Food scarcity

[Ligeia]

My questions:
How is food scarcity produced?
I've read that there's enough food for people to eat on this earth but it's the distribution that's wasteful.
Then according to vegetarians, if there was less factory farming there would be more space for other sources of food and more food in total for the earth's population. Would this have an impact on food distribution?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Can't really comment on the vegetarian claim, though I'm sure someone else here can. I have heard something like this before as well.

As for 'food scarcity', yes, what you've read is right---it's not a problem of amount, but of distribution.

In capitalism, people starve because there's too much food. Does that makes sense to you?

It shouldn't. In short, it's about profit. Food is produced for profit, not to meet a basic human need, so when someone can no longer make enough money from the food being sold to make more than the cost of producing it, it rots on shelves or gets dumped.

[Deity]

There is more than enough food for everyone in the world, but they don't have enough money to pay for it.

I'm sure you've heard about the burning of excessive items to keep prices high? This also applies to food. It's less about distribution and entirely about profits.

[Ligeia]

Right.
Does anybody have any good resources to read about this issue?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Then according to vegetarians, if there was less factory farming there would be more space for other sources of food and more food in total for the earth's population.


Can't really comment on the vegetarian claim, though I'm sure someone else here can. I have heard something like this before as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQlekfaPyaA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources.aspx

http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

[Ligeia]

^^^^
Yes, that's what I read. But now the question remains: given the current situation of food distribution and pricing, would it chnge if there was less meat production?
(without regarding environmental damage because that is a solid arguement)

[tuwix]

In capitalism, the prices would just go up.
But now there are 3D printers that can produce meat. But BTW the agriculture used today is obsolete to the agriculture technology known today. Simply there is a great lobby of companies who live from such way of doing and many workers who fear that they'll lose means to live that changes in agriculture are blocked.
And it is not exception. This is the case of whole capitalism. Technology is being opressed by various lobbies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My questions:
How is food scarcity produced?
I've read that there's enough food for people to eat on this earth but it's the distribution that's wasteful.Yes this is true and as other people have said this is an example of artifical scarsity. The movie "Life in Debt" talks about how subsidized food from North America was being sold in Jameca even though local dairies could have met demand... they just couldn't have done it in the volume and with the profits of the major dairies.

So it's distribution in a sense (capitalists could find a way to distribute - they can build quick and vast infrastructure for war, can't they) but much more fundamentally it's how we produce and for what reasons. It's better to let "overproduced" food rot and maintain market prices and profits, than to let starving people have some of the extra food.


Then according to vegetarians, if there was less factory farming there would be more space for other sources of food and more food in total for the earth's population. Would this have an impact on food distribution?I don't know about this claim. Part of the reason factory farming is so particularly harmful comes from the way things are grown in monocultures or how farm animals are cramed together beyond capacity... it's all profit maximization. On the one hand it does produce a lot more for the space of land - that's part of the point of profit-maximization when it comes to land-use... if grapes are the most profitable use of a piece of land, then there will be constant pressure to grow grapes from investors and banks; if it's poultry, then chickens will be crammed in as much as possible, if it's oil under the land, then that's where the effort will go. But it's also incredibly short-sighted and causes all sorts of bad side effects like poorer quality food, more possibility of diseased animals or food, more errosion of the land, etc. Again, as long as the most profitable use of a piece of land is cotten, then there will be pressure to produce that basically until cotton can not be produced at a rate more profitable than some new use for the land. This is why some of the best farm-land in California was paved over for suburbs... subsidized developments became more profitable than subsidized growing.

The reason I think this is important is because I think there is an implied logic to some of these arguments often made by environmentalists. They see production as just production, not capitalist or profit-driven production. So some of the argument behind some farming techniques is that it would actually produce less than is possible with monocultures or factory-farm techniques. It would tie the producer/owner to methods which would force more rotation, smaller crops, etc. But in the capitalist framework, this means ultimately (barring some federal law... which then also brings up the issue of international competition which would create barriers to one country passing such laws) that less productive techniques can only survive in a niche sort of way... some people who are willing to pay more for the "organic" brand or whatnot - just like with artisan pottery or other crafts.

