Confusion over food prices

Following up on my last post on the lack of evidence that rice shortages are caused by biofuels, I’d like to call your attention to Food Crisis Depicted as ‘Silent Tsunami’ by Kevin Sullivan of the Washington Post.
Beginning with some sobering statistics, such as “25,000 people a day are dying of conditions linked to hunger”, Sullivan goes on to explain the causes of the crisis.

Prices for basic food supplies such as rice, wheat and corn have skyrocketed in recent months, driven by a complex set of factors including sharply rising fuel prices, droughts in key food-producing countries, ballooning demand in emerging nations such as China and India, and the diversion of some crops to produce biofuels.

The factors are indeed complex, and Sullivan presents them approximately in order of importance. Sullivan quotes Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program (WFP):

Sheeran said rising fuel and fertilizer prices were adding to the misery. She said she recently returned from a trip to Kenya’s Rift Valley, where the cost of fertilizer has climbed 135 percent since December.

That increase, along with rising prices for seed and diesel, led farmers to plant only one-third the crops they planted last year — a pattern being repeated around the world, she said.

“Farmers have no access to credit, so when prices go up, they can’t afford to plant,” she said, urging governments, particularly in developing nations, to invest more in programs to support domestic agriculture.

Indeed, the problems originate in bad government policies.
Although Sheeran didn’t even mention biofuels, Sullivan chooses to conclude:

The increasing use of crops to produce biofuels has been criticized as contributing to food shortages. While Britain and the European Union have called for greater use of biofuels, Brown said Tuesday that “we need to look closely at the impact on food prices and the environment.”

“If our U.K. review shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in E.U. biofuels targets,” he said.

Even if some percentage of the increase of food prices can be attributed to biofuel policies in the EU and US, there are far greater problems that people like Norm Borlaug have been trying to bring to people’s attention for decades.
We’ve (as in the developed world) been giving food aid instead of helping countries teach their people the best ways to farm. We’ve spent our time banning technologies that could help people farm in desserts and flood plains. More recently, people in the developed world haven’t considered that rising fuel prices may affect more than their price at the gas station.
Just in case any one misreads this – my horror at people dying from hunger is as great as anyone’s. Hence, my dedication to improve the nutritional quality of crops through genetic engineering. I just don’t think it’s appropriate to misplace the origins of the food shortage. If we (as in everyone on earth) allow ourselves to focus on an incorrect cause, the crisis won’t end. Instead, we need to be levelheaded and acknowledge the true causes so we can work as quickly as possible to alleviate them.
There will be additional consequences from the total rejection of biofuels. While seed based biofuels are likely not the best answer to our liquid energy problems, they are a good stepping stone to biofuels made from things like biomass (especially things like leftover stalks), waste, and algae. Condemning biofuels now will cause us to loose all the progress that’s been made, cause scientists to loose the funding that they need to make things like cellulosic ethanol possible.

Rising rice prices not caused by biofuels

Many people have been fast to blame food shortages around the world on government acceptance of biofuels. There do seem to be some connections, but it’s not as simple as it sounds.
Rice, wheat, and corn/soy need completely different soils and climates. That’s why we see a lot of corn and soy grown in Iowa and Illinois, rice in California, and wheat in Kansas. The first generation (or seed based) biofuels have focused on corn, soy, and rapeseed in Europe. None of these grow where rice can grow. Therefore, the amount of rice planted and harvested has nothing to do with land prices or a move to biofuel crops.
Some people have said that the rising costs of corn have caused people to buy rice instead. I can imagine this happening in cultures where both starches are used (such as Mexico and South America) but corn has never been a staple food in south east Asia.
So, what is causing the rice shortage? Rising fuel costs have also increased the prices of agricultural inputs fertilizer and pesticide. Withholding these inputs can cause decreased yield. Floods have wiped out rice fields through force, and rice plants submerged for more than a few days will die. Increased demand without an increase of supply will of course cause a shortage as well.
(more…)

Exposed, indeed.

