Skip to comments.
Indians bristle at U.S. criticism on food prices ("U.S. should go on a diet")
The International Herald Tribune ^
| May 13, 2008
| Heather Timmons
Posted on 05/13/2008 10:50:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
NEW DELHI: Instead of blaming India and other developing nations for the rise in food prices, Americans should rethink their energy policy and go on a diet, say a growing number of politicians, economists and academics here.
Criticism of the United States has ballooned in India recently, particularly after the Bush administration seemed to blame India's increasing middle class and prosperity for rising food prices. Critics from India seem to be asking one underlying question: "Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?"
The food problem has "clearly" been created by Americans, who are eating 50 percent more calories than the average person in India, said Pradeep Mehta, the secretary general of CUTS Center for International Trade, Economics and Environment, a private economic research organization based in India with offices in Kenya, Zambia, Vietnam and Britain.
If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, "many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates," Mehta said. The money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: food; india; obesity; poverty; yumyum
Pradeep should join either Team Obama or the DNC, he/she sounds like they are talking from democratic talking points.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Who’s been blaming India and other developing nations for the rise in food prices? This story doesn't pass the smell test. And BTW, We The People should be lighting the torches and marching on DC now. Enough is enough.
2
posted on
05/13/2008 10:54:09 PM PDT
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
("The land of the Free...Because of the Brave")
To: 2ndDivisionVet
3
posted on
05/13/2008 10:57:17 PM PDT
by
Red Steel
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham; All
"Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?" Uh, maybe because we grew much of that food and in our "free-market" society the government doesn't tell us what we may buy and how much we can eat (at least not yet!) Mississippi and a few other states have sadly floated some trial balloons in that direction...
4
posted on
05/13/2008 10:57:50 PM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary or Obama can!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
American food production has helped feed the world, including India, for the last 50 years. What ingrates.
Maybe we should start an Organization of Food Producing Countries, to act as a cartel like OPEC. See how high we can drive prices on the world market, and use the profits to subsidize low prices at home.
5
posted on
05/13/2008 11:00:54 PM PDT
by
Hugin
(Mecca delenda est!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sheesh. These people sound like The Beast telling us we have too much money.
6
posted on
05/13/2008 11:04:58 PM PDT
by
Cobra64
(www.BulletBras.net)
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
I didn’t even know India had all that much to do with our food supply; I rather thought it was the other way around, America being the breadbasket of the world and all that.
Not that I don’t need to be eating less.
7
posted on
05/13/2008 11:08:58 PM PDT
by
skr
(I serve a risen Savior!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
The food problem has "clearly" been created by Americans, who are eating 50 percent more calories than the average person in India, A billion people living in a third world nation. How many starve to death every year? Is this a fair comparison?
How much aid goes (government and private charity) to India every year? How much aid goes to the US?
Perhaps they need more farmers and fewer scab phone banks and software engineers working below the going rate for those jobs?
8
posted on
05/13/2008 11:09:02 PM PDT
by
weegee
(Osama Obama claims to have visited 57 states now. Can you say Potatoe Head?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, "many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates," Mehta said. Overthrow your dictators and the people can get the food that their despotic governments deny them.
9
posted on
05/13/2008 11:10:42 PM PDT
by
weegee
(Osama Obama claims to have visited 57 states now. Can you say Potatoe Head?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
"Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?"Why do Indians think they should run 1-800 call centers more than Americans?
To: Hugin
This is the first time I’ve heard anything about blaming India myself.
I have to admit, after going to the mall the other day, that there are too many overweight people.
To: Cobra64
I think people have forgot that she said that. You never hear it mentioned anymore.
To: weegee
India is a net food exporter.
13
posted on
05/14/2008 12:35:35 AM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: Cobra64
I vaguely remember Hitlery saying that, but for the life of me I can't recall the context of the statement.
Where was she and what was she doing when she made that rather frightening (if she ever gets into the Oval Office) remark?
14
posted on
05/14/2008 12:43:53 AM PDT
by
Stonewall Jackson
(Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory. - George Patton)
To: 2ndDivisionVet; Mad_Tom_Rackham; Hugin; Cobra64; skr; weegee
Posted on May 13th, 2008
Ive had it up to here with the MSM, especially the NYTimes and its clone, the International Herald Tribune.
