PDA

View Full Version : Price of Rice


angischy
04-24-2008, 01:27 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-rice24apr24,1,7642169.story?track=rss

The global run on food that has led to shortages and riots in Egypt, Haiti and other nations has made its way to U.S. shores.

Concerned about rising prices and limited supplies of staples such as rice and flour, customers across the country have been cleaning out the shelves at big-box retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s Sam's Club and Costco Wholesale Corp. stores.

"The price of everything -- oil, sugar -- has been going up for months, and rice has been an issue for a few weeks already. Everyone else is doing the same thing I am because they use up their rice so fast," Yang said in Mandarin.

Prices for many foods, including beer, bread, coffee, pizza and rice, are rising rapidly as the nation contends with its worst bout of food inflation since 1990. The cost of groceries is climbing at an annual rate of about 5% this year.

Retail experts said there was little evidence of "panic" hoarding by the public. It appears that restaurants and smaller retailers have been buying up most of the stock on the expectation that prices will continue to rise.

Still, shoppers' actions have taken some stores by surprise.

"It is like a run on the bank. We don't think there is a shortage, it is just increased shopping by customers who think there is," said Richard Galanti, Costco's chief financial officer. For now, the retailer is allowing managers of stores with short supplies to set their own rules.

Other retailers report adequate supplies.

---
I didn't see any news reports on TV that mentioned this, however. . . DUKE: Got anything to add from your perspective?

As Australia dries, a global shortage of rice (http://iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/business/17warm.php)
Drought contributes to shortage of food staple

The Deniliquin mill, the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere, once processed enough grain to satisfy the daily needs of 20 million people. But six long years of drought have taken a toll, reducing Australia's rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill last December.

Ten thousand miles separate the mill's hushed rows of oversized silos and sheds — beige, gray and now empty — from the riotous streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, but a widening global crisis unites them.

The collapse of Australia's rice production is one of several factors contributing to a doubling of rice prices in the last three months — increases that have led the world's largest exporters to restrict exports severely, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and set off violent protests in countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, the Philippines, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

Drought affects every agricultural industry based here, not just rice — from sheepherding, the other mainstay in this dusty land, to the cultivation of wine grapes, the fastest-growing crop here, with that expansion often coming at the expense of rice.

The drought's effect on rice has produced the greatest impact on the rest of the world, so far. It is one factor contributing to skyrocketing prices, and many scientists believe it is among the earliest signs that a warming planet is starting to affect food production.

Miss Shark
04-24-2008, 01:42 PM
It's all over the news here and on CNN.

I heard that filling up your tank with ethanol uses the amount of corn that could feed a person for a year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/23/earlyshow/main4036816.shtml

There are lots of reasons that these products are going up, but by far the biggest one is our decision to divert about 30 percent of our corn into our fuel supplies in the form of corn ethanol."

lietuvaite
04-24-2008, 02:17 PM
it's been all over the news here and NPR for the last few days too
i've def. noticed an increase in grocery prices too

sway2sway
04-25-2008, 02:05 AM
If I may say, this blaming the drought in australia is a load of crap. As it was pointed out to me, australia is only responsible for 2% of the worlds rice supply. It seems to be a diversionary tactic.

World rice production in 2007 was approximately 645 million t. At least 114 countries grow rice and more than 50 have an annual production of 100,000 t or more. Asian farmers produce about 90% of the total, with two countries, China and India, growing more than half the total crop.


Australia is not even in the top ten.

http://www.riceworld.org/science/cnyinfo/index.asp

Here is a table with earlier stats, still not a world powerhouse rice producer. So, it's not like they were way up there and steadily declining because of the drought.
http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/datacenter/product/grain/rice/detail/dc_pi_gr_rice0602_01.htm

Miss Shark
04-27-2008, 11:41 PM
I found this rather interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7366899.stm

The farmers told me that they wanted the same agricultural scientists who had given them the high yields of the 1970s to come up with something else.

They know that what they are doing now is unsustainable, because they are getting lower yields despite using more spray and paying more for fertiliser because of the high oil price.

None had heard of organic farming.

Ration cards have been issued, and the World Food Programme (WFP) talks about a crisis as the number of people who do not have enough to eat has risen to 77 million, half of the population of Pakistan.

The WFP describes the food price rise as a "tsunami" affecting the poorest in the world and there are many poorer countries than Pakistan.

The political consequences are already apparent in the troubled regions of the North West Frontier, where the Taleban and al-Qaeda have significant support.

They are more easily able to recruit by saying the government is failing to make affordable food available.

And on the other side of the border on a recent trip to Afghanistan, I heard the US-led occupation squarely blamed on the streets of Kabul for the high price of food.

sway2sway
04-27-2008, 11:58 PM
GMO Will Not Save the Planet from Hunger



To develop twenty-first century agriculture, the experts emphasize, we must first guarantee small farmers access to land, better organize local and export markets, open access to credit, find equitable mechanisms for conflict resolution, invest in research on local plants such as millet, promote training, etc. In short, engage in an unprecedented effort for better governance. Important productivity reserves exist everywhere, restricted by war, corruption, ignorance, the absence of financing, equipment, or infrastructure.... Although important, technology alone is inadequate. So why, twelve years after their commercialization, do GMOs still represent the path of the future for the resolution of hunger in the world to some people?

Largely because GMOs inspire people's dreams. They represent the simple, scientific, ideal solution. The miracle GMO is like an AIDS vaccine: an objective, a hope, but still not a reality. Today, no genetic manipulation allows wheat to grow in the Sahara. Research on plants more resistant to salt or drought continues, but at the moment, only herbicide or pesticide plants are commercialized for four major crops: soy, corn, colza, and cotton - 95 percent of the patents for which are held by one company, Monsanto.

One main actor, four crops: the balance sheet should be easy to draw up, the record transparent. Yet, in spite of a decade of development, there exists no reliable international review that allows a realistic balance sheet to be drawn up with respect to the advances promised by transgenic crops. "The data collected for certain years and certain genetically modified plants indicate gains in yield of 10-13 percent in some regions and drops in yields in others," highlights the international report (1). Some farmers have adopted them and grown wealthy; others have tried them and become impoverished.... The International Convention on Biosafety lauded the establishment of some kind of international review body, but none of the big GMO-producing countries, starting with the United States, has ratified that convention.

and to keep things in perspective


even though prices are soaring (soy up 87 percent in a year, corn up 31 percent, and wheat, 130 percent) and even though hunger riots are breaking out one after the other, we must not lose sight of the fact that agricultural production is, at present, adequate to feed the planet. If we strictly divide the number of calories by inhabitant, it would even feed close to 10 billion people. "The good news is that we have enough food, technology, techniques, and science. The bad news is the horrible ecological footprint industrial agriculture causes," he prompted, while emphasizing that there will not be a single solution in the future, organic agriculture or transgenic agriculture, but different models and diversified ecosystems. All of which will require a great deal more effort than a simple slogan about GMO, humanity's future.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041608G.shtml

We need to get back to real food, not wasting money turning whole foods into half assed processed foods, using more petroleum in the process and we need a little more freakin' equity!
|

Miss Shark
04-28-2008, 01:46 PM
So that was a French article? I still have no idea what GMO stands for.

Like you are so fond of saying it is all about perspective.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_991.cfm

This is not the exact article I was looking for but the info is the same. The one I read was about a local organic farmer lookng to expand his business, demand is way up here for organic goods. He leased out more land only to find out it was land being subsidized for corn. If he wanted to plant anything other than corn he would have to pay outrageous fines to do so.

Amen to getting back to the basics sway!!

sway2sway
04-28-2008, 03:55 PM
genetically modified organisms.

yeah it was french, it was an excerpt from the committee for the annulation of 3rd world debt- I'd be interested to read more if it wasn't so arduous.

the link you posted- that is absolutely crazy, the payments to landowners, based upon a once a time use of their land for crops, whether they do now or not.
overhaul is right-

Miss Shark
04-28-2008, 10:49 PM
genetically modified organisms.


That just sounds scary....

If you are so inclined here's a wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

Others argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies create incentives for poor use of resources, such as replacing healthier cane sugar with cheap corn syrup, replacing grasses for grazing cattle with cheaper cattle corn, and using corn as automotive fuel instead of food.[1]



In America, critics also argue that agricultural subsidies go mostly to the biggest farms who need subsidization the least. Research from Brian M. Riedl at the Heritage Foundation showed that nearly three quarters of subsidy money goes to the top 10% of recipients.[7] Thus, the large farms, which are the most profitable because they have economies of scale, receive the most money. The discrepancy is only widening. Since 1990, payments to large farms have nearly tripled, while payments to small farms have remained constant

the duke
05-10-2008, 03:18 PM
so behind, so behind!!!

We're in a bad drought....price of meat, grain, milk is just sky rocketing....some people are barely affording even the cheapest foods. It used to be that a poor man's meal was pasta and rice...but now, people can't even afford that.

I'm not sure what would help....