5 cents a package.

(I think it's up to a quarter a package now, but I'm sure you can still get it for ten cents if you go on sale days)

Wow i probably spend about $150 a week on me for just food alone.

One important factor in the price of food is the price of fertilizer.

A main component of fertilizer is potash (potassium carbonate), and 95% of the world's excess potash supply is controlled by a single company, the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.

Now, PotashCorp has, for about 20 years now, intentionally underproduced potash in order to increase the world price (they produce about 23% of total global potash). Since they are the only producer with excess supply, they have virtually total control over the price of potash.

The price of potash is presently very high, and PotashCorp has given no indication that they plan to do anything at all to change that.

When I was younger I ate Ramen once a day and that was all. Ramen could be purchased at the time for 5 cents a package.

(I think it's up to a quarter a package now, but I'm sure you can still get it for ten cents if you go on sale days)

not to bad for a struggling student, but I wouldn't want to try to raise my kid on that ;)

not to bad for a struggling student, but I wouldn't want to try to raise my kid on that ;)

oh, it was horribly unhealthy, I was malnourished, anemic, fat, and dehydrated.

Yes you can be fat and malnourished at the same time, 3/4 of America is.

When I was younger I ate Ramen once a day and that was all. Ramen could be purchased at the time for 5 cents a package.

(I think it's up to a quarter a package now, but I'm sure you can still get it for ten cents if you go on sale days)

:eek:

And Ramen is wheat-based, isn't it?

:eek:

And Ramen is wheat-based, isn't it?

yes, I can't have it anymore.

yes, I can't have it anymore.

By the way, two ideas I got when talking with my brother about what we were discussing yesterday.

1.- Rice ramen: My brother has lot of those, they are as cheap as wheat ramen, (although not as tasty or easy to find), try to check a chinese grocery store for these noodles. It could be a marvelous solution.

2.- Just a cooking suggerence from me. Fry some onions and drop them in the white rice, they make a wonderful addendum. Oh, and well, as soon as I get the translation to "Pimentón", I'll tell you how you can make portents with them and rice.

How about replacing the rice in your diet with lentils?

How about replacing the rice in your diet with lentils?

Lentil soup is awesome.

Lentil soup is awesome.
I'm not really a fan of lentils (though red lentils with fried onions can be tasty), but they're quite healthful and really cheap.

When I was younger I ate Ramen once a day and that was all. Ramen could be purchased at the time for 5 cents a package.

(I think it's up to a quarter a package now, but I'm sure you can still get it for ten cents if you go on sale days)

And then there's government foods, like government cheese and government peanut butter... welfare doesn't hand out a lot of fresh fruits and veggies.

oh, it was horribly unhealthy, I was malnourished, anemic, fat, and dehydrated.

Yes you can be fat and malnourished at the same time, 3/4 of America is.

You can definitely be fat and malnourished, but fat on one bowl of ramen a day? o.O Your body must have been shutting down systems so fast to stay alive.

Wow i probably spend about $150 a week on me for just food alone.

When I was a kid, I'd grocery shop with my mom. We'd shop to feed a family of 4 for 2 weeks. Our budget was $200, and we'd always have fun trying to get it lower.

I'm wondering if inflation has risen food prices to the amount you quote or if it's a location thing. This was in the Midwest, only about 10 years ago.

When I was younger I ate Ramen once a day and that was all. Ramen could be purchased at the time for 5 cents a package.

Do you remember the tomato flavored Ramen? That was my favorite and I think they discontinued it. :(

And then there's government foods, like government cheese and government peanut butter... welfare doesn't hand out a lot of fresh fruits and veggies.

does the government still give out cheese and peanut butter?

does the government still give out cheese and peanut butter?

I'm not sure about today, but it did when my bf was a kid, so... 20 years ago.

EDIT: Just looked it up, apparently they revamped the food stamps so there's a little more variety now... formula, fruit juice, veggie juice, eggs, milk, tuna. Still no fresh produce.

I'm not sure about today, but it did when my bf was a kid, so... 20 years ago.

im old so i remember when it started under reagan. *spits*

lots of people enjoyed that free food even if it was rather cynical and demeaning.

im old so i remember when it started under reagan. *spits*

lots of people enjoyed that free food even if it was rather cynical and demeaning.

