LONDON, April 23, 2008

U.N. Warns Of "Silent Tsunami" Of Hunger

World Food Program Says 100 Million People Threatened By Crisis In Food Prices And Supply

    • A homeless girl gets a little help from her elder relative as she eats her lunch in Manila's Quezon City, Friday, April 18, 2008.

      A homeless girl gets a little help from her elder relative as she eats her lunch in Manila's Quezon City, Friday, April 18, 2008.  (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

    • Egyptians buy government subsidized bread from a bakery in Cairo, Egypt Wednesday, April 16, 2008. Egypt's government is struggling to contain a political crisis sparked by rising world food prices. Violent clashes have broken out at long lines for subsidized bread, and the president, worried about unrest, has ordered the army to step in to provide more.

      Egyptians buy government subsidized bread from a bakery in Cairo, Egypt Wednesday, April 16, 2008. Egypt's government is struggling to contain a political crisis sparked by rising world food prices. Violent clashes have broken out at long lines for subsidized bread, and the president, worried about unrest, has ordered the army to step in to provide more.  (AP Photo/Hossam Ali)

    • Rice farmers harvest their crops in Malang, East Java, Indonesia, Saturday, April 12, 2008. A sharp rise in the price of rice in the past months has raised fears of public turmoil in the many parts of Asia where rice is a staple.

      Rice farmers harvest their crops in Malang, East Java, Indonesia, Saturday, April 12, 2008. A sharp rise in the price of rice in the past months has raised fears of public turmoil in the many parts of Asia where rice is a staple.  (AP Photo/Trisnadi)

    • Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N.'s World Food Program, shows a cup to illustrate the food ration given to children by the organization's school feeding programs in parts of the developing world, during a news conference to discuss the impact of global food price rises on the WFP's plans to feed more than 70 million people in around 80 countries this year, in central London, April 22, 2008.

      Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N.'s World Food Program, shows a cup to illustrate the food ration given to children by the organization's school feeding programs in parts of the developing world, during a news conference to discuss the impact of global food price rises on the WFP's plans to feed more than 70 million people in around 80 countries this year, in central London, April 22, 2008.  (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

    Previous slide Next slide
  • Interactive Science On The Plate

    Explore the history of bioengineered food. Find out more about the contentious debate over its safety.

(AP)  But Evans, now a visiting fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, said increasing the amount of land that can be farmed in the developing world will be arduous.

"It's almost like new oil or gas fields; they'll tend to be the hardest to reach places, that need new roads and new infrastructure to be viable," he said.

The will to increase food production exists, as does most of the necessary skills, but there are major obstacles, including a lack of government investment in agriculture and - in Africa particularly - a scarcity of fertilizers, good irrigation and access to markets.

"Many African farmers are very entrepreneurial, but they simply aren't connected to markets," said Lawrence Haddad, an economist and director of Britain's Institute of Development Studies. "They find there are no chilling plants for milk and no grinding mills for coffee."

Haddad said the likely impact of food price increases should have been anticipated. "The fact no one has previously made the link between agriculture and poverty is quite incredible," he said.

Just as new land for farming is available in Russia and Brazil, new genetically modified crops resistant to drought, or which deliver additional nutrients, could be better targeted to different regions of the developing world, Evans said. "The solutions are more nuanced than we previously thought," he added.

Sheeran said developing world governments, particularly in Africa, will need to dedicate at least 10 percent of future budgets to agriculture to boost global production.

Some experts predict other countries could follow the example of Pakistan, which has revived the use of ration cards for subsidized wheat.

The production of biofuels also needs to be urgently re-examined, Brown said.

He acknowledged that Britain this month introduced targets aimed at producing 5 percent of transport fuel from biofuels by 2010, but said his government and others should review their policies.

Production of biofuel leads to the destruction of forests and takes up land available to grow crops for food.

Brown said the impact of the food crisis won't just be felt in the developing world, but also in the checkout lane of Western supermarkets. "It is not surprising that we see our shopping bills go up," Brown said.

Many analysts, including Britain's opposition leader David Cameron, claim that people in the West will need to eat less meat - and consume, or waste, less food in general. Some expect the shift in attitudes to herald the end of supermarket giveaways and cost-cutting grocery stores that stack goods to the ceiling and sell in bulk.

Citizens in the West, China and India must realize that the meat on their plate and biofuels in their expensive cars carry a cost for those in the developing world, Evans said.