Todays IHT has an article on how reporters in India were aghast that Bush Blamed the rice shortage on Indians eating too much.
But of course, he never said such a thing, and shame to the IHT for not even bothering to quote what Bush actually said, or a simple paragraph to put things in context.
A couple weeks ago, when the rice shortage hit Asia, I wrote an analysis that anyone with the least expertise in Agriculture in Asia could have written: That the rice shortage was multifaceted.It is well known that one reason for the shortage is the increased prosperity of Southern and South East Asia, due to globalization. So we see out local rice land being covered with homes and shops, and we also see Chicken farms and hatcheries on the less fertile land. You see, with the increase in prosperity, people are eating more protein, and here that means fish (Pond raised fish) and chicken (chicken farming). All three of these things mean loss of Rice land, and diverting rice to poultry production.
Starvation is rare in todays modern world, thanks to the increase in prosperity. Usually famines are due to bad government policies (China in 1960, Viet Nam in 1990, North Korea and Zimbabwe this year) or local disasters (Myamar today).
Bushs remarks on India were merely complimenting India for its growing prosperity. A country that for hundreds of years was known for its poverty and starvation now has joined China and the Tiger economies of Southeast Asia as major players in todays world economy.
And with prosperity, the middle class is growing, along with a better diet. Better diets usually mean animal based protein, such as fish, milk, eggs, or meat, and to produce these items you have to feed grain to animals or to farm raised fish.
So why were his remarks spun and taken out of context and reported as if he criticized India?
Its the election.
As Hillary Clinton has found out, much of the US press is determined to elect the very left wing Senator Obama as the next president, never mind his lack of experience or simplistic ideas in foreign policy. Obama is a Democrat, facing a more experienced and wiser McCain. Obama, however, is far to the left of the average American (unlike the Clintons).
The only way to have Obama win is to keep Bushs popularity down, stress that the war on terror is wrong, (or hint that Bush made it up, after all, no one else supports it). The next step is to paint McCain as a Bush clone, never mind that politically they are in different wings of the Republican party.
In other words, Bushs words were spun to create mischief and to promote Anti Americanism in India, a major ally in the war on terror.
But the misreporting of Bushs remarks is not the only way that some groups are spinning a seasonal rice shortage for political advantage.
The population control folks are using it here to bash the Catholic church, never mind that Natural Family planning has lowered the birth rate, that the Catholic stress on marriage and self restraint has resulted in a low HIV rate, or that condoms are available at the checkout counters of the local grocery store.The Green types are using the food shortage to push global warming, never mind that the regional weather problems that were behind the problems include cold spells in the Middle East and typhoons that happen periodically everywhere for centuries.
The Anti Green types are using the food shortage to bash biodiesel and ethanol, never mind that Brazils ethanol uses sugarcane, and Malaysias coconut biodiesel isnt using rice fields.
And those seeking to spread GM crops as Green revolution II are using the rice shortage as an argument that these high producing hybrids should be pushed as a solution.
So everyone has an agenda.
Even in the Philippines, the rice shortage has taken the latest multimillion dollar scandals off the front page. The Philippine government now supplies subsidized cheap food to the poor, and every day, we see TV commercials advertising the food subsidies, commercials that end with a prosperous mother in a prosperous house saying Salamat Gloria to the President.
So the next time you read a newspaper article that makes you angry, just consider the source.
Blogs are supposed to be opinionated, but its ashamed when the press deliberately allows itself to be politicized to promote agendas.
-
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines.
15
posted on
05/14/2008 12:44:25 AM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: BlueVelvet
I think people have forgot that she said that. You never hear it mentioned anymore.And this is exactly what the GOP should constantly be banging on. Play the left's sound bites in their own voices. Do exactly what Rush does every single day. It's so friggin' EASY.
16
posted on
05/14/2008 12:51:29 AM PDT
by
Cobra64
(www.BulletBras.net)
To: 2ndDivisionVet; All
I follow the news pretty carefully and I cannot remember anyone blaming India for the rise in food prices. Where did this come from? Most of what I have read from Free Republic and the other news sources which I read blame a lot of the problem on the stupidity of the ethanol program we have going.