It's a hard thing to balance, giving offering help in a way that isn't demeaning... if more than just basic staples were offered, like actual welfare-to-work programs that gave credit for college, it might be better. There's similar criticism of free school breakfast/lunch and the same attached to it, but my boyfriend would not have got by without it.

I apologize to everyone for the excessive length, but thats how these things end up.
Because it WILL not be cheaper to import food when the overall food output decreases because a large global supply is practically killed off - If subsidies are taken away then what happens is rapid decline of agriculture in areas where agriculture depends on subsidies, expensive irrigation or expensive use of pesticides and fertilizers.
This will not be compensated by cheap 3rd world supply fast enough - or if it is the cost will be enormous, both literally & environmentally: Say hello to DDT, deforestation, erosion and completely unsustainable farming methods.
So you think that production will decrease as the price goes up?
Agriculture depends on subsidies when it is too costly to produce. The world will not face sudden starvation without subsidies; all that will happen is a reorganization of what kinds of food are produced in different areas. As the price goes up, more will be produced to make money from the price rise, thus supply is increased, and price comes back down to the optimal level.

The ‘cost’ will not go up because subsidies are very expensive, and distort choices about what crops are best and what foods are most in demand. Ending subsidies will drastically lower tax burdens, and hurt the share values of large corporations who are not in the business of planting seeds to harvest crops, but planting lobbyists to harvest subsidies.

Subsidies are not free gifts of wealth that magically appear out of nowhere – they have to be appropriated by a tax system, processed through a bureaucracy, and dispersed to whoever best fills out a series of forms. The apparent price of wheat may rise, but the actual cost will go down, supply will shift to better match demand, and production will shift to meet the needs of the market.

Eating locally growable food is ecologically sound principle: Transport of goods takes a lot of energy, energy usually produced by fossil fuels. And no I'm not talking about growing fresh fruits during winter in a greenhouse but naturally growing agricultural products.
Transportation is very cheap; growing a type of food that does not naturally grow well (needs subsidies to be produced) is not. Using massive irrigation systems for water intensive crops in dry regions, needing high levels of fertilizer to grow plants unsuited to the soil type, and a combination of pesticides and fungicides to keep the plants alive in an area it should not be growing in, far exceeds the comparatively minimal impact of transportation. Subsidizing these crops is ludicrous, producing crops appropriate to the region (ie costs of production is low and is thus profitable without subsidies) and importing food grown elsewhere is rational.

The problem is that for most of Western World *nothing* is efficiently, no make that, produced cheaply enough for human consumption - We cannot compete against 3rd world because our labor costs are high, our winters chillier and work, health & environmental standards higher. We can't even use child or slave labor let alone labor in exchange for substinence (food salary).
Quite the contrary actually – vegetables, most fruits, some legumes, and a wide variety of other foodstuffs are not subsidized at all, yet are produced quite profitably throughout the US. Many crops are not even eligible for subsidized crop insurance, yet farmers growing these crops make a good living. I'm sure there are plenty of examples throughout Europe of foods that could be produced quite profitably without subsidy.

Labor costs are high, but that is brought down by two factors: migrant labor (getting very difficult to find these days with a serious restriction on temporary work visas), and automation. It is not the cost of labor that is important, but the productivity. The problem with that is some products are not as easily harvested by machine – peaches are a sad example as, due to the labor shortage in the US, farmers have to switch to a variety with a thicker skin to avoid damage, but those varieties are not quite as tasty. The solution there is not more government control, but lower restrictions on the movement of labor.

As far as cooler climate goes, we are back to arctic pineapples. It is grossly inefficient to grow crops where they have no ecological reason for existing. If the crop cannot grow there, grow something that will grow without constantly dumping massive amounts of chemicals over the field. If you want a food that does not grow there, import it for far less than what it would cost to grow it locally – a $50 mango is ludicrous whether the person eating it is paying the full cost (which is only fair) or if the consumer is paying a mere $5 and everyone else in the town has to chip in to pay the rest (subsidies are implicitly unfair, not to mention grossly distortionary). Trading a lobster for a few mangos instead makes everyone better off.

As far as labor restrictions about not even being able to give a young couple a place to live, rent free with free food, in exchange for one of them working in the fields, is a problem of excessive government interference and is a personal pet peeve of mine. They wanted to work, we needed an extra hand, but payroll costs were prohibitive, yet that voluntary arrangement that made everyone better off is not allowed.