Edit: as far as this specific argument, the one I've heard is that basically if people didn't raise and eat cattle, then there would be less pollution and the land used for grazing could be used for crops or returned to organic ecosystems. But when you look at the big picture, this may be an argument for why moralistically someone should be a vegitarian (which is sort of self-defeating IMO), but it's a non-answer when it comes to feeding people because - cattle or not - we have the capacity to feed people as it is right now.

[Fourth Internationalist]

^^^^
Yes, that's what I read. But now the question remains: given the current situation of food distribution and pricing, would it chnge if there was less meat production?
(without regarding environmental damage because that is a solid arguement)

It would change, but how or if in a good or bad way is unknown.

[Ligeia]

Yes this is true and as other people have said this is an example of artifical scarsity. The movie "Life in Debt" talks about how subsidized food from North America was being sold in Jameca even though local dairies could have met demand... they just couldn't have done it in the volume and with the profits of the major dairies.

So it's distribution in a sense (capitalists could find a way to distribute - they can build quick and vast infrastructure for war, can't they) but much more fundamentally it's how we produce and for what reasons. It's better to let "overproduced" food rot and maintain market prices and profits, than to let starving people have some of the extra food.
So it's more about pricing for profit. Hence why it's distirbuted and wasted but it's not at all about there being not enough food for everybody.


Edit: as far as this specific argument, the one I've heard is that basically if people didn't raise and eat cattle, then there would be less pollution and the land used for grazing could be used for crops or returned to organic ecosystems. But when you look at the big picture, this may be an argument for why moralistically someone should be a vegitarian (which is sort of self-defeating IMO), but it's a non-answer when it comes to feeding people because - cattle or not - we have the capacity to feed people as it is right now.
Yes, that's what I was getting at but I see that arguement made often. So there is already enough food and even if there were more crops, this wouldn't mean that more people would be fed since food scarcity is already artificially made. But then I would've thought that environmentalists or vegetarians would acknowledge that issue. Unless, of course, there's some chain of thought about how more possibilites for food production would change something in the current food distribution-climate in a positive way but I haven't read or seen anything about this. If it exists, I would like to know more about this though.

[Skyhilist]

^^^^
Yes, that's what I read. But now the question remains: given the current situation of food distribution and pricing, would it chnge if there was less meat production?
(without regarding environmental damage because that is a solid arguement)

In short: yes. Here's why: the production of meat is energy inefficient compared to the production of vegetarian foods (for example it takes 16 pounds of grain on the average to make on pound of beef). So if energy was used to make vegetarian foods instead of meat, there would me much more food overall. This would push the cost of food down. This would make food more affordable for people in poor countries as well as for people trying to feed the hungry in poor countries. So yes the distribution would still be screwed up under capitalism, but access to food for poor people would at least be better than it is now. This isn't to say that world hunger would be completely eliminated though... After all we'd still be living under capitalism.

[Ocean Seal]

My questions:
How is food scarcity produced?
I've read that there's enough food for people to eat on this earth but it's the distribution that's wasteful.
Then according to vegetarians, if there was less factory farming there would be more space for other sources of food and more food in total for the earth's population. Would this have an impact on food distribution?
It is produced by destroying food.

[Ligeia]

So if energy was used to make vegetarian foods instead of meat, there would me much more food overall. This would push the cost of food down. This would make food more affordable for people in poor countries as well as for people trying to feed the hungry in poor countries. So yes the distribution would still be screwed up under capitalism, but access to food for poor people would at least be better than it is now. This isn't to say that world hunger would be completely eliminated though... After all we'd still be living under capitalism.
Are there any resources, books, websites that talk about this in-depth?

[Quail]

As people have already said, it's because food is produced for profit rather than to meet people's needs that we produce enough to feed everyone but people are still starving. In this country, for example, supermarkets don't want people getting food for free so they deliberately spoil the food they throw away. That food could be feeding people who don't have enough money, but nope it just goes to waste instead. Seems insane to me. Food is wasted at every stage of production/transportation though, sometimes just because it doesn't "look nice" enough to sell. There are other issues too such as which crops are most profitable.

As for the vegetarian argument, I'm not really sure how it would affect food scarcity because the food supply would still be operating within a capitalist framework so I'd imagine there would still be artificial scarcity.