Editorial: Grain truths

By holding higher grain consumption in India and China responsible for global food crisis, US President George W Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, have needlessly started a blame game which is so far removed from the facts as to be laughable, which does not improve Mr Bush's already dodgy reputation on sticking to the facts, and which in any case leads the world nowhere in its combat against hunger. While making his insinuation against the world's most populous countries, Mr Bush could not have been unmindful of the backlash that it would evoke from those who are quick to take umbrage at even the ludicrous, notably India's political class (one is not aware of any similar reaction from the Chinese). Still, at the risk of being accused of over-reacting, it is important to recognize the bare facts. For starters, the per capita consumption of food in the US is some five times that in India. More importantly, of the increase in grain consumption in recent years, roughly two-thirds has been accounted for by the US""which has no more than 5 per cent of the world's population. It cannot be the case that Americans, already battling obesity problems on an unprecedented scale, have increased their consumption sharply over an already high consumption base. The correct explanation therefore is that the diversion of corn for feeding the new ethanol plants that have cropped up all over the US has caused the increase in grain intake, and therefore the global supply and price problem. Indeed, with more ethanol plants being commissioned, the diversion of corn to feed the bio-fuel industry is set to increase""and thereby make the global food supply situation worse than it already is. Far from blaming poor, underfed countries, Mr Bush would have done well to look in his own backyard and hold his peace.

 

As for India's own record, foodgrain availability in the country tended to decline between 1996 and 2004, when the annual growth in food output plummeted to below that of the population growth rate. Though output growth has picked up again in the past few years, outstripping the rate of population increase once again, there is still no conclusive evidence to show that consumption has risen in tandem. In any case, the rise in middle class income, which President Bush referred to, leads normally to higher consumption of non-cereal food and not cereals, which are currently in focus on account of a supply crunch and higher prices. What President Bush also failed to realise was that, globally, the total consumption of both the staple cereals, wheat and rice (leaving aside corn which is being diverted to bio-fuels), has consistently exceeded production since 2001-02. This has led to a drawdown of stocks, adversely impacting export supplies and forcing countries to build their domestic food reserves, instead of relying on imports, to tide over any contingency. Calling such countries hoarders is hardly warranted.

The real issues today are the failure of global food output to keep pace with rising demand and the diversion of edible grains to bio-fuels. When it comes to boosting food production, especially in the poor countries, through generation of better seeds and farm technology, financial support from US and other rich countries has not really been forthcoming. These countries used to be major donors to the international agricultural research institutes which developed and promoted the technologies used to bring about the 'green revolution'. Such support has dwindled to a trickle, perhaps because the rich countries want to keep developing countries in their role as food export markets.