Well, Uncle Sam does not grudge Indians becoming prosperous; but he believes prosperous Indians trigger an increase in demand for ���better nutrition���, culminating in higher food prices. We should thank President Bush for these pearls of wisdom.

Rice and her mentor, Bush, know what they are talking about. Right from the 18th century, when it became independent and until recently, the US administration has succeeded in averting food crisis. Rice perhaps does not realise that her country’s administration succeeded in averting food crisis by ensuring covertly and overtly that her fellow-blacks did not prosper. Prosperity triggers an increase in demand for ‘better nutrition’, culminating in higher food prices’ according to her mentor and Rice could not agree more. This is something our Indian government can perhaps mimic – ensure that certain sections of society do not prosper and the country stays clear of food crisis, consequently. Simple, is not it? On one hand, populous countries like India and China can curtail population growth and on the other, they can avert food crisis thanks to Uncle Sam’s strategy.

President Bush also made a revelation that neither India nor the rest of the world is aware of. “…Their (India’s) middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food and so demand is high and that causes the price to go up,” he held forth. Thank god, Bush also listed change in weather patterns and increase in basic costs like that of energy also as factors contributing to higher food prices.

“Actually, the reason why food prices are high now is because, one, energy costs are high and if you’re a farmer, you’re going to pass on your cost of energy in the products you sell, otherwise you’d go broke. And when you’re paying more for your diesel, paying more for your fertiliser because it’s got a lot of, you know, natural gas in it, in other words, when your basic costs are going up, so does the cost of food," Bush further said. But surely energy costs and energy crisis can be brought down, Americans willing. The energy that Americans consume is grossly disproportionate to their population (vide, “US needs Reaganomics now!”, dated March 27, 2008). If Bush takes a leaf out of Ronald Reagan’s book, he will succeed in bringing down energy costs and by extension, the cost of food. Unfortunately, Americans and their leadership would rather put up with sky-rocketing food prices than adhere to some financial discipline.


According to Bush, there were two aspects of rising food prices – its effect on US citizens and the fact that there is a food scarcity in the world. “We don’t have a scarcity issue in America...We got a price issue. Our shelves aren’t going empty, it’s just costing more money,” he said.


“There is scarcity in the world and I happen to believe when we find people who can’t find food we ought to help them find it,” he said, adding, “America is by far the most generous nation when it comes to helping the hungry. We’re an unbelievably compassionate nation. I think we ought to change our food policy in Africa and other developing countries...buying food directly from farmers as opposed to giving people food. I think we ought to be saying, ’Why don’t we help you to be able to deal with scarcity by encouraging your farmers to grow and be efficient growers? Otherwise, we’re going to be in this cycle forever.” Well, if Bush means what he says, why do US representatives come in the way of progress of (WTO’s) Doha Round (of talks)?


Both Bush and his protégé Rice conveniently forget what the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food said on the subject. He said that the US and the European Union had taken a ‘criminal path’ by encouraging the use of food crops to produce bio-fuels and thus contributing to an ‘explosive rise’ in global food prices. Last year, the US used a third of its corn crop to create bio-fuels while the European Union was planning to have 10 percent of its need supplied by bio-fuels. He even suggested a five-year moratorium on the production of bio-fuels. Speculation on international markets was behind 30 per cent increase in food prices. Besides, hedge funds were also making huge profits from raw materials markets and called for new financial regulations to prevent such speculation. (Everyone knows the relatively unregulated hedge funds are an American phenomenon; some hedge funds have wrought havoc even on national economies; the Malaysian government will vouch for it!). The Rapporteur warned of worsening food riots and a ‘horrifying’ increase in deaths by starvation. In Rome, a nutritionist with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) rightly pointed out, “Global price rises mean that food is literally being taken out of the mouths of hungry children whose parents can no longer afford to feed them.” Even temporarily depriving children of the nutrients can leave permanent scars in terms of stunting their physical growth and intellectual potential. Families in the developing world are “finding their buying power has been slashed by food price rises, meaning that they can buy less food or food which isn’t as nutritious.”


Above all, Bush and his protégé Rice do not have the credentials to pontificate to India or for that matter, China, both ancient civilisations. These civilisations dictate that with advancing age, one should eat less and less; in particular, we are advised to ‘eat supper like a pauper’. The aged in India, in fact, give up supper, consuming a fruit or two and some milk instead. Indians have known for long that overeating kills more people than malnutrition. I would like to remind Bush and Rice of what Mark Twain, the inimitable American author said of India: “India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grandmother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.”


Each Indian consumes about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007. In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US implying Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg in 2007. But India’s per capita grain consumption has remained static over the same period. It’s not just grains. Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78 kg per year for each person in the US, compared to 36 kg in India and 11 kg in China. Consumption of vegetable oil per person is 41 kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11 kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yoghurt and milk powder which are consumed in huge proportion in countries like USA. A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses.


As for meat, the US leads the world in per capita consumption. Beef consumption, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In the US, 45.4 kg poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared to just 1.9 kg in India. Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6 kg pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7 kg are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year.


Americans will do themselves and the world a favour if they remind themselves that one eats to live – one does not live to eat. Once they do this, food shortage will disappear. The world is already paying a heavy price for the energy the Americans usurp.