This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Food for thought
The folks at the USDA released their projections for 2011/2012-food price inflation. The bad news is that feeding ourselves will cost ~4% more in 2011. The good news is that USDA thinks prices will rise only ~2.5% next year.
I shop (I hate it). My food inflation is closer to 10%. It depends on what you eat. For example, from the report:
Meats, poultry and fish +6%
Seafood +6.5%
Beef +9%
Fresh vegetables +5%
Cooking oils +7.5%
These items are all well above the average set by the USDA. The following kept the index low:
Processed vegetables +1.5%
Beverages +2%
After looking at this I loaded up on canned peas and Coke.
There’s other information at the site I thought was interesting. For example, what’s your guess on the amount spent for food prepared at home and the amount spent on eating out?
Answer: 52% is prepared at home, 48% is purchased and eaten onsite or taken home. Half of what we eat is “out”. I find that to be a surprisingly high number. Behind that 50-50 ratio is, no doubt, the problem with diabetes and obesity.
If you were wondering how the restaurant-bar business did during the depression the USDA has the numbers. My conclusion is that depressions are very bad for eating establishments. It takes a long time for a real recovery in spending habits. It’s also clear that wars are very good for the restaurant biz.
The “eat out” numbers did fall in 2009. But they recovered in 10’ and are headed higher again in 11’. We had recession. A big one. But consumers barely batted an eye. I’m surprised at this result.
The At Home and Away total 2010 food bill came to $1.2T. That makes eating the largest industry in America.
In 1930 19% of all food consumed was Produced at Home. By 1960 that percentage had fallen to 6%. In 2010 it was only 1.6%. While this trend is not surprising, the magnitude of the drop is worth noting. At one time we were a nation of gardeners, today we just do ‘drive through’.
The food we eat makes us sick. The 2010 estimate for food related illnesses came in at a lumpy 76,000,000 people (About ¼ of us get sick every year). These illnesses caused 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. The economic costs of these illnesses came to $152 billion. In other words, the bad food we eat cost us significantly more in 2010 than the combined operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s not surprising that the US pays less for food as a percentage of income than any other country. But the comparisons are still interesting. The US spends 6.5% of disposable income for food. Poorer countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Cameroon are forced to pay ~45% of incomes to put food on the table. The high population countries are as follows:
Vietnam = 38%
Indonesia = 32%
India = 28%
China = 22%
I find these numbers troubling. There is only one direction for them to go. The developing countries with big populations will see greater gains in income, with that will lead to increased food consumption. Approximately 30% of income goes to food in these areas. It’s hard not to see that this is going to push up the prices the globe pays for everything we eat.
For example, the USDA put the per person food cost in China at $129 in 2000. Today that number is $360 (280% increase). Over the same period the USA consumption increased only 42%.
It’s old news that China and the other big/fast growing populations are consuming an ever-increasing amount of the world's supply. But these numbers are scary big. If the underlying trends continue (why would they not?) then we are headed into supply problems that can only mean rapidly rising prices.
This conclusion gets back to the beginning. Food inflation in America is running today at 5+%. The USDA says the inflation will moderate next year. This is more government hopium. I’ll take the “over” on their numbers. In my view rapid increases over the next decade are baked in the cake.
The most regressive economic consequence is for food inflation to take place. We have 45mm Americans on food stamps and tens of millions of others on the edge. I find it ironic that the Federal Reserve excludes food inflation when setting monetary policy. While the Fed can’t be blamed for rising food costs, they are most certainly stoking the fires.
Bernanke has said he wants to contain inflation (excluding food and energy) at less than 2%. Food inflation is running at double his target. Possibly Ben needs a new Mandate.
.
»
- advertisements -
You must not know that HFCS contains toxic amounts of mercury and other heavy metals. Take note of who is sponsoring the research data you site. Big-Agra/ Big-Pharma funds most of it in one way or another. Independent research is completely tainted due to the funding process for research labs.
Through debt and regulation, inheritance taxes and the incessant harassment of family farmers, all food production is being monopolized by giant corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. When these conglomerates control all the production, your choices will be limited and prices will be totally arbitrary.
Control, bitchez.
For a lot of people, food has become their only luxury. Food in America is still comparatively cheap. It's one of the few things left of American exceptionalism. Americans like to dine out to feel like their still Americans living an old American lifestyle. This fact should not be a surprise to anyone if you're in the trenches with them.
"old American lifestyle." What do you mean old? Until the 1960's came along I would venture an uneducated guess that the vast majority of American's ate out occasionally or perhaps bought take home frozen prepared meals as a once in a while substitue for home preparation. The explosion of eating out, take out or frozen prepared food at home is still a novel idea in most of the world.
I suppose old is in the mind of the beholder.
"I suppose old is in the mind of the beholder."
Yep, but that really wasn't the point.
I was trying to convey that the American style of living is in decline and that Americans are clinging to whatever keeps them in the illusion. Food is the only option for many. Obviously, I failed at communicating that. My apologies.
my three part mandate for technological change (please) is cheap and available shelter, which is portable and easy to assemble; seeds which grow without the typical soil requirements, hydroponically perhaps, and which produce a highly nutritious crop; clothing which lasts a long time and protects against cold and heat, and doesn't need washing. once the solution to food shelter and clothing are given to every person, then government and religious institutions will no longer be engaged in nationalistic competition for resources, land and food.
occupy the planet
HEMP
There is a reason everything in nature breaks down to its elemental composition.
Portable structures must be light weight. light weight structures peform poorly in extreme conditions like thunder storms or hurricanes or blizzards.
Portable structures are only needed for emergencies or nomadic lifestyles. Fixed structures encourage communities and shared infrastructure.
I'd rethink what you really want in your triangle of life, if you maintain your interest, study material sciences. There are many new and interesting materials being developed every year and unless you are an engineer who can quantify the properties you desire for your application, most are never fully exploited.
fashion exists to cause people to replace their clothing long before it wears out, so perhaps clothing is already very durable. I don't think you want to undo the physics that causes particles to bind together, like dirt onto fabric, for it is these same processes that ensure the success of many life sustaining processes.
Be careful what you wish for. The law of unintended consequences is always hovering just out of sight.
I still have 20+ year old underwear in the drawer. Wife hates them, but they still provide a barrier between ass and outside world.
Portable, easy to assemble shelter and hydroponically grown food aren't a very good match.
Hydroponics will be very infrastructure dependent if you're going to use it as a primary source. Think food factories- big factories.
Where's the Corinthian leather and veal? Self restraint is so (mid) 20th Century.
it will still be on the "Corinthian" cows. the average human spends most of his time competing for resources. remove that competition and you John Lennon end wars, famine, poverty, and rich bankers. we had one technology revolution which did zero for the human race. now lets try it again.
I like the idea, but I don't think it's true that it would result in "peace."
It's not just competition for *resources* that causes our problems. It's also competition for social status.
And you're not going to get rid of THAT with any kind of technological revolution.
The growing number of people who are unable to grow food (either because of location or lack of knowledge) is reflected in the number of people who, even in a recession, they still have to go out to eat. I assume the eating out figure includes the dollar menus and prepared food at corner stores. In the late 30's early 40's people didn't go out to eat because they knew how to prepare food at home. Most of today's young families do not have anyone in the household who knows how to cook much of anything. They eat out....or they go hungry. There are some interesting articles out there on food deserts. See --> http://newsone.com/newsone-original/jothomas/americas-worst-9-urban-food...
One other key difference between now and the '30s is that now both parents have to work (for most families). My theory is that after a full day of having their soul sucked out by whatever corporation they work for, people don't have the energy to cook, and will substitute the home-cooked / home-grown meal with a restaurant just to make it another day.
"have to work" is a debatable concept. Sometimes, this should be interpreted "want to work", so as not to be "stuck at home caring for snotty-nosed little kids" and being able to have the things they "need", such as cable, cell phones, popular fashion, etc. Let's all be honest as Americans and admit that MOST of what we declare is necessary for "survival" is simply NOT! It is simply that we have been brainwashed by the Tavistock Institute for so long.
My husband made 19 K while in training, and we lived just fine on that even while I stayed home raising two children. And looking back, we STILL could have trimmed our consumption and "survived".
America's point of reference, or yardstick, for what it takes to survive is so skewed, it is breathtaking!
I admit that I am guilty of this mindset, as well. Now very affluent, we built a house 5 years ago. At that time, I couldn't imagine living without Wolf ovens. My life wouldn't have been complete! So I have a fabulous Wolf 2 oven range, an additional Wolf oven, an Advantium, and a Kitchen Aid steam-assisted convection oven as well. Do I need these many ovens to survive? NO!
Thankfully, I DO know that all my material possessions might vaporize tomorrow, and I will survive somehow, and be just fine. We can all eat and be healthy for so much less than we do. The issue is willful ignorance and laziness in not learning how.
Here in Virginia, when you eat at a restaurant or order a pizza or get a sandwich at 7-11, you pay 11.5% tax on the meal. It's called the meals tax. I just find it ironic, given that Virginia is one of those radically right wing, "anti-tax" states.
Here in Donner Pass...