The Indians have a point about a lot of Americans being overweight. I see fat disgusting people everywhere. It really is a bad situation. I was just watching a news documentary about WWII and just looking at the Americans on the home front it is easy to see that we were much thinner in the 1940’s. I see fat people just about everywhere today. My late mother before she died was constantly talking about how many more fat people she saw and how this had come about over the past 30 or so years.
It is a national disgrace!
17
posted on
05/14/2008 1:28:22 AM PDT
by
truthguy
(~)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
The real shortages in India are deodorant and personal space. Someone needs to tell them that the space between the butt cheeks of the person in front of you does NOT count as a place to stand in a line.
18
posted on
05/14/2008 4:01:31 AM PDT
by
BRK
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Fine! If they don’t like us, let’s just bring all those damn outsourced jobs home!
19
posted on
05/14/2008 4:18:16 AM PDT
by
50sDad
(OBAMA: In your heart you know he's Wright.)
To: BRK
The real shortages in India are deodorant and personal space. Someone needs to tell them that the space between the butt cheeks of the person in front of you does NOT count as a place to stand in a line
QUOTE OF THE DAY! :)
20
posted on
05/14/2008 4:21:19 AM PDT
by
MikeWUSAF
(Extreme vitriol and rancorous replies served daily. - Mike W USAF)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
...and since it is apparently allowed to belittle other countries, some one should suggest that they really ought stop breeding like rabbits and should have some of those cows that wander around a dump in their streets for dinner!
21
posted on
05/14/2008 4:21:26 AM PDT
by
50sDad
(OBAMA: In your heart you know he's Wright.)
To: CarrotAndStick
Blogs are supposed to be opinionated, but its ashamed when the press deliberately allows itself to be politicized to promote agendas. It is called Yellow Journalism and it has a long tradition in America.
22
posted on
05/14/2008 6:01:44 AM PDT
by
weegee
(Osama Obama claims to have visited 57 states now. Can you say Potatoe Head?)
To: truthguy
Define "overweight". We have more round (morbidly) obese people but the BMI index would put many Americans from past eras into the "obese" category. The BMI scale wants men and women to weigh the same target weight. And the curvy pinups of old were the "ideal", not skinny/bony people.
True people had to cut back in the depression and food items were rationed during The War.
A generation before that, your belly showed your "wealth".
Maybe more fat people get out of the house than in the old days. Ironically the travelling circus permitted more REALLY obese people to be seen in public than seem to make it out today (you hear about these people who need to have their house altered just to get out to see the doctor).
23
posted on
05/14/2008 6:08:17 AM PDT
by
weegee
(Osama Obama claims to have visited 57 states now. Can you say Potatoe Head?)
To: weegee
“Overthrow your dictators and the people can get the food that their despotic governments deny them. “
Post of the day, week and decade.
24
posted on
05/14/2008 6:43:31 AM PDT
by
RedStateRocker
(Nuke Mecca, deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA.)
To: CarrotAndStick
Dr. Reyes article is excellent, save for two statements:
- The next step is to paint McCain as a Bush clone, never mind that politically they are in different wings of the Republican party. Actually, they are both one-worlders who want to merge the USA and Mexico.
- Hillary Clinton is actually far to the left of most Americans, just not quite as far as Osama Obama.
25
posted on
05/14/2008 7:39:13 AM PDT
by
Vigilanteman
((Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud))
To: weegee
***Overthrow your dictators and the people can get the food that their despotic governments deny them. ***
EXACTLY! But it’s easier to blame America than to accept their own responsibility. India has four times as many people as we do, but the article reads as though they want us to send our food to them for free.
Our president did NOT blame India for the price of food; he merely explained that their are more people eating healthy diets in India, so the price of food has gone up. He was congratulating them, and they twisted and turned it into an insult.
26
posted on
05/14/2008 8:01:58 AM PDT
by
kitkat
(Over the Hill(ary))
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I was in a store yesterday that had a sign taped at the register:
“Due to the worldwide shortage of rice, we are limiting purchases to three bags per customer.”
IIRC the U.S. only imports 10% of our rice, that we have plenty of it, and that any price increases are due to the cost of fuel to transport it, as is the case with most every staple at the moment.
To: kitkat; BRK; 50sDad; MikeWUSAF; RedStateRocker
EXACTLY! But its easier to blame America than to accept their own responsibility. Responsibility? India does not need any food aid; nor does it take any. It is self-sufficient in that regard, and is a net-exporter of food.