Sheeran believes many already understand the impact. "Much of the world is waking up to the fact that food does not spontaneously appear on grocery store shelves," she said.

© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 97 Comments
by actornaught April 25, 2008 3:26 PM EDT
...you try to discredit me based on some fallback argument involving Rush...
Posted by s1ckd09 at 11:32 AM : Apr 25, 2008

No, i discredited you because you referred to my post, ignored my point, then went off on multiple weird rush yakking points that had nothing to do with my point.

At least you''re not denying you get your info from rush, a guy who is a lying, 7-time loser, drug-addicted hate-radio comedian.

great source to live by... yeah... sure...
Reply to this comment
by s1ckd09 April 25, 2008 2:32 PM EDT
Posted by s1ckd09 at 04:51 PM : Apr 23, 2008

More weird suppositions and hate-radio lies. I never said any of that, but you knee-jerked to your script, ignoring my point; the push to develop and market ethonol long pre-dates the publicizing of Global Warming. The major contribution to crippling the food supply is the price of oil. Period.

Read: Posted by rusmen at 04:50 PM : Apr 23, 2008

When rush is talking, he''''s either lying, or setting you up for a big lie.
--------------------------------------------------
Posted by actornaught at 12:15 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Nothing I said was a supposition, and nothing you said disputes any of it. Instead, you try to discredit me based on some fallback argument involving Rush. You need to write CBS and tell THEM they have the story wrong, not me.
Reply to this comment
by actornaught April 24, 2008 3:15 PM EDT
Posted by s1ckd09 at 04:51 PM : Apr 23, 2008

More weird suppositions and hate-radio lies. I never said any of that, but you knee-jerked to your script, ignoring my point; the push to develop and market ethonol long pre-dates the publicizing of Global Warming. The major contribution to crippling the food supply is the price of oil. Period.

Read: Posted by rusmen at 04:50 PM : Apr 23, 2008

When rush is talking, he''s either lying, or setting you up for a big lie.
Reply to this comment
by killtheliars April 24, 2008 1:09 PM EDT
Here is an idea. We in the U.S. need to move away from using food for fuel. Since food is now expensive lets start trading food for oil. This would give us an advantage over the other countries (China, India, russia) since they have trouble growing enough to feed their own people. We on the other hand can grow huge amounts. This is the first year the U.S. actually had to import wheat, this is a trend that cannot continue.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 April 24, 2008 3:21 AM EDT
So let me make sure I understand. Democrats have been lying to blacks for deecades....vote for me and I''''ll get you this and that......you vote for them and you continue to live in poverty. .." Posted by LibH8er

You almost have it right, the Democrats say, "vote us in, and we will work to end the discrimination", which they then fail to do. Kennedy had the civil rights bill on his desk, but wanted to let people suffer until his "second term". We all know how that one went.

The Republicans, on the other hand pander to the David Dukes, Pat Robertsons, and such filth to attract the sociopath vote, but then claim to be "compassionate conservatives" a concept having no meaning whatsoever, and is in itself a contradiction of terms. Like the GOP clown that speaks for a Hitler rally the other day, while claiming he is not a racist.

On one hand (Democrat,)there is the corruption, but there is also the as yet unfulfilled promise of hope, on the other, (Republican) there is insult, corruption, and advocacy to hatred and intolerance.

We know which side you are on.
Reply to this comment
by element51 April 24, 2008 1:40 AM EDT
louiville2....I hope you are right. I''m just saying if it IS true things are going to get rough. I admit that this is information coming from the mainstreet news media and they are very good at making mountains out of molehills. But if you look at what is happening around the world it does lend some credence to a story like this. I have pretty much lost trust in anything the government says. That started for me during Viet Nam when the lies started to be exposed. And it has gotten worse over the years. I remember the Carson gag and it was funny then but now people are running scared and it isn''t funny. I hope you''re right and I''m acting like a silly old man but I guess time will tell. Thanks for your reply. I sometimes learn a lot from listening to what others have to say.
Reply to this comment
by louiville2 April 24, 2008 12:41 AM EDT
Element51 get a grip theree is no shortage in the US except in your head.

