Ugh. We currently throw away at least 30-40% of the food we produce. We DON'T need to produce more, but to better use and distribute what we already produce. Also, climate change will be a major drive of food production (or loss) in the coming years -- much bigger than population, eating habits or income.
I am a grain producer in the Midwest US. Grain production is not currently profitable. If you want to remove biofuel production from the mix (i.e. cheap food policy), who is going to produce crops at a loss? Farmers buy at retail and sell at wholesale. Input providers for ag now determine pricing not on cost, but on how much they believe the farmer can pay, and price accordingly. Who is going to regulate that?
If it is unethical for a farmer to sell his product to the highest bidder (energy), shouldn't it also be unethical for a myriad of others, like unions, to be allowed to engage in cost increasing pursuits at the expense of the end consumer? Take, for example, a teacher's union. Is it ethical for teachers to go on strike and not educate children, just to raise wages and benefits for teachers? Is education more important than food that farmers are not allowed a reasonable standard of living in producing food? Or is it that teacher's unions pool enough money to buy favorable legislation from politicians? Should farmers start doing the same?
The system is not sustainable as it exists today. Do you want all food production to be shifted to countries with lower labor costs? Or do you want to make Bill Gates a trillionaire by paying politicians to legislate you can only eat his lab grown meat?
John, thanks for your comment. I know first hand from my own family's farm that farming is a tough business. If Rich is right and demand outpaces supply, then farmers will see higher grain prices in the future. As you point out, some of the benefits of those higher prices will go to input providers. Some will go to landowners. The business of farming won't get any easier.
It would be good for the world if all countries increased their agricultural productivity. It would also be good for the world if someone figures out how to grow meat cost effectively in a lab. I think we should explore all new technologies. Such advancements would squeeze current producers, which is something we too often overlook.
I would not favor politicians legislating that we eat lab grown meat. Politicians have legislated biofuels, which has been good for farmland owners and input providers, but I don't think it has been a benefit to society as a whole.
Ugh. We currently throw away at least 30-40% of the food we produce. We DON'T need to produce more, but to better use and distribute what we already produce. Also, climate change will be a major drive of food production (or loss) in the coming years -- much bigger than population, eating habits or income.
There's a chapter on food waste
And climate change, which I also mentioned.
I am a grain producer in the Midwest US. Grain production is not currently profitable. If you want to remove biofuel production from the mix (i.e. cheap food policy), who is going to produce crops at a loss? Farmers buy at retail and sell at wholesale. Input providers for ag now determine pricing not on cost, but on how much they believe the farmer can pay, and price accordingly. Who is going to regulate that?
If it is unethical for a farmer to sell his product to the highest bidder (energy), shouldn't it also be unethical for a myriad of others, like unions, to be allowed to engage in cost increasing pursuits at the expense of the end consumer? Take, for example, a teacher's union. Is it ethical for teachers to go on strike and not educate children, just to raise wages and benefits for teachers? Is education more important than food that farmers are not allowed a reasonable standard of living in producing food? Or is it that teacher's unions pool enough money to buy favorable legislation from politicians? Should farmers start doing the same?
The system is not sustainable as it exists today. Do you want all food production to be shifted to countries with lower labor costs? Or do you want to make Bill Gates a trillionaire by paying politicians to legislate you can only eat his lab grown meat?
John, thanks for your comment. I know first hand from my own family's farm that farming is a tough business. If Rich is right and demand outpaces supply, then farmers will see higher grain prices in the future. As you point out, some of the benefits of those higher prices will go to input providers. Some will go to landowners. The business of farming won't get any easier.
It would be good for the world if all countries increased their agricultural productivity. It would also be good for the world if someone figures out how to grow meat cost effectively in a lab. I think we should explore all new technologies. Such advancements would squeeze current producers, which is something we too often overlook.
I would not favor politicians legislating that we eat lab grown meat. Politicians have legislated biofuels, which has been good for farmland owners and input providers, but I don't think it has been a benefit to society as a whole.