Our president did NOT blame India for the price of food; he merely explained that their are more people eating healthy diets in India, so the price of food has gone up. He was congratulating them, and they twisted and turned it into an insult.
Yes, the reaction was through personal statements by opposition politicians who have read and reacted to what AP/IHT and others had published. And why? The current government has a very close relationship with the Bush administration, and they want to taint it through this. Welcome to the world of parliamentary blame-game. Now check the article I had posted above, earlier.
As for the knee-jerk reactions, well, the media takes the cake. They first fudge the actual statement made by Bush to make it appear like he was blaming India. Loose-screwed Indian opposition politicians take the bait and react accordingly. Half-wits everywhere else reverberate the nonsense. More garbage for the newspapers to print.
Bravo!
28
posted on
05/14/2008 8:43:49 AM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: CarrotAndStick
29
posted on
05/14/2008 11:42:29 AM PDT
by
Kanly
To: BRK
Someone needs to tell them that the space between the butt cheeks of the person in front of you does NOT count as a place to stand in a line. Say "NO" to crack!
30
posted on
05/14/2008 11:53:03 AM PDT
by
thulldud
(Insanity: Electing John McCain again and expecting a different result.)
To: Kanly
India exports rice, tea and mangoes to the US. Does that challenge American self-sufficiency in food?
No.
Same logic, vice-versa.
31
posted on
05/14/2008 12:12:59 PM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: Kanly
India: Flood of food imports could destroy Indian agriculture
by Binu S. Thomas*
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/flood-cn.htm
Bangalore, Aug 30 — In recent months Indian supermarket shelves have started displaying a variety of imported foods. Cheese from Switzerland, apples fron New Zealand, biscuits from Thailand, chocolates from Brazil, the list is growing by the day. These imports have been allowed as part of fulfilling India’s commitment to the World Trade Organisation under its Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) to improve market access for foreign foods (and phasing out import restrictions maintained on BOP grounds.)
With a WTO’s dispute settlement panel recently rejecting India’s stand justifying quantitative restrictions (QRs) that it has traditionally imposed on certain sensitive imports, the stage is set for the trickle of food-related imports to turn into a flood. India had entered into bilateral pacts with its major trading partners for a six-year phasing out of QRs from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2003. This timeframe was not acceptable to the U.S. which wanted a faster phasing out and took India to the disputes settlement process.
India maintained QRs on about 2,700 items. In the annual Exim- Import policies India has been progressively phasing out QRs. In the 1997-98 policy it freed 406 items, in 1998-99 it freed 896 items and put 414 under special import license which is also not acceptable to India’s major trading partners. It seems almost inevitable, with the latest DSU ruling, that the remaining 1200 or so items, many of them sensitive agricultural imports, on which QRs are in place would be freed by 2001.
Well over a third of items under QRs are agricultural items on which import restrictions were imposed to safeguard the interests of India’s large agricultural community. Two-thirds of Indian farmers are in the small and marginal category cultivating less than two hectares of land. Contrary to popular perception, given a level playing field these farmers will be more than able to compete with their Western counterparts in agricultural production and export. But this is being denied to them.
Each farmer in the developed countries gets on average a subsidy of US$29,000 a year. The US domestic support for its farmers was US$25.5 billion in 1996 while for the European Union it was US$85 billion. In both the U.S. and the EU farmers constitute less than 3% of the population. In contrast India’s domestic support to its farmers worked out to a negative $23.7 billion in 1995-96 even after providing for fertiliser, electricity, irrigation, seed subsidies.
India through levies and cesses of various kinds on its agricultural products actually taxes its farmers rather than subsidies them. Under the AoA developed countries are to reduce their domestic subsidies by 20% by 2000, which will not make a major difference in terms of reducing the inequity between farmers in developed and developing countries. Worse, developed countries have got for themselves a number of exceptions under the Green and Blue Boxes of the AoA which in effect mean they need not make the 20% reduction and in some cases can still further increase subsidies.