The Fed's mandate is always such.. that it can keep buying... It has to keep buying... so the mandate will be changed only to reflect that. If we are indeed getting 2.5% GDP, obviously the economy is recovering some, so that can't be the excuse to keep buying. Already some Fed chiefs talk about targetting unemployment. Print till everyone is employed.
Inflation is down for the top 0.1%. Megayachts are down. Villas in the South of France are down slightly. Private jets are staying even. Gardeners for the mansions are cheaper. Beluga Caviar is up and 40 carat diamonds are up but what the heck. Incomes are way up for the top 0.1% and Bernanke is taking that to the bank!
RE in the Hamptons up 22% YoY this October...and BK complains about a few pizzling % on food prices!
if it's got a full tank of gas and you take one for a rip roariing ride "stuck on zero" you'll find "a little inflation can be good for even stuck on zero." i'm sorry..."what do you mean you forgot to lay anchor?" but "the police did say he had a girl with him. we're looking for her, too. sir."
I still say Malthus was wrong. Humanity's ability to grow food (in the aggregate) has consistently outpaced population growth.
Depending on the geography, food can be grown at a rate that far exceeds the local populations ability to consume it.
Transportation and Incomes ultimately decide who eats and who does not eat.
And as Incomes rise, birth rates fall. Look to Japan to see where the world will be in 50 years.
Kayman,
I don't believe that our ability to grow food is outpacing population growth, and it is a question that I have been trying to find the answer to for more than a year now. I have tried to use USDA tables as well as UN numbers, but this data always seems to be , incomplete, a few years behind time, or both.
If you have any details that you can share I would most appreciative to see them. I have looked at the cereal numbers as a standard to judge the size of global population since I believe the numbers on population a little sloppy, but once again these are not up-to-date.
In any event Kayman, thank you reminding me of this unanswered question om
oldman
There are many sources for the data. But the best estimate for world population in 1970 was around 3.6 billion. Forty years later we now say it is 7 billion.
The birth rate has dropped from 2.1% annually in 1960 to 1.2% today. And it is still trending down.
When rolling the old girl over in the dark is your only source of extra-curricular activity, your birth rate is high (naturally...ahem...).
To answer your question on food production, I believe the answer is self-evident. If you agree that we have 7 billion people on the planet, and they must eat every day, then we produce enough food.
Of course, that does not mean any particular individual is going to eat today.
I still say eating today will depend mainly on politics.
overpopulationisamyth.com
om-the Malthus reasoning has been repeatedly disproved (on a population basis). Then, I'd suggest to check into the relationship between "civilization" and "birth rate".
Mark Steyn's views will help.
The Audobon perspective is also useful.
- Ned
Malthus is wrong until he isn't if you beleive we will always be able to grow more food than people need, you beleive in magic, not science or simple math.
The upper boundary of population growth is predicated on a stable environment, should massive crop failures occur because of the usual suspects, drought, pests, disease, or weather, death comes quickly unless years of reserves are warehoused.
Perfect crops and perfect conditions cannot last forever. Everything breaks in an imperfect world.
It is human to think things will always be as they are, but it is not the world's way to be static.
Malthus is wrong until he isn't ? So, you agree he is still wrong !
In the early 1960's the annual increase of population growth was 2.1%. Today it is 1.2% and it has a decling trend line.
Food is limited by politics not land. The tax subsidies to grow industrial corn to feed cattle (who do not naturally eat corn) is a political decision.
The shit on store shelves is a poltical decision. Empty calories are subsidized calories-very profitable for the Industrial Ag companies.
Malthus was wrong on the Math and causation. And he (and you) are still wrong and will continue to be wrong in a non-static world.
Bleating is not reason.
You forgot to mention HAARP and weather modification impacting crops. Intentionally. This technology has been available for decades, and is being used today to cause specific outcomes.
Not to mention that HEMP is the most perfect crop known to man, capable of producing food, clothing, fuel, and much more. It is drought tolerant and disease resistent. Its yield is greater than any other crop in history. Hemp could solve most of our problems...BUT, it's ILLEGAL to grow in the US. Hmmm....wonder why?
Hemp is not just a very useful crop for its many products and their many uses, but it also improves poor soils and grows fast enough to provide several crops per year in warmer climates.
Hemp seed oil is a great source of omega 3's and is delicious on salads or steamed vegetables. Hemp is thought to be one of the 1st if not the 1st crops domesticated by humans.
Hemp can be very healthful.
"food can be grown at a rate that far exceeds the local populations ability to consume it."
This is the stupidest statement I have seen in a while. Yes, it is great IF you can transport yourself to the food or the food to you, BUT the FACT is that several biological cycles limit the RATE at which plants grow, period. Look up the nitrogen cycle, the sulfur cycle, and the phosphorus cycle. It takes energy to turn these cycles and the elements are only used by plants when they are in specific oxidation states. Educate yourself moron, there are limits. If the fucking power went out and all the food went bad in L.A. county, what the fuck are 20 million people going to do? Go out in the woods and eat berries? Another fucking pod.
The RATE of every plants growth is determined by the availability of nutrients, water and sunlight. Right now we use a number of energy intensive processes to artificially speed up the RATE at which we can delivery those nutrients to our crops. If the world were to end the Haber Bosch process then the world's population goes back under 1 billion overnight. There is still plenty of oil and coal and the air you breath is 80% nitrogen, so that is good, but the phorphorus cycle is going to create a big problem soon. Hard to tell whether or not it will be this or the scarcity of fresh water that really causes a bigger problem first. What a fucking moron.
then the world's population goes back under 1 billion overnight.
Nah. In practice, it takes years to starve.
Lots of chaos and resource skirmishes would accelerate the die-off, but it'd take a good long while (a decade at least) to get back under 1 billion people.
Think of population as leverage, the more population the more leverage.
Then think how massive leverage can distort a system. It should soon become evident that massive population will accelerate and amplify existing problems and introduce a whole host of secondary and tertiary reactions likely to destablize the world as we know it.
If something cannot go on, it will not go on.
And let's not forget about the planet's present gravitational restraints (it has been different in the past cuz Newtonian G is not a constant). The largest land animal possible in present gravity is the African bull elephant; a Walmartian bi-ped is surely close to the upper limit too, which of course is bullish.
Japan in 50 years?
A nuclear radiated wasteland. Nothing but mass graves and discolored and deformed vegetation.
The West Coast of the US and Western Canada, the same. The Midwest, probably close. East Coast, same or sooner.
Birth rates? The pictures of deformed children from Chernobly are too horrific to post. X 10,000. Infant mortality rates blowing through the roof right now.
Have a nice day.
sammie-you've obviously been hangin' arount Troy for all these many years. - Ned
what nuclear "accidents" don't accomplish, depleted uranium will assist - plenty of horrific pictures of babies born in areas that were selected for this genocide - the women of Fallujah, for example, have been told to not get pregnant as the rate of healthy live births declines. . . and what few mention, is the amrkn military are also exposed, and the damage is brought to the homeland. . .
working as intended.
Hotel rooms the size of coffins and vending machines with school-girls panties? No thanks.
"vending machines with school-girls panties"
Wait - are they used? Just trying to understand the target demographic.
Yes, used with picture of wearer.
Old guys pulling their pud watching internet porn; ergo, no babies.
if only the young guys would stick to that model, there truly would be "no babies" - a form of self-sufficiency(and responsible behaviour) that would solve many, many problems. . .
(not my junk, fyi)
I have seen several stories that the sex rate of young japanese is falling. Also, most developed countries are currently shrinking in population ex migration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17619467/ns/health-sexual_health/#.TqyojLJfZ8E
Doesn't help when migration of rapidly breeding groups is allowed.
Soil with the materials to grow food loose those materials when food is grown. Those materials must be replaces by flooding or being unused or crop rotation, or by man made fertilizers and nutrients. Man made has higher costs every year. Oil/gas is one of those costs. As the World population grows and fertilize and minerals and soil P H balancers become more costly prices will go up.
Inflation or deflation will make little difference. Food will continue to go up and may become less and less plentiful.
good land stewardship includes crop rotation, fallow fields, adding organic compost materials as nutrients, attracting / keeping earthworms, etc.
corporate factory farming models the same as all corporate endeavors - maximise profits at the expense of the resource until the nest is shit in, then move on.
add GMO / Monsanto to the mix, shadow govt. "weather mod" spraying their metallic poisons coast to coast, and it's seriously no wonder the supermarket foodstuffs are depleted of most nutrients, toxic in many cases.
Did you hear about the Serbian ecologist who challenged/insisted that his government ban all GMO and chemtrailing activities?
After that, an assassination attempt on his life was made, and somehow, he has ended up in prison!
Monsanto plays hardball, you know...
Even with the best practices each person needs about 1 acre of arable land (with good soil and acces to plenty of fresh water) to survive completely off the land. Do the math, back under 1 billion in a fucking hurry.
The problem is actually shite.
It gets pumped into the oceans and rivers, takes a substantial proportion of the land nutrients with it. Phosphorous i think is the biggest problem. We currently use energy to replace these, which is frankly dumb.