Can the world still feed itself ?

When Peter Brabeck-Letmathe speaks, you listen. He is the highly respected Chairman of Nestle. In his weekend interview with The Wall Street Journal published here, he speaks of the increasing danger of food insecurity in the world.

Food prices shooting up, the world over, is a serious cause of concern. This blogger has moaned about it here , here and here . The traditional activist response is to bleat about the evils of globalisation. But here is a world leader giving a simple way forward for what should be done.

His prescription is three fold and simple

- Stop using land for growing corn for biofuel

- Do not maniacally oppose technology in food cultivation, especially genetically modified crops

- Let the market price water for industrial use

I had no idea that this year American farmers would harvest more corn for fuel rather than for feed. This is the outcome of a subsidy policy that has encouraged bio fuel use to get away from the human addiction to petroleum. But look at the consequence for food - a perfect example of how policy in one sector can have serious consequences in another. Single issue activists please note - policy making is complex and interwoven and you can often cause more harm than good by manic obsession with a single issue. If you balance food prices with reducing petroleum dependence, it is not an easy choice. But as Brabeck-Letmather says, we should consider using land only to grow food.

The almost religious opposition to genetically modified crops is , in my view, absurd. We have been genetically modifying crops for virtually of all of human existence. It is called plant breeding. Wheat, Rice, etc as we now it, are all genetically modified. It appears that it is OK to genetically modify slowly, but not OK to modify quickly. World over, there are already laws to look after food safety and there are laws for labelling food containing genetically modified cops. So if you oppose it, that is certainly your right and you are free not to consume it. But to insist that nobody else should do so is unacceptable in my view. Again there is a policy choice. Between letting food prices go so high that some people starve or suffer malnutrition and being scared about the gap between reasonable surety and absolute surety on the safety of such crops. That whole argument has been hijacked by ranting against multinationals, globalisation etc, which is another story and beyond the purview of this post.

The third remedy is interesting. Apparently only 1.5% of the world's fresh water consumption is for personal use - washing, bathing, etc, The rest is for agricultural use or industrial use. Brabeck-Letmathe's solution is stunningly simple. Keep water for personal use free. But let the market price water for industrial or agricultural use. That will ensure that water 9100 litres of water are not used to make 1 litre of bio diesel.

A superb interview which I would strongly recommend for anybody interested in food security for the world.

Fair Price Shops. Fair to whom ?

On a walk the other day, I spied a shop that was a "fair price shop". There are many of them dotted around cities and towns in India. They are usually shut with a "No stock" board hanging in front. They are part of government initiatives to sell foodgrains and vegetables at "fair prices". They are not ration shops, mind you, which are designed to sell subsidised grains to the poor. These are shops where you and I can buy as well. At "fair prices".

Begs the question, fair to whom ?

Here's Economics 101 for the economically challenged. Prices are fixed by supply and demand. A willing seller and a willing buyer together fix the price. As long as there are many sellers and buyers and as long as there is information on what everybody is buying and selling at, the price that is so determined freely is what is a "fair" price.

But to Rajalakshmi, a fair price is a low price. Nothing wrong with buyers wanting the lowest possible price, but that can't be necessarily termed as fair. According to her, the "poor" farmer is being cheated by nefarious middlemen who is then overcharging her and making obscene profits. It is still fashionable in India to rail against all middlemen and term them as hoarders, blackmarketeers, racketeers, and such other colourful terms.

This is complete bunkum. The one market in India that is reasonably close to a perfect market is the one for foodgrains and vegetables. The more perishable the commodity, the more perfect the market. With the advent of mobile phones, farmers now have ready information of wholesale market prices. They usually shop around for the best prices they can get - gone are the days where the villainous middleman could pay the farmer a pittance and sell at the market a kilometer away at a fortune. The middleman has little elbow room to make huge profits. Prices are now very transparent in wholesale markets and price fixation is virtually impossible - the next market is only some 50 kms away and the mobile phone instantly relays prices there.

Speculating is real tough. Commodity and futures markets are in infancy and not a factor. Hoarding in the anticipation of better prices is equally challenging. Firstly storage space is non existent or extremely expensive (India is a country of third world prices in everything except land and property which are above first world prices). The economics simply does not work out. Secondly investment in storage, especially cold storage is wildly expensive. Pest infestation is rampant. That's why some 20-30% of food production in India goes waste. It simply doesn't make economic sense to hoard. And finally Rajalakshmi is the most astute of buyers. She may be intellectually challenged in other fields, but in buying food, she is the queen. If a shop sells something at 0.5% cheaper, she is sure to find out. All the ingredients of a perfect market are there.

That's why food prices fluctuate daily. And often wildly as they move in tandem with supply and demand. When prices shoot up, its not that somebody is making a huge profit. Usually supply is low because of a natural calamity or a crop failure. In that case the high price is a fair price to the producer. Consumers have the choice of switching to something else. The price is also fair to the consumer who buys at the high price because she is choosing to do so, valuing her taste for that particular item. What Rajalakshmi wants is a low price, no matter what, with "somebody" subsidising her. Well , who is that somebody ?I can argue the case for the poor being subsidised and cushioned against high prices of food. But Rajalakshmi ?  She, who is going for a pedicure ? No way.

That's why "fair price" shops remain mostly shut with the no stock sign. They are fair to nobody and are a prehistoric relic of India's dalliance with an outmoded socialist philosophy.