This would lead to a tremendous waste of valuable food producing area - We cannot simply mow down rainforests in order to replace food production that is currently done in less optimal zones. Or rather we could, but it's not a long term solution.There is no need for ‘mowing down the rainforest’ as there is plenty of productive agricultural land throughout the world that could produce more than enough to feed the world, without bringing a single additional acre under cultivation. Production intensity throughout developing countries is very low, because they lack the capital investment for better farming practices. That investment is not made as there is little return on investment because they have to compete with heavily subsidized producers in wealthy nations. Remove trade barriers preventing third world producers from exporting to wealthy markets while removing subsidies to wealthy producers, and worldwide agricultural productivity will skyrocket.

Malthus famously predicted famine because he estimated that food production was linear (with brining more acres under cultivation) while population growth was exponential – he assumed that production per acre was fixed. Instead, world population has exploded and not suffered mass starvation on a planetary scale. This is because the productivity per acre that comes from technological advances and capital investments greatly increases production. Apply this to land currently cultivated with primitive methods, and production will boom.

Concentrating food production is not sustainable developement and would introduce greater risk of global famine. Indeed, hence why it is silly to heavily subsidies one area to drive production everywhere else out of business.

What happens is that Western corporations will take over farming if it becomes lucrative business - Think Chiquita vs. fair trade. Heck, even now with most efficient crops the farmers are not allowed to collect their own seeds because EULA denies it but are forced to buy them from a vendor every year.I don’t know where you are coming with that – you think that we should all pay massive taxes to subsidize production in a certain area, such that farming in the rest of the world is so onerous and uneconomical that farmers are too poor for ‘Western Corporations’ to be interested?

There are only few climate & economic zones that would be able to support large scale agriculture without subsidies.I strongly disagree – do you have any data or even a pure logic argument to support that? Food is grown all over the world – in the vast majority of cases without subsidies. Wherever there are humans (with the exception of certain research stations supplied by industrialized nations), there is food production. Agricultural subsidies on the other hand, are fairly limited to a few industrialized nations. Even some industrialized nations do not subsidize food production at all - New Zealand (if you can call them an industrialized nation – sorry, couldn’t resist, but you know I love ya) ended government support and protection of agriculture in the late 80s, and became amazingly efficient and productive while developing massive strides in new research.

Or alternatively the global food prices rise high enough to compensate.....an interesting mechanic, that price is.Global prices will rise slightly if trade barriers and subsidies were removed – but not much. These prices will in turn make farming throughout the world more profitable and alleviate desperate poverty in rural areas (which I hope everyone would see as a good thing).

For a single farmer living directly off the land with no subsidies in free market economy a single poor year could be devastating. Especially in a 3rd world where there are no safety nets beyond what you can scrape up.That is how most people in the world live – surprise, there is nothing intrinsically different about farming. And in case you haven't happened to notice, farmers in third world nations currently do not get subsidies anyway, so the idea that removing subsidies in the US and Europe would make a 3rd world farmer worse off is a fairly unusual position I would like to hear more about, as it is truly novel.

Consequently the food yield would be highly chaotic from year-to-year basis even without any particular environmental disaster.
BUT if there was a drought *one year* that affected, say, 10% of normally good crop area the food prices and demand in rest of the world would greatly rise and would drive more people to poverty and even more people to famine

In current globally distributed food production system an overall loss of 10% of specific crop is *highly* unlikely BUT what if 10% of the output would be concentrated on thin band or even an area like, say, China or India? Oh wait, there's a rice shortage - Gee, didn't see that one coming.
Subsidies do not magically make the weather more stable. Environmental changes will occur throughout the world, regardless of subsidies. There will be drought, there will be excessive rainfall, there will be years of unusual numbers of overcast days, but that is life and happens to everyone, everywhere, no matter what. Food yields are going to be chaotic – life is uncertain. Always has been, always will be. The natural world is not set, but fluctuates. Subsidizing Kansas farmers growing wheat, or Wisconsin farmers making butter, will not change that.

That is one of the wonders of trade – local weather phenomenon will not cause massive starvation because you can import food from other areas. Restricting trade and distorting production to fall mostly into heavily subsidized patches is what makes production more vulnerable to events.

The current situation with rising food costs comes from a combination of factors – not just drought in certain areas and the variety of natural fluctuations, but the gross distortion of efficient production levels by diverting massive amounts of food into non-food use at the same time as there is exploding demand. Ethanol production is ramping up massively with huge subsidies for production and mandates to ensure that a truly massive amount of corn is taken off the food market.

Then there is always high fructose corn syrup – just another example of the inefficient use of corn because it is heavily subsidized rather than just efficiently importing low cost sugar. Subsidies cost a lot of money; both directly and by raising the cost of food.

This topic itself is a good reminder of the fallacy: Rice production IS - and HAS to be due to the needs of rice cultivation - highly concentrated farming project with China and India producing nearly half of all rice. Countries which most likely aren't giving that big subsidies to farmers let alone having work or environmental standards anywhere near Western Countries.
Rice production is lower than it should be, not because rice production is not subsidized enough, but because other crops are subsidized, thus encouraging farmers to grow crops other than rice. Nations have also been restricting the export of and place price controls on rice, greatly inhibiting the growth of production. Subsidize a crop and you shift the production frontiers for all crops – far better to let the collective wisdom determine the appropriate levels of production rather than relying on a bureaucrat guessing the appropriate levels of subsidies for all crops and adjusting them for whatever is more politically expedient. One farmer guesses wrong, he makes a little less money: one bureaucrat in charge of a nation’s production gets it wrong, serious complications can arise.

Until recently, the price of rice has been falling for decades, which meant farmers switching to other crops. The rapid population growth in rice consuming cultures has led to a much higher demand, while supply lags behind due to low expectations of better return on investing in better cultivation. The higher cost of rice, without government interference, will lead to higher production very soon, as well as a more diversified diet as people switch some of their caloric intake to other foods. Price controls and export restrictions just remove the incentive to grow more rice. Thus, rice shortage continues.

The Philippines is a great example of that – export crops have been encouraged and promoted by governments going back to Spanish colonial rule. Rice production has been likewise discouraged, thus resulting in a lower rice production than an optimal free market would provide.


However individual ONLY thinks for him or herself.

If farm might produce big enough yield in 10 years for solid income then it's better to educate yourself to another profession and let the farmland forest itself.

Then boom, a drought in India - Food prices rise and there's no extra supply anywhere. The educated would-be-farmer will live on because he now has a high income job but can afford less goods leading to local depression and increased poverty, and even famine across the globe.

A bureaucrat - a global council - can foresee and stabilize human some aspects of greed and shortsightedness. When you don't have all eggs in the same basket you're much better off.
Wow, what an incredibly tortured situation based on some fairly absurd assumptions. No extra supply anywhere – in a free market everyone on earth will be just on the verge of starvation? The rise in food prices based on temporary supply shock would not be very drastic – the price will rise and the demand curve will shift, then when supply returns to normal, the price will readjust. Until then, the higher price will shift consumer behavior to other foods or lower consumption (yes, there is a small population of people who cannot lower consumption, but that is happening right now, and will happen even if placing the entirety of world food production under communist control).

Additionally, how exactly is a free market ‘having all your eggs in one basket’? It seems quite the opposite to me – putting production under the control of some council is putting all your eggs in the council’s basket.

A free market is full of people looking out for their own self-interest, and that is why it works. Everything in my fridge right now got there because of self-interest. The farmer thought he could make money by growing tomatoes, the fisherman thought he could make money catching salmon, and the same goes with everything else in the fridge, the fridge itself, and even the very house I am living in. All a product of self-interest, and that is how it works – people have a need, other people fill that need for their own selfish reasons (make money by meeting demand).

Communist control does not work nearly as well as self interested individuals making small decisions which add up to an aggregate supply and demand, and thus make the most efficient use of resources.

I would also love to know how a global council can foresee the future and accurately predict temporary supply shocks. If they cannot accurately predict the future, than basically what you are saying is that there should be a mandate to horde food in case of potential supply shocks. Of course a free market will have plenty of people who will anticipate future supply shocks and bet accordingly out of their own self interest – which really provides the best motivation to get it right. If too much food is horded, this means a lot of resources are wasted, as there are always tradeoffs.

Either that or your position is that all individuals (aside from the members of the global ruling council of communist geniuses) are idiots who are incapable of understanding potential future prospects and have a total inability to plan due to an unstoppable need for instant gratification. In which case how do you explain the existence of insurance, markets trading commodity futures, or really any savings at all?

This is exactly what will NOT happen - At least not in any sort of rapid scale that would lead to sustainable practices. There are only so few areas where farming is possible - You simply cannot start up a large scale farming operation in a random place on Earth.

Agriculture is a form of primary production, it requires investment of time, money, resources and education to start up - Especially if your primary goal HAS to be economic profitability in global free market from year one onwards.
Production is NOW vastly distributed if the crop allows it, eg wheat is produced all around the globe - even here, up north.

Production in completely free market economy would on the other hand be vastly concentrated because you cannot achieve great enough yield/dollar invested beyond certain restricted climate zones that CURRENTLY have favourable climate.
Actually, it might surprise you to hear that most of the Earth is capable of growing food. It is not limited to just a handful of places, but rather most everywhere from tropical islands in the Pacific, to the wilds of Alaska, the fertile steppes of central Asia, the frigid waters of the north Atlantic… this does not mean that everywhere is capable of efficiently growing every kind of food, and trying to grow inappropriate foods is a waste of resources.

If farmers in Belarus decide to hold their wheat off the market to try to drive up prices, they will be laughed at. That wheat will only bring value if sold and nobody holds enough of the global production to drive up the price sufficient to make it a viable strategy (despite most wheat production in the world not being subsidized).

I think I’ve said it before and I will say it again – there is not one spot on earth capable of producing all the food of the world. If food requires a subsidy to grow, it is not worth the resources invested. Those resources would be better spent elsewhere (like education, healthcare, environmental cleanup, or even on more bobbleheads if that is what people want).

As far as agriculture needing an investment, yes, just like everything else in the world, agricultural production needs investment. And I think you have a slight misconception about free markets – otherwise I do not understand where the idea that a farm would have to be instantly profitable would come from. Investments are just that – the use of resources now for an anticipated return later. Sometimes, that return is not expected instantly, but is made with the expectation of a favorable return years later. The end point is that it has to be worth that investment eventually, otherwise it represents a waste of resources that would have been better spent elsewhere.

Wheat is an interesting example as it can be grown (quite profitably without subsidies I might add) all over the world. No one spot is the only spot where wheat can grow profitably. This is a big world. The myth that all farming has to be subsidized or the world will suddenly starve is just that, a myth.

Subsidizing agriculture actually concentrates production in fewer spots because those subsidized farmers can afford a lower price than non-subsidized farmers. Cotton is a perfect example – US cotton growers are heavily subsidized, and thus dump cotton onto the world market at below cost. This, in turn, makes growing cotton outside the US less profitable because they have to compete with the low prices charged by US producers. Without the subsidy, world cotton prices would climb a bit, encouraging farmers around the world to produce more cotton. Thus cotton production would become more distributed around the world in a free market system (and Americans would have more money to spend on other things).

While you're right and personally think we should reduce our fresh fruit quota....So you want to tell people what to eat too? Does your power hungry desire to control others know no bounds?! ;)

I'm not just talking about monetary expense but also about energy expense and carbon footprint.The environmental damage of using fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, large scale irrigation, and other inputs is likewise very high in many areas; thus transporting goods from far away can be more environmentally friendly than local production. At the very least, US subsidies to grow crops where they need massive irrigation is depleting the aquifer very rapidly. Massive water shortages, not to mention a drastic shift in agricultural production, are going to result from this foolish policy of growing a water intensive crop in arid land.


Would you think raspberries grown in Boston during summer would be less or more expensive than importing them from overseas from a country where land & labour costs are cheaper? My guess would say that raspberry fields in Massachusetts are fairly profitable (that is a yes, cheaper than imports when in season). Land and labor costs are not very high: raspberry bushes are pretty high yield, so the land per unit is low, and automatic harvesters reduce the labor cost as well. I can’t say for sure, but given the lack of a raspberry subsidy, and the presence of farms growing raspberries up there, it is a pretty safe bet.

I would be fairly surprised if local fresh raspberries (in season) were not cheaper than imports from overseas. Frozen raspberries on the other hand, I could not hazard a guess.