In addition to the huge domestic subsidies to their farmers, developed countries also provide massive export subsidies to their agri-business corporations which enable them to dump agricultural surpluses (generated thanks to the huge domestic subsidies) in developing countries at less than cost of production. Only 25 of the 134 WTO members have a right to subsidise their exports (India and most other developing countries cannot do so as per their commitments to the WTO) and only two-three exporters account for most export subsidies. Three exporters account for 93% of subsidised wheat exports, two for 80% of subsidised beef exports and two for 94% of subsidised butter exports.
Under the AoA developed countries have to reduce their export commitments by 36% in value terms by 2000, but this is being flouted through some clever book keeping. For instance the European Union has been exporting processed cheese under its export subsidy commitments for skim milk powder and butter claiming this is possible under “inward processing relief.” In 1998 the U.S. made a “50% ($4 billion) increase in export credit guarantee allocations, so that we could be aggressive in holding on to some of our best customers,” according to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.
The third area where developed countries have been circumventing the AoA has been in regard to improving market access. Under this provision countries are to convert non-tariff barriers such as quantitative restrictions into tariffs and then progressively reduce these over a period of time. While developing countries such as India have been fixing nominal import tariffs on items taken off the QR list (for eg: 10% import duties in the case of edible oils), developed countries have been indulging in “dirty tariffication” by fixing prohibitive tariffs that impede market access for agri exporters from developing countries. Average tariffs in OECD countries for 1995 stood at 214% for wheat, 197% for barley and 154% for maize, while the average import duties in developing countries were 94% for wheat, 90% for maize and 89% for rice.
It would be clear from the above analysis that not only have developed countries framed WTO rules relating to Agriculture in a manner that favours them, but they have been flouting even the marginal concessions they have made to developing countries. Should this situation be allowed to continue, farmers in developing countries will be deprived of their livelihoods by a flood of highly subsidised imports (now coming in after the lifting of QRs) and by impediments being put to exports.
Take the case of Soyabean.
With a view to attaining self-sufficiency in edible oils, the Government of India actively promoted cultivation of soyabean through the oilseeds technology mission set up by Rajiv Gandhi. Poor farmers were persuaded to give up cultivation of subsistence crops and produce soya for the market. In the last six years, area under soya has doubled to 6 million hectares and production stands at about 6 million tonnes.
With liberalisation of edible oil market and imports, as part of India shifting away from a QR regime to a tariffs based one, there has been a flood of edible oil imports - a 300% increase in the last nine months and a significant quantity of it being soyabean.
Globally there has been a phenomenal increase in soyabean cultivation to a record 150 million tonnes (partly encouraged by huge subsidies to U.S farmers who grow more soya than anybody else). Both in Brazil and Argentina there has been an explosion of area under transgenic soya. About 70% of the 1998-99 soya crop is said to genetically modified. And with resistance to genetically modified food in Europe, a lot of the production is being pushed into developing countries including India.
The huge increase in soya oil imports has depressed prices. Soyabean prices are quoted around Rs 8,500 a tonne compared to Rs 9,800 last year around the same time.
Soya oil prices have dropped about 30% to Rs 25,000 a tonne. Imports are reportedly coming in at Rs 20,000 a tonne which is below the domestic average cost of production of Rs 22,000 a tonne. All this has already resulted in a decline in soyabean sowing. Apart from farmers, the soyabean processing industry has been badly affected with capacity utilisation at record lows. The demand from the soyabean processors to raise the import duty from 10% to 25% (India can under its WTO obligations impose upto 300% duty on edible oils) has fallen on deaf ears. This is resulting in the slow death of both soyabean farmers and soyabean processors in the country.
The soyabean problem is only a microcosm of the large scale damage the lifting of QRs and the weak-kneed approach of the government towards powerful multinational agri-business cartels is wrecking on the Indian economy. The time has come for farmers, NGOs and industry to join hands to resist the destruction of Indian agriculture. (SUNS4500)
(* Binu Thomas is coordinator, Policy & Advocacy, ActionAid India, part of ActionAid, the British charity and international NGO. The views expressed are not necessarily that of his organisation). The above article first appeared in the SUNS.
32
posted on
05/14/2008 12:18:51 PM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: weegee
> Overthrow your dictators and the people can get the food that their despotic governments deny them.
(Note that India itself is a democracy and has an adequate food supply...)
33
posted on
05/14/2008 7:28:13 PM PDT
by
mbj
(Citizen of the United States of America)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson