February 11, 2009 3:03 PM

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

(AP)  Ration cards. Genetically modified crops. The end of pile-it-high, sell-it-cheap supermarkets.

These possible solutions to the first global food crisis since World War II - which the World Food Program says already threatens 20 million of the poorest children - are complex and controversial. And they may not even solve the problem as demand continues to soar.

A "silent tsunami" of hunger is sweeping the world's most desperate nations, said Josette Sheeran, the WFP's executive director, speaking Tuesday at a London summit on the crisis.

The skyrocketing cost of food staples, stoked by rising fuel prices, unpredictable weather and demand from India and China, has already sparked sometimes violent protests across the Caribbean, Africa and Asia.

The price of rice has more than doubled in the last five weeks, she said. The World Bank estimates food prices have risen by 83 percent in three years.

"What we are seeing now is affecting more people on every continent," Sheeran told a news conference.

Hosting talks with Sheeran, lawmakers and experts, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the spiraling prices threaten to plunge millions back into poverty and reverse progress on alleviating misery in the developing world.

"Tackling hunger is a moral challenge to each of us and it is also a threat to the political and economic stability of nations," Brown said.

Malaysia's embattled prime minister is already under pressure over the price increases and has launched a major rice-growing project. Indonesia's government needed to revise its annual budget to respond.

Unrest over the food crisis has led to deaths in Cameroon and Haiti, cost Haitian Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis his job, and caused hungry textile workers to clash with police in Bangladesh.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said more protests in other developing nations appear likely. "We are going through a very serious crisis and we are going to see lots of food strikes and demonstrations," Annan told reporters in Geneva.

At streetside restaurants in Lome, Togo, even the traditional balls of corn meal or corn dough served with vegetable soup are shrinking. Once as big as a boxer's fist, the dumplings are now the size of a tennis ball - but cost twice as much.

In Yaounde, Cameroon, civil servant Samuel Ebwelle, 51, said he fears food prices will rise further.

"We are getting to the worst period of our life," he said. "We've had to reduce the number of meals we take a day from three to two. Breakfast no longer exists on our menu."

Even if her call for $500 million in emergency funding is met, food aid programs - including work to feed 20 million poor children - will be hit this year, Sheeran said.

President Bush has released $200 million in urgent aid. Britain pledged an immediate $59.7 million on Tuesday.

Even so, school feeding projects in Kenya and Cambodia have been scaled back and food aid has been cut in half in Tajikistan, Sheeran said.

Yet while angry street protesters call for immediate action, long term solutions are likely to be slow, costly and complicated, experts warn.

And evolving diets among burgeoning middle classes in India and China will help double the demand for food - particularly grain-intensive meat and dairy products - by 2030, the World Bank says.

Robert Zoellick, the bank's head, claims as many as 100 million people could be forced deeper into poverty. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said rising food costs threaten to cancel strides made toward the goal of cutting world poverty in half by 2015.

"Now is not too soon to be thinking about the longer-term solutions," said Alex Evans, a former adviser to Britain's Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.

He said world leaders must help increase food production, rethink their push on biofuels - which many blame for pushing up food prices - and consider anew the once-taboo topic of growing genetically modified crops.



© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 84 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 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 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
See all 84 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook