Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

In a bid to stem panic, grain exports halted

KEVIN CARMICHAEL

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:41 PM EDT 15/04/08

'Business as usual is no longer an option,' Paris-based UNESCO says in a sweeping report on the world agriculture system three years in the making ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Too little food, or too many mouths?

    There used to be a time when there was enough food for everyone. Then the experts used to say that the problem was really one of distribution.

    Can we honestly say this this explanation is still true --as gas guzzling SUVs compete fiercely with hungry humans for available joules from the same stock of carbs?

    Of course, current climate change takes a while getting used to...
  2. Andre Carrel from Salmo, Canada writes: 'When we make commitments, we want to make sure we've done the work behind the commitments so that the commitment will be truly funded and fulfilled.'

    Hmm, not a bad strategy when you think about it. Maybe that is the way political parties should approach their election programs.
  3. Dana Dana from Canada writes: Close these comments too. Its only going to get crazy and pointless.
  4. You (donald kennedy, from Canada) wrote: Death by starvation is one way to adjust the population if you are one of those countries that ,' don't have the luxury of good agricultural land and a temperate climate to feed your population'. Why do these countries have populations they can't feed? An attitude adjustment as well as a religion adjustment is necessary. Charity can only be relied on in instances of unplanned disaster. Where disaster is inevitable unless there is a change of course and there is a refusal to change course, the world can not be expected to continually come to the aid of such a country. In any event it will not.
  5. Tom Henderson from Canada writes: didn't I read the prev comment in 'A Christmas Carol'? something about 'surplus populations'?

    looks like an opec for grains could arise from this. Not a good time to be an international food aid agency...
  6. Joe V from Canada writes: Dana Dana from Canada writes: 'Close these comments too. Its only going to get crazy and pointless.'

    Yeah. The comments are going to be filled with politically incorrect (but realistic) messages. Couldn't have that. No siree!
  7. Observer of the times from Canada writes: 'In a bid to stem panic, grain exports halted'.

    That's kind of an a**-backwards' approach, isn't it? 'We're cutting off your food, but don't panic'... Oh yea, I forgot, it's about the markets not people.
  8. Joe V from Canada writes: Observer of the times from Canada writes: ''In a bid to stem panic, grain exports halted'.

    That's kind of an a**-backwards' approach, isn't it?'

    That depends who they care about. Most governments care about their own people first. If they don't, they are quickly replaced.
  9. john doe from Canada writes: And suddenly Harper's government has completely clammed up about the Wheat Board -- it's hard to destroy an efficient marketing board when it's making so much money for the farmers...
  10. Andrew E from Canada writes: You (donald kennedy, from Canada) wrote: Death by starvation is one way to adjust the population if you are one of those countries that ,' don't have the luxury of good agricultural land and a temperate climate to feed your population'. Why do these countries have populations they can't feed? An attitude adjustment as well as a religion adjustment is necessary. Charity can only be relied on in instances of unplanned disaster. Where disaster is inevitable unless there is a change of course and there is a refusal to change course, the world can not be expected to continually come to the aid of such a country. In any event it will not.

    Trippy... that's not me...
  11. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Zimbabwe a few years ago was capeable of exporting a tremendous amount of food. There are a few other nations that would rather fight than farm. How is the fault of the north american car driver that nations that could feed themselves and others would prefer death from war rather than life from farming?
  12. Observer of the times from Canada writes: Joe V, I agree, but that's not what we've seen over the last while. I's every man for himself, including the speculators.

    This will only drive prices up in the latest scam.
  13. Two Sense from Sakatoon, Canada writes: In a hundred years none of this will matter if the human race stays on the course it is on because the human race will not exist. Everyday a few more species become extinct, why should we be any different? Oh yeah, I forgot, we are so much more intelligent than every other species. No other species can create war and famine like we can. Take a bow, people!
  14. Chris H from Australia writes: Time to dust off some Jonathan Swift... ha ha.
    _________

    Ah yes, globalisation; the solution to all the world's problems. I for one could do with fewer cheap chinese goods, and more sovereignty. And ethanol: sustainable development/consumption is the biggest lie we ever swallowed. USE LESS. There is no 'better.'
  15. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I am torn. Firstly I hate to see kids starving for want of some food that we have n abundance.

    On the other hand the rationale side of me knows full well that if we give them food they will take it and become dependant on it and will make little or no effort to help themselves.

    Maybe we have to put strings on the food and demand that they learn and undertake effective farming and show them how to do it with the tools they have.

    If they do not learn to help themselves with our help then they are dead, real simple.
  16. R Miller from Canada writes: E. Biggs from Canada:

    Yes, and if 'they' try to help feed themselves and show some independence like the sealers of Atlantic Canada do, the EU might also say, 'You cannot eat that, how barbaric to eat cute and cuddly animals?'
  17. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: From yesterdays headline I sounds like Canada has an extra $50 million in pigs ready for export or for dog food which seem like a crazy juxtaposition to this article.
  18. Joe V from Canada writes: Okay, what is with all the 'give them pigs' people? How do you propose that we get pork from here to the countries that need food? To do that, we'd have to send it off on refrigerated ships, build ports, build roads, build refrigerated semi trailers, and distribute it across countries. All for a supply of meat that will go bad in a few days due to a lack of refrigeration.

    It's amazing how idealists can be so out of touch with the real world. The most impoverished countries aren't like Canada. You can't just send over some pork and expect it to arrive at their local Sub-Saharan Safeway.
  19. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada - you took the words out of my fingers :).

    Couldn't agree more.
  20. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Biofuels have been an outright disaster... Canadian western wheat going into SUV gas tanks... PEI potatoe farms turned into Golf Courses

    Who would have thunk it? Remember your mothers saying not to play with your food?

    Food riots occuring even in North America...

    Yet, all the Canadian whacko enviro-terrorists like Watson are completely obsessed with continuing to ensure that 6 million seals continue their over-predation of fish stocks in the North Atlantic so that human food supplies in Atlantic Canada are destroyed too...

    6 million seals X 40 pounds of fish/day X 365.25 days/year =

    87, 660, 000, 000 pounds of fish/year ...

    Of course, predator-prey cycles show that the seals will eventually die when they eventually consume all their prey...

    Congratulations to Canada and the rest of the world for losing all their sensibilities !
  21. Joe V from Canada writes: '6 million seals continue their over-predation of fish stocks in the North Atlantic'

    Overpredation by who's definition? Yours?
  22. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Joe V from Canada:

    Of course, Joe... All those EU folks (who have never even been to Atlantic Canada) are absolutely 100% right and all the Atlantic Fisherman are 100% wrong...

    The fact that the seal population is increasing while fish stocks are plummeting is just a coincidence... and is not indicative of a predator-prey relationship between seals and fish...

    The 6 million and increasing seals probably have nothing to do with why cod growth rates in Atlantic Canada are now at historic lows...

    The fact that seals also spread fatal cod worms is probably irrelevant too....

    Or possibly, the Atlantic/Quebec fisherman and sealers are right, and the EU/Canadian Government scientists couldn't make a decision to save their lives...

    BTW Why are the Scandinavian countries allowed to hunt seals? It's a bit curious, don't you think?
  23. Joe V from Canada writes: 'The fact that the seal population is increasing while fish stocks are plummeting is just a coincidence'

    Did you have any evidence of a connection? What reason do you have to suggest that declining fish stocks are due to anything other than overfishing?
  24. kevin joncas from Canada writes: Good god get a clue. The whole food crises has been caused by the environuts and their 'salvation' of the world by turning to biofuel.We will have marginally less CO2(even that is doubtful) and large parts of the world starving. Really great solution! Lay the blame where it belongs. The kneejerk reacting wingnuts who have no capacity to see consequences of actions,and what is worse don't care as long as they have 'made a point'
  25. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Joe V from Canada:

    Because there was a moratorium on Cod fishing in Atlantic Canada and the stocks never recovered...

    Here's another article that you might find interesting...

    Apparently Greenland will sue the EU (particularly Belgium) if they try to institute a ban on seal products.

    Hmmm.... maybe Canada should consider doing the same...

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=abLa1Mbp0vAE&refer=Europe

    Norway, Finland, and Russia all have seal hunts too....

    Why do you think that is?
  26. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Joe V from Canada:

    Let me emphasize a critical quote in that aforementioned Bloomberg article that shows how hypocritical the EU are on this seal hunting issue:

    'Denmark and Greenland agree that national bans of sealskin within the EU are unjustified and can have a harmful effect on this traditional trade in Greenland and for the whole fur industry,' the Danish foreign ministry said today in an e-mail. The ministry said it hopes to solve the problem through, 'close and confidential discussions between the relevant countries...'

    Apparently, Canada is an irrelevant country to the EU...

    Thus, European countries can hunt seals but Canada cannot...

    What hypocrisy?
  27. Joe V from Canada writes: 'Norway, Finland, and Russia all have seal hunts too.... Why do you think that is?'

    Why do people do anything? Because it makes money.

    As for seals, I really don't know enough to comment on their impact on cod stocks. However, cod are very long-lived. It isn't unreasonable to assume that it could take many decades if not hundreds of years for their numbers to rebound to pre-human contact levels, even assuming that their food source has not been depleted. You can't expect an instant turnaround when a species has been so thoroughly decimated.
  28. Joe V from Canada writes: R Miller:
    Why do you assume that I care at all about European seal hunting or their views on such? Because really, I don't. I'm not entirely certain why you think I do either. All I did was ask for you for evidence that the seal population is above pre-human contact levels, or that they are having a negative impact on fish stocks. This was largely a matter of curiosity; I'm not too familiar with the subject, but you were posting a lot of unsubstantiated claims and I wanted to know if you had any evidence. Anyway, have fun venting your anger at Europeans. You might want to consider a different audience, though, because I just don't care.
  29. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Joe V from Canada:

    Sorry Joe -- I thought that you cared by the fact that you responded to the information that I provided...

    Obviously, you don't... You don't seem to understand any of these these facts/issues, and yet, you call them 'unsubstantiated'...

    Strange... My mistake in conversing with you...

    Cheers...
  30. Joe V from Canada writes: R Miller:
    Being interested in the effects of seal populations on cod stocks doesn't make me interesting in the politics of sealing in Europe. I'm sorry that you can't distinguish the difference.
  31. REV eighteenseventeen from Canada writes: Eat seal, eat wheat, give thanks, share with others everybody gets fed,. We are all happy. Amen.
  32. perp lext from Canada writes: R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: 'The fact that the seal population is increasing while fish stocks are plummeting is just a coincidence... and is not indicative of a predator-prey relationship between seals and fish... '

    ROFL. You've got to be kidding. You've obviously never looked at the depletion rate impacts of bottom-trawlers. You're dead right that an inverse correlation between seal population growth and cod stocks is NOT indicative of a predator-prey causality on cod depletion -- seal impact is vastly marginal vs. trawling.

    Try a bit of research. The impacts of bottom-trawlers has been studied to death. You compare a few years of seal population growth to decades of industrial overfishing across multiple continents and conclude that SEALS are to blame for depleted cod?

    Seriously? 5 years of seal population growth vs. 100 years of human cod-fishing on increasing scale?

    We've been frenetically pulling cod from the waters at least since cod became a staple of the slave trade. Next to humans, seals haven't got a snowball's chance in hades of making a bigger impact on codstock levels. And if you looked it up in any reputable journal, you'd find that this hasn't even been in dispute for years.

    Your gall and lack of awareness is truly astounding.
  33. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Observer of the times, you don't seem to have caught the ghist of the issue.

    Export countries are worried about their own population at home who may react if there isn't sufficent food, not the folks of another country.

    Countries that rely on exported grain are way down the pecking order for ensuring adequate amounts in a crisis like this.

    The governments that ban the export are actually working against the markets and safeguarding it for their own people. Not that they have much choice. Hungry and angry citizens are not always pleasent company.

    Frankly I don't know a leader anywhere who wouldn't try doing that if the supplies were jeopardized.

    If there are food riots among people in countries that normally import the grains, they are internal problems, not the exporter's.

    Makes you wonder how much we really need an internal combustion powered auto. I bet I consume less grain to get from point A to point B, on my bike than an auto also using the grain as fuel for the same distance.
  34. Joe V from Canada writes: 'I bet I consume less grain to get from point A to point B, on my bike than an auto also using the grain as fuel for the same distance.' Have fun biking the other 8 months of the year.
  35. C. M. from London, Canada writes: I just can't figure out the G&M. Never any depth, never asking the obvious questions. How is it, in a space of no more than 12 months, our poor population is suddenly unsustainable ? How can we have in a few short months a sudden explosion in the amount of mouths that need to be fed. And it ain't just biofuels. I just came back from SE Asia and nobody is planting corn where they used to plant rice. You can't grow corn in rice paddies, that I know of. I think a closer examination will reveal market speculators who missed the metals rallies are at work here...... not to mention panic hoarding. They should have quietly done something about food commodity speculation provided the UN was monitoring the commodity exchanges for speculative behavior on food stocks. Something they probably weren't.
  36. John Smith from Canada writes: kevin joncas from Canada writes: 'Good god get a clue. The whole food crises has been caused by the environuts and their 'salvation' of the world by turning to biofuel.'

    G W Bush and his accolyte S Harper kicked off the biofuel trend with massive subsidies to their agri-business friends to address energy security issues. But then you already have the one clue you need, don't you? Why bother with facts?
  37. Will Scarlett from Canada writes: Maybe the high price of food is not that bad. Some of the countries in trouble seem to be able to afford AK 47's but not food. Perhaps their money will be spent on food rather than on arms. At the same time they have populations too large for their resources to maintain. Maybe Canada should use food to trade for their weapons and also pass along information on birth control as a condition for help. Of course this realistic approach is politically incorrect and numerous bloggers will jump on this comment. And others will demand that this comment be taken off this board.
  38. abha o from toronto, Canada writes: Speculators bumped the price of oil but there are limits to it because in the end we can give up driving and then came up with something more ingenious - do it with food - humans can't stop eating and whatever price offered people will go for and all it takes is take out surplus from the market - this applies to anything but in this case there is now way that people will 'adjust'.
  39. Michael Powers from Canada writes: The countries that are unable to feed their populations from their own resources should look at some methods of birth control and population growth control.
    Having plenty of food, the developed world has a duty to help the poorer countries during times of need. That does not mean that we have to do so on a continual basis, sooner or later, they have to look after themselves.

    Don't blame me if you can't feed your own kids. You chose to have them so they are your responsibility.
  40. Stude Ham from Canada writes: New blip phrase to justify government inaction... 'complex issue' like in 'this is a complex issue and must be studied' ... see bev oda and jim flaherty comments in today's g&m blog.

    yep from a wanna be top honchos with majority rule to cant do anything now because it's a 'complex issue' ...

    in the meantime millions will either go hungry or starve... how 'complex' is that?
  41. Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: Michael Powers from Canada writes:' The countries that are unable to feed their populations from their own resources should look at some methods of birth control and population growth control.'

    The prefered green solution to population control is starvation.
  42. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: White Man from USA, Indira Gandhi and her her son tried that in India, it did not work.
  43. Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: On a more serious note, a quote from and recent article from Dr. Timothy Ball : Commitment of 40% of US agriculture to biofuels has created a crisis in world food supplies and increasing costs for poor people everywhere. Europe and other regions seem bent on the same unnecessary path. Sadly, the policies are hurting the very people politicians and environmentalists claim to care about. However, that is only part of the story. Cold weather, droughts and poor harvest conditions are exacerbating the problem everywhere. The poor weather, with too much or too little rain, shorter frost free seasons and lower heat units for maximum yields, will continue. Not because of warming as the environmentalists and governments claim, but because the world is cooling and will continue to cool for the next several years. Ironically, grain and corn farmers are making money after years of struggling with low prices and increasing production costs. However, all farmers producing livestock have input costs spiraling out of control. Either way the price of all foodstuffs has increased and will continue to increase as long as politicians are swayed from science logic and basic realities. Environmental extremists and alarmists have exploited peoples fears and lack of knowledge about climate and climate change. They have bullied politicians into wrong policy. Afraid to be tagged with not caring about the environment they claim public support, for their policies.
  44. Jamie Wilson from Englishtown, Canada writes: Time to end all agricultural subsidies.
  45. Dick Dupa from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Wall Street investors who see a money-making opportunity in surging commodity demand.'

    Investors? They are the same greedy suckers who control and manipulate oil and and currency crisis. How long it will be allowed to continue? It is only the matter of time. Something will have to give up. But again, they do what nasty capitalism allows them to do. Good news is - everything has its end.
  46. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: You (donald kennedy, from Canada) wrote: Death by starvation is one way to adjust the population if you are one of those countries that ,' don't have the luxury of good agricultural land and a temperate climate to feed your population'. Why do these countries have populations they can't feed? (posted at 10.33 pm)
    ________________________________________________

    Globe and Mail, what is this?? I am not (donald kennedy, from Canada) and when I opened this thread this morning, I noticed the usual coloured background and this : You (donald kennedy, from Canada)wrote:.......

    What happened here? Did someone hack into my computer once again?? I am not 'donald kennedy, from Canada'...

    -
  47. Pat Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: Didn't the government just throw $50million at pork farmers to cull 150,000 pigs? Send those piggies where they're needed....!!
  48. Dr. Winston O'Boogie from London, United Kingdom writes: Question: who are the companies that are buying up all the wheat for bio-fuels? Is it Big Oil? If this really is a problem, we should be restricting the amount of wheat, etc. that can be sold to the energy market.

    Almost makes sense why Harper and gang are trying to break up the wheat board….
  49. John Smith from Canada writes: Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: 'On a more serious note, a quote from and recent article from Dr. Timothy Ball'

    Thanks for the extensive quote from an acknowledged liar.

    http://tragicplanet.org/2007/02/06/timothy-ball-another-denier/
  50. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: perp lext from Canada:

    Ignored the rest of my posts, did you?.... How very convenient? BTW where's all these references to these reputable journals on sealing that you mention?

    Interesting that you couldn't actually cite any...

    In your infinite wisdom, you forgot the mention the reasons why the EU is not considering banning seal hunts in Greenland and other European countries (Finland and Norway)... only Canada's.

    Why? Because the EU sealing debate is being driven by the emotional issues of enviro-loons just like the biofuels issue was... no logic or science in the EU debate.

    As far as I am concerned, the Newfoundlanders and other sealing countries can eat what they want to eat!

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions and driven by a enviro-terrorists in biofueled SUVs...

    Thanks for the blessing, Rev eighteenseventeen from Canada !

    I am sure that Atlantic Canada would like to have a fishery capable of feeding the world as in former days just like the wheat farmers out West did... it would quite possible only certain groups seem quite set on a mass genocide based on famine according to many of these comments on this thread...
  51. Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: John Smith from Canada writes: Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: 'On a more serious note, a quote from and recent article from Dr. Timothy Ball'

    Thanks for the extensive quote from an acknowledged liar.

    Why don't you check out the actual science before flapping your yap.

    I take all opinions 'with a grain of salt' as it were. In this case I would more rightly agree with the viewpoint of Dr. Ball than I would with say, a third rate scientist such as D. Suzuki.
  52. Stephen R from Canada writes: This isn't a good scene...once again greedy people screwing the poor people. I mean that in the nicest way. However, It only makes sense for countries to feed their own people first. We will see more of this. Globalization has been a boon for the most part, but there is down sides, and this in my opinion certainly seems to fit the bill.
  53. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: Its time to keep the grain in Canada to avoid skyrocketing prices here at home. As for the poorer countries and those that are net importers - tough luck. We have to look after ourselves for a change and stop wasting out money and resources propping up the Third World.
  54. Michael Brown from Kingston, Canada writes: So the commodity vultures are manipulating the food prices just as they do the oil and mineral prices. Why is anyone surprised?

    When a fire at a single refinery in Texas affects the price of gas already in the tanks of the gas stations everyone knows the price increase is artificial.

    As long as the commodity brokers are allowed to add their sunstantial margins to already high prices we are all going to suffer, unless of course, we invest our own paltry resources in commodities. There are many immoral ways to earn money.

    Everyone is blaming SUV's for high gas consumption, While this is certainly part of the equation, what about the people who commute to work 100 or more kilometers every day? How many of them are alone in the vehicle?
  55. Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: We are seeing the artificial increase of the cost of food because crops like corn have been diverted to make ethanol. In the rush to cash in on the higher price for corn, farmers who would otherwise plant wheat and other grains are creating shortages.
    What makes this shift particularly obscene is the fact that there is ample crude oil to meet the world’s need for gasoline and diesel. The mandate to use alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel has the secondary effect of exacerbating food shortages because the cost of fuel to plant, harvest, and transport crops has increased.
    Take away &8220;biofuels&8221; and you take away the imbalances being seen and felt worldwide.
    A combination of many factors, government imposed environmental dictates, export curbs, and crop losses resulting from the cooling weather cycle could generate further shortages of food. We are going to read and hear a lot more about food protests around the world.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2626
  56. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: Its time to keep the grain in Canada to avoid skyrocketing prices here at home. As for the poorer countries and those that are net importers - tough luck. We have to look after ourselves for a change and stop wasting out money and resources propping up the Third World.
  57. mario hammer from toronto, Canada writes: I find it hard to believe that there is a shortage, more like a manipulation of supply to keep prices higher.
    Farmers have always complained about lack of access to markets, government subsidies and so on.
    Canada alone could supply most of the world . Watch how the world will be awash with supply once the price crashes.
  58. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: 'We are seeing the artificial increase of the cost of food because crops like corn have been diverted to make ethanol. In the rush to cash in on the higher price for corn, farmers who would otherwise plant wheat and other grains are creating shortages.'

    ------------------------------
    What a brilliant idea to rid the world of surplus population, as well as populations from regions that continually threaten the west with Jihad and destruction....a few years of bio-fuel consumption and the world population problem will be solved and terrorism significantly undermined, as hungry people will be too busy scrounging for food to worry about IEDs, weapons and schemes to destry America...brilliant, absolutely brilliant......Al Gore is smarter than he looks!
  59. g chan from Canada writes:
    Fossil fuel like grain is also becoming scarcer and unaffordable.
    Should we cap/protect this/our resource to save it for ourselves and our future generations? Or have two price system, cheaper of us and much more expensive for them, a measure which may stimulate manufacturing here in Canada?
  60. Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: one of those countries that " don't have the luxury of good agricultural land and a temperate climate to feed your population". Why do these countries have populations they can't feed?

    Our civilization has the technological ability to produce large surpluses of food which has made it possible for populations in agriculturally deprived regions to grow beyond their ability to feed themselves and this worked as long as said populations had something to trade in exchange be it cheap labour or saleable resources.
    Once we started ( the developed world ) to divert food production to fuel production and the removal of vast tracts the fertile agricultural land out of production and turning it into natural preservations at the behest of misguided enviromentalists these populations are being put at risk. These unintended consequences have manifested into reality.
    We have ample sources of oil resources, and no need to burn our food, carbon dioxide is a benefical gas in our atmosphere and further reductions of its presence it the atmosphere will only serve to be even more detrimental to agriculture in the future. Another overlooked and unintended consequence.
  61. Darrin Duell from Canada writes: You (donald kennedy, from Canada) wrote: Death by starvation is one way to adjust the population if you are one of those countries that ,' don't have the luxury of good agricultural

    ---------------------------------------

    Why do LB Murray and myself both have this kennedy character, coming up as you.. as in me or him... you know what I mean Globe editors. Can you fix this.
  62. A C from Canada writes: Jamie Wilson from Englishtown, Canada writes: Time to end all agricultural subsidies.

    Wouldnt that be the absolute worst thing to do right now? Give the farmers less money, causing them to raise thier already high prices higher, or get out of farming altogether? Did you think about this post at all?
  63. Darrin Duell from Canada writes: I wonder how much of these commodity prices are the result of speculators/ Fund Managers, with billions of dollars at their desposal, who are nervous nellies about putting there funds back into financial markets. These large funds have found they have the ability to be "market makers" in these commodity markets, thus they are exploiting their ability to be market manipulators to reap record profits off the backs of livestock farmers and the people who are poor and miserable in the world. The fact is of all the wheat contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a tiny fraction get filled while the vast majority are just speculators gambling. First these greedy buggers gave us the subprime morgage crisis, now they are dellivering us a food shortage by manipulating commodity markets. Too bad are politicians are all bought and paid for by Wall Street/ Bay Street schills, or they might do something about this...
  64. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: Growing corn for ethenol is about as stupid as it gets. No wonder we have food shortages.
  65. A C from Canada writes: "Once we started ( the developed world ) to divert food production to fuel production and the removal of vast tracts the fertile agricultural land out of production and turning it into natural preservations at the behest of misguided enviromentalists these populations are being put at risk. These unintended consequences have manifested into reality. We have ample sources of oil resources......." Uh.... we do? Oil is at a record high as well, last time I checked. Pretty sure we dont have "ample sources" of oil, unless by "ample" you mean "twenty years at our increasing rate of consumption at most". If all this amazing ethanol is being produced, shouldnt demand for oil have decreased, driving prices down? The fact is we as a world population consume far more than we possibly, sustainably can. What about this anti-ethanol craze.... why is using dorn stalks for ethanol such a bad idea? We dont actually eat the stalk part as far as I know. Wheat? Soy? You dont think the beans and grains are picked first? Farm much? I dont know if you know this, but the environmentalists are equally concerned about the populations being at risk. Overpopulation is the major, major cause of this food shortage, NOT as people suggest biofuels. The failure of people to assess the real problem because they cant see the forest for the trees is ever the downfall of humanity. Get over the political correctness. There are too many people. Millions are starving now, but billions would be starving otherwise. Blaming the farmers for the exponentially increasing demand, or the "misguided environmentalists" for trying to solve the dependence on oil, without first blaming the millions and billions dependent on our crops is just ignorant. You think using more oil is really going to solve this problem? Is using more of anything really the answer in the long run? Just, consume, and everything will be fine? Get a grip. See the big picture. The world isn't infinite, and neither is population.
  66. Sue City from Canada writes: Take food-based commodities off the world market.
  67. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: Without commodity markets farmers would be put out of business. Growing food is not a charity, it's a business and we should be thankful to those that grow our food for us.
  68. Steve Lee from Canada writes: Can you imagine not eating in order to drive a car, can you imagine human beings and animals starving because driving a car with no passengers is paramount ?
  69. azif uno from Canada writes: Who is donald kennedy and why is he posting through my account? How many of you are having this issue? To check if you are go to the fourth comment from the top and see if "donald kennedy is appearing as "you".
  70. roger samson from Canada writes: Here is a link below that very nice explains the global grain production, trade and changes in carryover. There was a 1.6% increase in use above the 10 year average growth increase last year. This was primarily caused by a 5% increase in use of coarse grains. If the ethanol boom continues we are headed to negative carryover stocks of corn in North America in 2 years (which of course can’t happen). This will mean further downsizing of the livestock sector in North america and less US corn exports to Canada, Europe and developing countries (they could halve exports). The real food crisis hasn&8217;t hit yet. Canada and Europe are bidding against developing countries for corn. I think we know who is going to lose the bidding war. You could have 5-10% of the world population requiring emergency food assistance. Who will pay the annual bill of feeding 335-670 million people?. At $100/yr per head that&8217;s about 34-67 billion dollars per year. Much cheaper to simply cut the subsidies to ethanol and use non food crops for energy on marginal lands.

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah881e/ah881e04.htm



  71. Darrin Duell from Canada writes: roger samson from Canada writes: Here is a link below that very nice explains the global grain production, trade and changes in carryover. There was a 1.6% increase in use above the 10 year average ...

    ----------------------------------------

    good post!
  72. xman xman from Ottawa, Canada writes: By the way, the notion of selling commodities to foreign markets to capture high international prices is just what the oil companies are doing. Canada has enough oil to satisfy internal demand. If export restrictions were imposed, the price for gasoline in Canada would drop. Wheat, oil,.. the economics of commodities are similar.
  73. reint farmer from Canada writes: Just imaging that all the grains in the world would be in the hands of one or two corporate trans nationals, what would the price of grain, and by extension food, be? Sounds far fetched? The world grain market currently is controlled by just 4 0r 5 main players, ADM, Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill and some minor players. What would happen if they decide, like OPEC, to hang on to the grain? We know that the goverments have no influence over them. my advise then is to tighten your belt and walk to work because you will need all your money to buy food. Whith all the talk at the WTO about freer trade there are going to be winners and losers. the winners will be the corporate giants that take no "NO" for an answer, the losers will be the sovereign countries that have food and resources in abundance currently.
    they will have abdicated their rights to non elected board rooms for the benefit of a few. Makes me feel so good :(
  74. Hans Ulster from Eating a bagel on an oil derrick, Canada writes: zif uno from Canada writes: Who is donald kennedy and why is he posting through my account? How many of you are having this issue? To check if you are go to the fourth comment from the top and see if "donald kennedy is appearing as "you".

    ------------

    Ditto......and fascinating. The server must be recognizing his IP as my IP (and yours), for the comment is yellowed.
  75. A C from Canada writes: "If export restrictions were imposed, the price for gasoline in Canada would drop."

    Unfortunately, you cannot just impose export restrictions without some kind of backlash, especially since we are in a free-trade agreement with our North American partners and will very soon be with the EU.

    I mean, cannot blocked the sale of an aerospace company and look at the retort from the US, our biggest trading partner and a country which we depend on for many products that we can't produce ourselves. Imposing export restrictions would be great if there was no international repercussions, but in reality it's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario that would weaken foriegn relations and discourage our trading partners.
  76. Wendy Moellenbeck from Canada writes: Over the past 20 years the price of grains and oilseeds have remained nowhere close to the cost of production. As a result, on the prairies at least, fewer farmers, more agricultural land being converted to other uses (golf courses on PEI anyone). It's an economic shift. In the same way, farmers have tried to diversify where their grain has been sold in order to make money. Hence all the interest in biofuels and livestock. If you can't make money growing wheat, try to make money by turning that wheat into something else. In addition, there have been historic lows of world grain stocks -- we're basically eating and using the stuff as fast as it comes off the field. Coupled with a few years of poor production in poor countries with large populations that subsist on the margins to begin with, yeah I guess we might have a problem. In North America we pay very small percentages of our income on food -- which is great, why not be able to buy other things as well. But if we aren't willing to pay farmers what the product is actually worth, then why should they continue growing the stuff. I feel I'm on both sides of the coin here. My parents still farm. I want them to have a decent income. But do I really want to pay more for my Mini Wheats in the grocery store, no not really. But something has to give. I think you'll see a large increase in traditional crops, especially wheat, grown in Western Canada this year. Hopefully the weather holds.
  77. Hans Ulster from Eating a bagel on an oil derrick, Canada writes: A C from Canada writes: "If export restrictions were imposed, the price for gasoline in Canada would drop."

    Unfortunately, you cannot just impose export restrictions without some kind of backlash, especially since we are in a free-trade agreement with our North American partners and will very soon be with the EU.

    I mean, cannot blocked the sale of an aerospace company and look at the retort from the US, our biggest trading partner and a country which we depend on for many products that we can't produce ourselves. Imposing export restrictions would be great if there was no international repercussions, but in reality it's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario that would weaken foriegn relations and discourage our trading partners.

    ------------

    AC, must you tarnish this board with logical statements? LOL.
  78. kevin joncas from Canada writes: J Smith
    The "facts" are that Bush and Harper were responding to the lobbying and pressure on the part of environuts and their 'friends' in the media. Neither B or H would have the brains to come up with this on their own. The blame for the pending starvation of millions is squarely laid at the door of pressures from unthinking enviro groups.
    The same groups who are responsible for millions of deaths in the third world because of DDT bans.
    Ideology is much more important than human lives. Hug trees while people die. Pathetic.
  79. Leon Russell from You, Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: A hundred thousand cod fished illegally annually (in 2005 at least) and people want to blame hungry seals. Oh well, it's easier to club seals than poachers. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080415/CPENVIRONNEMENT/80415211/6108/CPENVIRONNEMENT
  80. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes:
    During the 'oil' crisis of the mid-1970s, the deputy governor of California made a speech to the Canadian Petroleum Institute (I believe that's the name) in Calgary. He said there was no shortage of oil, just an overabundance of politicians.

    Nothing much has changed but the names.
  81. Dave C from Toronto, Canada writes: We are all Donald Kennedy.
  82. Ernie Tailgate from Canada writes: Lots of uncompassionate people responding to this article... - just because we are a "have" nation does not give us the sense of entitlement to drive to work in Hummers instead of Corollas - we just never know when we might be on the other side of the fence
  83. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Grow up people,
    Claiming that the "environmentalists" are in favour of ethanol product from corn is WRONG. It's called a strawman argument.

    This "solution" was produced by the US Administration to address two issues:
    i) the demands of the corn lobby
    ii) the domestic production of energy

    Even for those that support the production of biofuels,
    anyone that was researched the concept will tell you that the corn-to-ethanol technique is worst way to acheive this.
  84. B Lam from Canada writes: What can we do to help? Boycott buffet style meals.
  85. Theo Lichacz from Kawartha, Canada writes: Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, Montana and South Saskatchewan are the second largest oil reserves in the world, likely 500 billion barrels if fully utilized could render three times that amount. there is the eastern slope of the rockies and their vast oil shale and natural gas deposits and of course the north slope Alaska. Add this to the oil sands in Alberta and North America could be energy independent for the coming 50 to 100 years, during which the appropriate technologies can be brought to the mainstream. The only thing holding this from becoming so is the relentless noise from made by enviromentals and a oil industry willing to listen and restrict supply so as to make obscene profits.
    Burning food is not the answer. it only exaberates problems already in the food chain.
  86. azif uno from Canada writes: Dave C from Toronto, Canada writes: We are all Donald Kennedy.

    Wow. That is either incredibly profound in a poetic kind of way, or profoundly scary (well, creepy, anyway).

    It does not, however, explain the phenomenon. Does this say something about the level of security at this site? Or should we not bother worrying about it?
  87. Imperial K from Canada writes: Well Donald Kennedy, the problem is this.

    Countries can destabilize, and not all of them are super poor. Germany after WW1 was starving and left to rot, and rose to super power in just under 6 years. This stuff can and will happen if you let it.

    A country could simply be overthrown, and it's military used to invade others for food and money. Why not? Ethics be damned if you're people are starving, this is the purest form of survival of the fittest, and more righteous then our puny attempt at a market economy.

    You want to see true capitalisim? It's when the enemy drinks wine from your skull.

    Sorry to be so abrupt but it's very true.

    So you can let a few hundred nations, again not all super poor and weak, spiral out of control because we're too cheap to help but trust me it'll cost you more later when another Taliban "pops" up and feeds those people, and wins their hearts and souls.

    Please don't start singing the great Canadian song bird..CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.

    If you can buy reams of garbage at wal mart, we can afford to ship some food.
  88. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: roger samson from Canada writes: "Who will pay the annual bill of feeding 335-670 million people?. At $100/yr per head that's about 34-67 billion dollars per year. Much cheaper to simply cut the subsidies to ethanol and use non food crops for energy on marginal lands."

    ----------------
    Actually, its much cheaper to just allow those that cannot afford to feed themselves to starve....this planet is overpopulated as it is...its time to let nature take its course....maybe then people living in sub-saharan Africa, for example, that have 15 kids will get the message - keep it in your pants or die!

    Its time to stop propping up the Third World - they have proven they just don't get it...all we are doing is fostering dependence by providing food aid, rather than solving a problem. Heartless but right. Malthus was the man, baby!
  89. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: Imperial K from Canada writes: "If you can buy reams of garbage at wal mart, we can afford to ship some food."

    -------------------
    Bollocks. Food aid is the PROBLEM, not the solution....you want to help the poor buggers, go teach them how to practice birth control, how to not be sucked in by religious dogma that promotes large family size, teach them how to farm, how to purify dirty water, how to properly store food, how to preserve food, how to do all the above without destroying their environment. Or, we can spend more money on research into how to reclaim desert land. Either way, as the bible says (sort of): You give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or you can teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

    As for your scenario about rogue nations and so on, it won't happen. There are enough nukes around to either deter those that would or to destroy those that do. Period. Besides, here in fortress North America, what do we have to worry about....are the Taliban or the Rwandans gonna paddle over here in a boat and attack us with rusty machetes?
  90. Robert Vincent from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The issue seems to be one of distributionof avaialble agricultural production. We not only have moremouths to feed world wide, but we also have more land that is unproductive becasue of wars and failed economies. Complicating this is the move to use the reduced agricultural capacity to off set requirements for oil.

    Which is the more serious issue; feeding people or feeding energy demand? Letting the markets decide is not the legitimate option it may be preceived to be if it is increasing starvation world wide.
  91. Imperial K from Toronto, Canada writes: Oh my this has to be the geriatric/blue hairs commenting.

    Is this what happens when older people are left so terribly alone too long?

    Take a Maalox and go back to Matlock.
  92. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes:
    Teach them how to farm, how to purify dirty water, how to properly store food, how to preserve food, how to do all the above without destroying their environment.

    Wow, that'll be a pretty large project... seeing as we haven't figured all that out ourselves.
    • Posted 16/04/08 at 4:44 PM EDT |