posted May 03, 2008 11:31 PM            

Geez. Who is this skunk nation of planet earth? Yeah, you got it.

=============
Even as the world spins into a global food crisis, a popular theory — voiced by the likes of US President George W Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice — is that the Chinese and Indians are responsible. The 'logic': due to zooming incomes, they are eating more, causing worldwide shortages. But is that true?

Due to their huge populations, countries like India and China may appear to consume gigantic amounts of food. But the real elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about is how much each person gets to eat. And the answer will shock many.

Total foodgrain consumption — wheat, rice, and all coarse grains like rye, barley etc — by each person in the US is over five times that of an Indian, according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007.

Each Indian gets to eat about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg.

In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. Grain consumption includes flour and by conversion to alcohol.

In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US — so actually the Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg last year.

By way of comparison, 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.

Vegetable oils consumption 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, yogurt and milk powders which are consumed in huge proportion in the more advanced countries.

A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses. But the source of carbohydrates and fats is mainly derived from food grains and oils.

As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. 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 kgs are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.
All these comparisons are for powerful economies, whether of the west or the east.

But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption in 2007 was a mere 162 kg per year for each person, or about 445 grams per day. Don’t forget they are not getting any meat or milk products out there.

Perhaps, it is time to include the lifestyle choices of the West in the whole feverish debate on how to tackle the global food crisis.

posted May 04, 2008 01:01 AM            

This measures by nation as a whole and ignores demographics. Eg, the Mongolians in China (primarily due to environmental reasons) eat far more meat than most other ethnic groups in China do. The lower castes, I'm sure, eat much less in India than the higher castes. Here in the USA, there's plenty of waste, but we also have like epidemic anorexia.

This is like saying the USA is incredibly violent because of places like Chicago and Washington DC; however, a great many places in the USA are no more--or even less--violent than Canada or Europe. But by ignoring demographics, a very inaccurate picture is formed of the whole.

And then there's a HUGE difference between Ethiopia and Botswana that got ignored above. Going by an entire continent--which includes many man-made and imposed food shortages (generally as part of genocide against certain tribes)--it again makes it appear, falsely, that they are able to do better (or as well) with less food.

I'm sure the Russians ate a lot less during Stalin's time, but that doesn't mean they were doing well and that we should imitate them.

And how would any government agency be able to measure so precisely the food consumption of rural residents? That strikes me as ridiculous.

Also, I can see foreign governments fudging the facts knowing that they're more likely to get financial aid as a response from other countries...which is more for them to funnel into weapons program and police abuse of its citizenry...and sweatshops where people can't eat and food is grown for exportation as other countries can pay more per pound/kg, making a few very rich.

Btw, the US Department of Agriculture makes its measurement in pounds rather than as kg given above. Examples:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm
http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/dppr1808.txt

I also wonder if food for animals is included (like grain to feed cows for beef, for example--which also, btw, have growth hormones added to them). Granted, I find the idea that the USA in general consumes more than India very believable, and including grain for alcohol makes it even more so, but that doesn't mean I'm finding the above report perfectly believable.

And btw, by going against George Bush, they could face all kinds of problems, as many government agencies in the past have for contradicting a president.

Oh, and then there's also another factor not considered: restaurants have to throw away good food due to government regulations. Even the homeless are not allowed to eat it. So if someone doesn't pick up their food, it goes in the trash and more is made. I'm all for removing that restriction myself (as well as any liability for anyone who knowingly takes it and then gets sick as a result).

Btw, as a runaway, we ran a scam based on that. We'd have someone call in and order many pizzas to be picked up (this was common enough that the pizza places stopped taking orders from payphones and even most to all mobiles--though I don't know how they were able to tell). Then we'd get behind the store, and when the pizzas were never picked up, they'd throw the pizza away STILL IN THEIR BOXES. It's required (though we had more than 1 box because they'd usually keep at least one for themselves). And we'd pull the pizza box out of the dumpster and open it to the clean pizza for free food. That is, government regulation demands food waste. Though not all of the waste is actually wasted, since runaways and other outlaws sometimes get it and take advantage of such laws (though restaurants can't actually give most of their food to the homeless by law--some bakeries exempted).

I also wonder how much more we have in pets than in India and China, and how much more we feed them from store bought food as opposed to milk from a cow or fish caught in a lake.

And another thing not taken into account here (though I agree that this SHOULD change, and I think it is slowly doing so) is that back when food consumption was much less in the USA, the government put out all kinds of extra food in the public schools for the purpose of growing boys into men that could be drafted for war. Since women were prohibited from the draft (and still are forbidden from filling out selective service cards, btw), PE didn't bother in turning that extra food & fat into muscle for females, and since then PE has gotten less strict for boys as well while food companies have gotten more fatty foods and junk food put in, and thus many are overweight. And this also puts a lot of food in the garbage, too, but hey it's paid for.

Btw, I myself didn't eat school lunches. In part because I didn't want to use a welfare card, in part because I really hated their food, in part because I felt their greasy food might give me zits, in part because sodas made me burp, and frankly, it just sucked. So I generally had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with some fruit juice. It is perhaps because of this that I was grossly underweight. At age 14, I was actually under doctor's orders to GAIN weight as I was supposedly having delayed puberty as I didn't have enough body fat. Despite this, my entire PE class was told to get on the scales and we were weighed. I and another girl were the only ones who were "healthy." Remember, I was under doctor's orders to GAIN weight! And the other was a known and obvious anorexic. Of course, we got picked on a lot by the other girls because of their being called "fat" next to us.

Anyway, these are just the immediate reasons why I find myself going "hmmm" over this report. While I'm sure certain points (and maybe many of them) are true enough, it overlooks way too much for me to take it at all seriously.