The article “Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth” published by The Independent is surprising, and at first glance looks like it could be about significant research indicating that genetic engineering has unforeseen yield decreases. However, I’m not very good at first glances. Instead, I read deeply and find out more. This post is going to be long, but I think the length is justified since the article has been diligently repeated on Common Dreams and Grist, and of course picked up by Digg and used as part of an anti-GM riff at the DailyKos and other political blogs. Frankly, I’m tired of seeing science get twisted to suit an agenda, and I’m going to report some facts.

The first sentence of Exposed is clearly sensationalist: “Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.”

Nevermind that scientists never state findings in such definite terms. Any result is simply a hypothesis that hasn’t been rejected. It isn’t fact until it has been corroborated by multiple studies by other researchers, and until it has been published in a peer reviewed journal of consequence. That’s simply the way science works. I suppose the enthusiasm can be chalked up to journalistic license.

(more…)

Scary Scientists?

We’ve all seen movies and even cartoons featuring half or fully crazed scientists putting the world in danger all for some strangely nonsensical evil plan. What I want to know is: were did this archetype come from? It’s easy to blame America’s sad excuse for science education, but Frankenstein was originally written in 1818. What do parents tell their children that encourages such a fear and distrust of the white lab coat?
This is personally frustrating because people tend to get a “should I run away?” look in their eye when I tell them I am working towards a PhD in genetics. I suppose I can get used to it, but I worry about the greater consequences for the nation and for the planet. It’s a serious problem that people only want to hear science that reinforces what they already know.
Mention anything that has to do with genetic engineering and people cringe – I imagine that they think I’m a monster for even considering it. They forget that scientists are people too, with hopes and dreams, generally wanting to do good and help people. Of course, genetic engineering is only one of too many cases where people have completely ignored scientists, in favor of sensationalist media and fear mongering pseudo science.
Slate (of all sources) has a three part series on skepticism in science called “The Paranoid Style in American Science“. Skepticism is important, but there comes a point where we need to trust the data. People trained in the sciences learn how to choose between tenuous connections and probable fact. Unfortunately, the general public hasn’t been taught this skill, so have to use their best judgment to tell reality from fiction. The results are often very sad, as Daniel Engber writes:

In February, a measles outbreak turned up among California schoolchildren whose parents had rejected the MMR vaccine. Until 2006, the South African government was using beets and lemons to treat AIDS patients. And the United States has yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for reducing carbon emissions.

Sadly, this situation of sci-phobia won’t change until we start providing children with an adequate education. n the op ed “We Need a Science White House”, Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore laments that we have no commitments from the presidential candidates that they will ensure science doesn’t slip any further from national priorities. This was in the Wall Street Journal of all places, so you know that this is a big problem (thanks Mike aka Tuibguy for pointing this out).
I’m not even going to bring up the detrimental effects that some religions have had on general understanding of science. I will point out that there are many scientists have absolutely no problem reconciling belief in a higher power with the complexities of our miraculous world. I hope that more people can achieve this reconciliation for their own sake and for the sake of the planet.

Expelled Exposed

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has created a site that responds to the recently released movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, called “Expelled Exposed”. I’m not sure what is on the site, as it is currently down (digg effect), but I am sure that they do a good job of exposing Expelled, judging by the material on their home site. The producer of Expelled has spent millions of dollars promoting Expelled, so science bloggers are responding with an attempt to get Expelled Exposed moved up in search results for the word Expelled.
As blogger TubiGuy says:

We need to get the NCSE’s counter-site to the hideous little propaganda film, Expelled, to rank higher in the search engines. The way to do this is for lots and lots of you to link to the Expelled Exposed site with the word Expelled. It’s not hard: just copy this code into a blog post.

<a href=”http://expelledexposed.com/”><i>Expelled</i></a>

Whenever you write about the movie, use that link. Do it a bunch of times, if you want. It’s more effective if many people use the same link every time, though, than for one person to be repetitive.

I’m offended by the movie Expelled because of the dirty tricks the filmmakers used. Back in September 2007, I posted:

A filmmaker questioned scientists, including Richard Dawkins, for video interviews about their views on science intersecting with religion for a movie to be called “Crossroads.” The filmmaker instead put their interviews in a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a pro-intelligent design film. The scientists are angry, with good reason. Being misquoted is one thing, but it’s completely another to have your statements misused in a propaganda film [NY Times].