Back in 2000 I remember a report coming out how bananas will be wiped out by disease by 2010.
It’s 2010. We still have bananas.
So, I’ll file this report where I filed the banana report. “Unconcerned.”
We still don't have no bananas?
As I recall, there was actually something to that. Don't remember the specifics, but it was something along the lines of all banana plants (at the time) being susceptible to the same disease vector.
So, I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that the market did what was sensible and started working banana plants that WEREN'T susceptible to that particular vector. Problem Solved.
Ditto the chocolate. Per the article, farmers aren't growing cocoa plants because it's not cost effective. So, the supply will go down, demand will go up, and the price will go up with demand. When the price goes up, Farmers will start growing it again. Problem solved.
Geez, reporters are stupid. Economics 101 must not be a part of the Journalism curriculum.
Not only that, is Africa the only place in the world where cocoa can be grown? No! In fact, it’s also grown in large supplies in South American (mainly Brazil) and in Asia. The other places can simply increase their production. The argument for chocolate famine follows other specious arguments that claim if one person (or country or countries) stops doing something valuable, no one or no other country will step up and do what that person or country was doing. Another silly “news” story.