NYT Hits Small Mark, Misses Big One

It was with profound disbelief that I read the editorial, "Priced Out of the Market," in the New York Times this morning. It begins:

"The world’s food situation is bleak, and shortsighted policies in the United States and other wealthy countries — which are diverting crops to environmentally dubious biofuels — bear much of the blame."

Now, I know what you’re thinking. What about all of the grain and soybeans that are produced only to be fed to animals who will then be fed to (relatively) rich people? That’s been going on far longer than this whole biofuel business!

Let’s deconstruct:

• Prices of wheat and corn are up so high that "the World Food Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, said it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will help." This is unfortunate, for sure. But I bet if the grain going to feed animals went to feed people, they’d be able to increase rations. Call me crazy.
• "Population growth and economic progress are part of the problem. Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods —mainly in China and India— has boosted demand for grain for animal feed." That’s a relief. I almost thought there for a minute that people in the US who are eating meat might be part of the problem.
• "[T]he most important reason for the price shock is the rich world’s subsidized appetite for biofuels. In the United States, 14 percent of the corn crop was used to produce ethanol in 2006 — a share expected to reach 30 percent by 2010. This is also cutting into production of staples like soybeans, as farmers take advantage of generous subsidies and switch crops to corn for fuel." Ah, subsidies again. So this problem is entirely man-made, and then exacerbated by our penchant for subsidizing what we want to produce. We, meaning corporate America/the government, that is. And what we want to produce tells you what our values are. Therefore, if you follow the money, it’s all too clear that it is not our priority to feed hungry people.
• "[T]wo recent studies suggested that a large-scale effort across the world to grow crops for biofuels would add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere rather than reduce it." Again, how about diverting some of the grains and soybeans we already grow for animal feed, to people who are starving? No extra carbon dioxide production required.
• "The human costs of this diversion of food into energy are all too evident." Hey, New York Times, what about the costs of the diversion of food into animals?
• "Congress must take a hard look at the effect of corn ethanol on food supplies in the same way the new energy bill requires it to review the environmental effects. It must move toward ending subsidies that will become even more difficult to justify as oil prices rise and the costs of producing corn ethanol decline. And it must press other wealthy countries to do the same before hunger turns to mass starvation." I’m all for ending subsidies. All of them. And I’m all for feeding the hungry. But I’m not deluding myself into thinking that corn ethanol is the root of the problem. It’s the icing on the problem.

If hunger turns to mass starvation, blaming biofuels is denial at its best. We’ve accepted the enormous inefficiencies and injustice of growing grain and soybeans for animal feed as the norm, which make biofuels look like the problem. Let’s step back, though, and admit that the real problem is we are allowing people to starve so we can eat animals.