So they must lower costs while increasing the yield - at any cost to nature or labour used.Once again, ‘at any cost’ (even figuratively speaking) would only apply if there were no alternative sources of supply (not a feature of a free market – generally a product of a controlled market where someone who ‘knows what’s best for the people’ banned the importation of that product). If the cost of production is higher than the cost of imports, it would not be produced. If someone still produces it, they are probably heavily subsidized so that everyone is taxed to pay for ridiculous amounts of chemicals to be dumped on the fields.

Environmental degradation is a cost; it lowers the value of the land being overused. Only those who pay no heed whatsoever to the land value (most likely because they do not need to as their governments will subsidize them no matter what, so future earnings are guaranteed no matter how depleted the soil becomes) would consider otherwise.

Commonly affordable food IS an unprofitable product.
Subsidies do actually cost – food is not free, you just pay for it with your tax bill instead of directly. Unprofitable goods are unprofitable because the price of production exceeds what people are willing to pay for it. If it is unprofitable to produce, you are producing it wastefully. Either be more efficient or produce less. Food is no different than any other commodity. Food production subsidies are not, in any way, used to reduce the price of food – they are a wealth transfer to farmers, and are almost always paired with import restrictions to keep out cheaper supply.

The first example that comes to mind is sugar beet production in North Dakota – farmers are paid a hefty subsidy to produce sugar from beets, while at the same time the US has a 300% tariff on importing sugar. Foods like lamb has import quotas strictly limiting the tonnage of importation from other countries in order to drive up the price, many foodstuffs such as dairy products have price floors where the government will buy and destroy foodstuffs to artificially reduce supply in order to subsidize production.

If food subsidies were in any way for the purpose of reducing the cost of consumption to consumers, it would be done on the consumption end of the process. Subsidizing the production, while artificially reducing the supply at the same time, has absolutely nothing to do with the prices people have to pay for food.

An individual does not thing long term economic rationality - When your livelyhood depends on your crop yield, then an INDIVIDUAL will do what ever it takes to increase crop yield NOW without taking into account long term - a decade, maybe two, perhaps a century - sustainability.
I beg to differ. I do not know a single individual, be they farmer, opera singer, or prostitute (damn I know a weird bunch of people), who does not consider long term viability; most especially if the livelihood of their family depends upon it.

Think of slash & burn farming - In short term you get better yields, in long term you run out of nutrients ending up with unarable barren land. There is no long term rationality in slash & burn farming yet it is still practiced.

Or what do you think of this:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/problems/forest_conversion_agriculture/deforestation_erosion/index.cfm

Long term sustainability IS NOT one of the creeds of free market, short term income - quarterly profits - are.
This is what is commonly referred to as the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Farmers do not actually own that land, and therefore the long-term viability is not important to them. People do not gain significant benefit to maintaining that land, so there is little incentive to do so, and thus it is exploited for rents they can actually capture.

This is not a problem with free markets, but with a lack of property rights.
Environmental degradation and a total lack of planning is not, by any stretch of the imagination, intrinsic to free markets.

Your fixation on quarterly profits shows that your concept of free markets is that it is a system of corporations run by people who plan to stay in business for a few months at best. Free markets mean nothing of the sort. Sure, some corporations are run by unscrupulous traders who try to do a ‘pump and dump’ of the stock, but they are a tiny minority of corporations, much less of everyone in an economy. How does a handful of companies hurting their long-term viability for immediate returns not only become the rule for all corporations, but for an entire economic system?

Coke could suddenly switch to selling just colored water (not that they are not doing just that right now, but go with me on this) and have huge profits by reducing input costs. It would be a massively profitable quarter. Can you imagine why?

Slippery slope fallacy - Subsiding globally diversified and sustainable agricultural production does not mean pineapple in Greenland....yet.It is not a slippery slope, it is ‘reductio ad absurdum’ - if you are going to accuse me of a cheap sophistry, at least be accurate about what cheap sophistry I’m using ;).

Free markets are formed from the collected stupidity of individuals.
And that is the amazing strength of it.

Are you seriously claiming that all individuals are stupid (except you of course, you are the one true intellect in the world who can see exactly what everyone else is doing wrong and know how to do it better)? In that case, at least give us the chance that some stupid people, just by simple probability, get it mistakenly right, rather than put everything into the hands of one stupid person and just hoping we always get lucky.

The beauty of a free market is that everyone can make their own choice, even if it is the wrong one, in which case the damage is considerably less than everyone being forced to conform to the wrong choice of the Lilliputian in charge. Excepting, obviously, that we have the one true infallible intellect in the world managing all our affairs.

Free markets work as badly as the worst participiant does, the lowest work & environmental standards and most short-sighted maximized short term profits ARE favoured over longer term sustainable developement IF there is no government/supranational entity intervention (eg. labour & environmental laws).
Ah yes, the old ‘race to the bottom fallacy’; constantly debunked in introductory economics, yet no lack of ignorant freshman spouting baseless anti-globalization rhetoric.

In the interest of brevity, I will dispense with proper grammar for a shorthand explanation: Economic investment spurs growth, growth and development increases standards of living, better standards of living allow for even better development and stability, better stability and development lead to better environments.

There are so many times when I really wish everyone would take some economics.

I'm saying less governments because the issue of sustainable food production is a global issue.

We need international scheme for food production to survive global climate change and ever burgeoning population.You are not saying less government, you are saying impose a global government. Or was that plauralization intentional – and you did mean “less governments” as in we should reduce the number of governments in the world? I think the locals might have a little problem with that, but since when have empires cared about that, it is for their own good right?

We cannot simply trust that we can replace sustainably global food production with production concentrated on good climate zones with better yields. In my opinion it would lead to widescale deforestation, erosion - environmental disaster - and global economic problems combined with more easily disrupted food production in general. Signs of this are already visible, just look at the topic.
Food is produced globally, the vast majority of which is produced without government control of production. Global communist control of all food is not the answer.

I'm also utterly amazed how you seem to think that arable land - or agricultural knowhow - is an unlimited resource and immediately replacable elsewhere in the world - An idea that is so utterly preposterous that I'm frankly speechless.
Not unlimited, just rather vast - food is grown all over the world.
Knowledge is not a limited; the same idea can be used over and over without exhausting it.

Food has been grown since before the concept of government regulations mandating agricultural production. Farmers are not nearly as incapable of thought as you seem to think. In fact, I would say history is replete with examples of bureaucratic control of agricultural production being the true danger.

It's a hard thing to balance, giving offering help in a way that isn't demeaning... if more than just basic staples were offered, like actual welfare-to-work programs that gave credit for college, it might be better. There's similar criticism of free school breakfast/lunch and the same attached to it, but my boyfriend would not have got by without it.

the school lunch program is essential to help make sure that kids get enough to eat. we have so many poor parents here (poor in money and poor in parenting skills) that we offer free breakfast during the school year and free summer lunches for all kids under 18.

child nutrition programs pay back far more than they cost in the long run.

I'm not really a fan of lentils (though red lentils with fried onions can be tasty), but they're quite healthful and really cheap.

Uh, that´s because you´ve never had my mom´s lentil soup. It´s just amazing, and this comes from someone that hates grains like beans and chickpeas. She puts a lot of garlic and then lets it simmer for 2 hours, until the lentils look like puree. Eat that with freshly baked bread, some chorizo and a nice glass of wine and you´re set for the entire day.

Dang it, I miss my mom.:(

How often and for how long does one have to eat fast food before it starts adversely affecting their health? (on average?) I would assume it would take several years. Possibly even a decade or two.

Watch the movie Supersize Me. It doesn't take years.

I guess it depends on where you live. I'm in the metro Boston area, Massachusetts, one of the most expensive states in the US. At the cheapest market available to me, green bell peppers cost ~$1.29/lb, and red bell peppers vary greatly from ~$1.50/lb up to as much as $2.99/lb. Approximately 2 bell peppers = 1 lb. There is no way I could get two bell peppers, including a red one for $1.50. And I buy peppers every week. They are one of my staple vegetables.

I eat a mostly vegetarian diet (because for some reason, cooking meat is a big annoyance to me, so I only eat it in restaurants), and except for hummus, yogurt, cheese and breakfast cereals, I make everything myself from scratch, from raw. If I ate half my meals from a fast food dollar menu instead, I would save money, but lose health.

I live in Suffolk County, east of NYC. Peppers cost the same here. But two bell peppers don't weigh a pound.

However, there tend to be lesser known chains in out of the way places that cater to the immigrant population. So huge bell peppers will sell for 1.49/lb in Pathmark or Super Stop&Shop, but smaller (and better tasting) ones will be available for 0.99/lb if you know where to look.

And it's still cheaper than eating 2 $3.00 meals per day.

I live in Suffolk County, east of NYC. Peppers cost the same here. But two bell peppers don't weigh a pound.

However, there tend to be lesser known chains in out of the way places that cater to the immigrant population. So huge bell peppers will sell for 1.49/lb in Pathmark or Super Stop&Shop, but smaller (and better tasting) ones will be available for 0.99/lb if you know where to look.

And it's still cheaper than eating 2 $3.00 meals per day.
OK, look, I'm really getting tired of having to repeat the same details of my posts over and over in NSG, so for the last time:

1) It's not cheaper than eating from the DOLLAR MENU of fast food restaurants, on which every item costs $.99. Two of those per day would be $2.00, not $6.00. Even I can do that much math. From my very first post about fast food, I've been saying DOLLAR MENU once a day, so kindly stop telling me how much more the more expensive menu items twice a day would cost.

2) I live in East Somerville, MA. There is nowhere else for me to look to find $.99/lb bell peppers on a year-round basis, no matter how small they are. The best price option I have is the Haymarket, where wholesalers sell off whatever they couldn't sell to markets and restaurants, but it is only open half the year. Even the street corner grocers who pick up the Haymarket goods in the off-season still charge over $1.00/lb for produce like bell peppers. Trust me, I am aware of the food store chains that are available to me in the place I live. I make it my business to be aware of it. I also know how much two bell peppers weigh because I weigh them in the store and they're weighed again at the register, and the weight is printed on the receipt. Depending on the size of the peppers, it varies from about half a pound to 1 pound. (Btw, the smaller the peppers, the less meal mileage you get out of them, so the more you need to buy to bring them up to...oh..a pound? Size doesn't matter, when it comes to vegetables. Weight and volume are what we care about.)

3) I live in East Somerville, MA, an urban food desert. This means that, no matter what I can find anywhere else in the Boston metro area, the savings are canceled out by the cost of transportation to and from the stores. I'm talking about public transportation. Since I don't drive, car transportation is not an option, except as cabs which are significantly more expensive. Over and above that, there's the value of the time spent traveling to and from the store as well.

So, since I've repeated all these points once again, I will thank anyone else who wants to respond to me to refrain from telling me (1) how much more it costs to pay $3+ per meal twice a day; (2) how I could get better prices from other stores (if only I lived where those other stores are); and (3) how much bell peppers weigh. Thank you.

Uh, that´s because you´ve never had my mom´s lentil soup. It´s just amazing, and this comes from someone that hates grains like beans and chickpeas. She puts a lot of garlic and then lets it simmer for 2 hours, until the lentils look like puree. Eat that with freshly baked bread, some chorizo and a nice glass of wine and you´re set for the entire day.

Dang it, I miss my mom.:(

Can you get that recipe for me?

as part of my campaign to become ruler of the whole world, I pledge that every home on the planet shall have ten bags of rice.

What a coincidence:

"A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny, and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."

Revelation 6


supposedly the black horse of revelation represents famine.

"So great will be the famine, that it will take a day's wages, to buy a "choenix" (2 pints) of wheat,"

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tbr/tbr028.htm

perhaps God is punishing us for tolerating polygamy. LOL.

Watch the movie Supersize Me. It doesn't take years.
It certainly takes longer than 30 days, though. That movie had issues.

Morgan Spurlock was a vegan (or nearly - his girlfriend was a vegan chef) before he started the all-McDonald's regimen, so his body wasn't prepared for any of the wacky stuff in his new diet. You'll recall that by the end of the film his health was improving as his body adapted to the high-fat, high-sodium, high-sugar diet.

Also, his doctors were either cleverly edited or pandering to the camera when they said he was exhibiting signs of addiction with his fatigue and mood swings. What he was exhibiting was erratic blood sugar, and he was running the risk of inducing Type-2 Diabetes, but he was not addicted to the food. One's blood sugar levels have a huge impact on your alertness, and how happy or sleepy you feel.

I'm not too worried, I eat wheat. Rice really is the ass-bottom of the cereal crops; ultra high water consumption and maintenance, and only thrives in certain climates.