It''s the old toilet paper scam from 1973 see "Johnny Carson jokingly told his NBC Tonight Show audience that there was a TP shortage. People horded, draining supplies. Johnny then said, "just kidding," but the store shelves were out of TP, so people thought he was part of some shortage cover-up scam, and they horded some more."
Reply to this comment
by element51 April 24, 2008 12:22 AM EDT
Well folks, the good news we have all been waiting for. As of now, Costco and Sam''s Club are RATIONING rice. And they are talking about adding flour, sugar and cooking oil. This is how it starts. As Betty Davis said, "fasten your seat belts, it''s gonna be a bumpy ride". The price of rice has almost doubled already and we haven''t seen anything yet. Once food gets hooked into the same excuses as oil and the speculators start doing their thing prices are going to go through the roof. This is going to set the country back 75 years. Those who know how to grow food and have the space to do it and how to can and preserve it will be able to make it but those who can''t are going to be in a world of hurt. Life as we have known it is about to change unless something is done and nobody in this government is doing a dam thing. They have pretty much crushed us now they will wring the last we have out of us. I''ve got some years on me, my race is soon over but I am sad for my kids and my grandkids. This really sucks but maybe somehow we can pull ourself free and survive. After all, we''re a pretty tough bunch when we have to be. God bless America and God bless you all.
Reply to this comment
by element51 April 24, 2008 12:10 AM EDT
Jasmine731....I did see and remember the movie "Soylent Green". It stared Charlton Heston. The kicker at the end of the movie was that after allowing a person to live a certain number of years the state killed them and they were processed into food but the people didn''t know they were eating "processed people". Yeah, kind of disgusting but a good movie.
Reply to this comment
by randynason April 23, 2008 10:01 PM EDT
What has this administration done?!!
In the name of oil profit, we have destroyed the world.
Reply to this comment
by jasmine731 April 23, 2008 9:53 PM EDT
I don''t recall ever seeing the movie Soylent Green, 1973, did you? Of course it was purely science fiction, but wasn''t it based on what we are facing today where we have overpopulation, starving people, dwindling food supplies, etc.? I in NO WAY suggest that we take up what they did in Soylent Green, but it''s ironic that a 1973 movie was made about many of the problems we are facing in 2008. I''m glad I never saw the movie.
Reply to this comment
by lovegetpeace April 23, 2008 9:53 PM EDT
Hey s1ckd09,
I agree with you that BioFuel also got direct and indirect environment costs not included. However, you avoid comparing side-by-side indirect costs between gasoline and BioFuels. I am not for BioFuel if that got you tense. I am for Sacrifice by everyone. I am sure the solution that requires the most sacrifice by human is the greeness for our planet and therefore civilization. Let''s stop been selfish by looking at the easy, cheap or most convenience ways.
Reply to this comment
by s1ckd09 April 23, 2008 9:36 PM EDT
s1ckd09....There is one thing I think we can agree on. Although it may come down a tad, oil is going to remain expensive. This being a given fact, we need to persue alternative energy sources with a vengence. Bio-fuel research should be directed in another way, switch grass for instance, and leave the dam food supply alone. It would also help if farm subsidies were regulated a little more closely. People are going to ***** when a box of corn flakes costs them 15.00. I know I would. By the way, I hope we meet up again sometime. Good talkin atcha.
--------------------------------------------

Posted by Element51 at 05:35 PM : Apr 23, 2008

I completely agree... which is why I think we will eventually find something that works. But right now, there isn''t anything better than fossil fuels on a large scale. There''s only two ways to go: 1) find an ''on demand'' energy source that never fluctuates or 2) find a way to store, transport, and deliver to the end user large quantities of an alternative energy source. I don''t think #1 exists, and #2 is the biggest obstacle to any change in an energy source because it may require the need to completely overahaul the entire country''s infrastructure. That can''t be done overnight, and so the energy source has to be the right one before it is selected as the "next big thing".
Reply to this comment
by s1ckd09 April 23, 2008 9:21 PM EDT
Capitalism forces us to Gasoline because its still the cheapest way to travel. However, if we include the cost to the environment among other indirect costs, gasoline becomes the most expensive alternative form of energy.
------------------------------------------

Posted by lovegetpeace at 05:52 PM : Apr 23, 2008

Wrong... this article disproves that by looking at the cost of just using a LITTLE or the worlds farming capacity for biofuels. It takes 40-200 times more water to produce biofuels than it does to produce the same amount of fossil fuels. What would the environmental impact of an increased demand of that much water be? Regardless, I am all for alternative fuels. But I have said in many other discussions, you cannot force or mandate technological advances. Remember, we used to rely on steam engines for everything, but found better technology eventually. Do you think that there is ANY big energy business on this planet that ISN''T investing a boat load of money in alternative energy? And guess what? You are going to be complaining when Exxon turns into Big Geothermal...
Reply to this comment
by s1ckd09 April 23, 2008 9:12 PM EDT
----------------------------------
Posted by IRLiberal at 05:16 PM : Apr 23, 2008

Care to back up any of YOUR claims with data?
Want to look at the temperature changes for the last 450,000 years? What you''ll see is that you are proven absolutely wrong, with real data. Of course, if you want to look at a smaller period of time, you could MAKE the data support what you say, but you have to do that by limiting the amount of data you consider. Of course, I could ALSO do the same thing and go back to the Medieval Warm Period and show NO warming trend. Or I could go back farther to the Halocene Maximum and show a cooling trend. I could also rely on satellite data instead of ground based stations affected by the urban heat island effect to show no significant warming in the last 18 years. Which do you prefer?
Reply to this comment
by lovegetpeace April 23, 2008 8:52 PM EDT
Hey Element51,
We should clone you 300 million times because America needs good citizens like you.

Go to your public library and read Popular Mechanics magazine for the last 30 years. You will find at least a millions ideas of alternative energy, a thousand ways to travel without gasoline.

Capitalism forces us to Gasoline because its still the cheapest way to travel. However, if we include the cost to the environment among other indirect costs, gasoline becomes the most expensive alternative form of energy.
Reply to this comment
by element51 April 23, 2008 8:35 PM EDT
s1ckd09....There is one thing I think we can agree on. Although it may come down a tad, oil is going to remain expensive. This being a given fact, we need to persue alternative energy sources with a vengence. Bio-fuel research should be directed in another way, switch grass for instance, and leave the dam food supply alone. It would also help if farm subsidies were regulated a little more closely. People are going to ***** when a box of corn flakes costs them 15.00. I know I would. By the way, I hope we meet up again sometime. Good talkin atcha.
Reply to this comment
by s1ckd09 April 23, 2008 8:24 PM EDT
While most of what you say is basically true the fact remains that the price is not going to change no matter where the oil comes from. There are some interesting new things that have just come out that may enable us to drive our cars (of the near future) using compressed air instead of internal combustion. There are bugs to be worked out but it looks promising. And let''''s not argue man, let''''s just talk like we would over a beer. I ain''''t your enemy.

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

Posted by Element51 at 04:37 PM : Apr 23, 2008

Absolutely. I would be glad to have a beer with you some time. It''s always nice to have an intelligent conversation with someone who has an opposing view. I welcome hearing both sides of the story and actively seek them out. As far as the price of oil is concerned, I would have to disagree and say that it does matter where it comes from. Whether we choose to import it or drill for it ourselves depends entirely on the price it costs to import or to drill for it, and the availability of both. If Canada was to go through some crisis, we would see oil prices skyrocket because Canada is our leading supplier of oil. If we added an additional source of oil, the price would go down because we are one of the largest consumers of oil in the world, and countries depend on our imports of their oil (See Venezuela).
Reply to this comment
by irliberal April 23, 2008 8:16 PM EDT
"The fact that the earth is warming as it always has,"

Wrong. It''s warming, much, much faster than ever before.

"on the same time period it always has,"

Wrong. See above.

"and by the same amounts it always has (actually less)?"

Wrong. The temperature increase per amount of time measured is much, much higher.

"Or the fact that man''''s contribution to global warming has never been proven,"

Mathematical proofs are tricky business. You don''t need to touch the sun in the sky to know it''s there.

Wow. You''re vastly ignorant. That''s ok. Lots of folks here are.
Reply to this comment
by element51 April 23, 2008 8:07 PM EDT
rusmen....There are some of us out here who do appreciate what you do. I am one. My sister and her husband raise beef. They have for almost 40 years. Trust me when I tell you that they have never gotten rich. They have a lot of land and that''s worth something but their beef operation has been touch and go. Several times I have asked my brother-in-law why he doesn''t sell out and do something else. He has a masters degree in agriculture. His answer has always been that he is a farmer. It''s what he loves. Now their feed costs are so high along with fuel that my sister is working a 8.00 an hour job to make ends meet. Society demands so much of you farmers but no one ever thanks you for your efforts. Family operations are dropping like flies trying to compete with the huge agri-businesses and when they are gone maybe people will appreciate them. Very few people know what a huge hog or cattle operation looks like on the corporate farms. If they did they would not believe what they were seeing. Thank you for all you do.
Reply to this comment
See all 97 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie." Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: