The demonstrations against high food prices that took place in the streets of more than 25 developing countries in the spring of 2008 have ceased, grain prices have fallen in many places, and the pressures of the broader global financial and economic crisis have grabbed the news headlines. This does not mean, however, that we don’t have food security issues for hundreds of millions of people around the world. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that almost 100 million more people were pressed down into poverty by the food crisis, and many of them remain there as the global economy contracts. That means that approximately 950 million people are now poor and undernourished globally. The Millennium Development Goal of cutting poverty in half by 2015 had looked achievable a few years ago, but it has become an unlikely target to reach.

The food crisis in 2008 had multiple causes and stands as a warning that we all need to better understand why food security is a problem as well as find ways to improve the outlook. Faculty and students at the University of Illinois care about these issues, as evidenced by the over-flowing attendance at the Forum on Global Food Security on February 18, 2009 (sponsored by the Women and Gender in Global Perspectives Program with support from other units). Keynote speaker Robert Thompson, the Gardner Endowed Chair in Agriculture Policy in Agricultural and Consumer Economics at Illinois, discussed the factors contributing to the price hikes that led to the crisis; these include drought in Australia, growing demand for food grains as the world population grows, and shifts to diets with more milk, meat, and other animal products. He stressed that poverty is the main cause of household food insecurity. World demand for grain is likely to double by 2050 and will require increased productivity of land and more efficient use of water resources. We need immediate attention to agricultural research and development.

Rising food prices hurt the poor and marginalized groups, such as women and minorities, most. Although the poor in general have suffered during the crisis, we know from years of similar situations that women are usually hurt disproportionately more than men. More than half of those living in poverty are women. They do much of the subsistence farming, but are usually net consumers. Cornell Professor Per Pinstrup Anderson, the keynote speaker at the Joint Area Centers’ Symposium, A New Green Revolution?, March 4-6, 2009, noted that the poor in developing countries often spend 50-75 percent of their income on food, therefore a doubling in grain prices, such as that in 2008, can be devastating. He explained that the much higher price of rice, ironically, often leads poor people to buy more rice as they substitute away from meat and vegetables to the basic grain. 

Poor nutrition inhibits the ability to treat and manage diseases, such as HIV/AIDs. It also contributes to higher maternal and infant mortality rates. We need better social safety nets for times of crisis. We need to make certain that poor farmers have clear rights to land; this is especially important for women because it is common for them to lose land rights if they become widowed or divorced.

The soaring price of oil in 2008 clearly had an impact on food prices because it increased the cost of fertilizer, use of farm machinery, and transportation of goods to market. Governments looking for alternative, renewable energy sources have been subsidizing biofuel production, and the rapid increase in use of corn and oil seeds as feedstocks for biofuels led to public concern about the possible contribution of biofuels to the commodity price increases. Current understanding of linkages between biofuels and food prices is limited. Estimates of this contribution based on sophisticated mathematical models vary from 3 percent to 30 percent, and both extremes have their advocates. Changing technology and new types of feedstocks will affect the social impacts of biofuels, including the impacts on commodity prices. We need to continue to study these impacts using a variety of methodological approaches; not only mathematical models but also qualitative methods and concepts such as the capability approach (that focuses on real opportunities in society), which can provide insights into the social dimensions of these problems.

Food security is complex and linked to many other areas such as energy, water, and legal rights. Regional variations and disparities in access by gender, ethnicity, and class are important. Intra-family issues also make a difference in whether girls and boys, women and men have access to needed nutrition, care, and opportunities. Although we are unlikely to be able to eliminate all crises, we can put policies in place that reduce the losses. Short-run solutions include government provision of jobs that provide income for those without other resources so that the local economy can be built up; these programs need to provide jobs for women as well as men. Interventions, such as scholarships to pay school fees, can keep girls and boys in school during downturns, and feeding programs at schools can assure that their minds can be engaged in learning activities. We can create policies to reduce disparities in areas such as women’s rights to land and water that are serious issues in many countries. To address the long run pressures on the food supply, we can increase the commitment to agricultural research and development with research stations in different countries to address local variations.

One of the basic lessons of economics is that there’s no such thing as a free lunch – someone has to pay for the subsidies and interventions. Recent responses to the financial and economic crises in the U.S. have been expansionary, in stark contrast to the contractionary policies that have so often been part of structural adjustment and transition packages over the last three decades. The government is paying for interventions to try to reduce the length and depth of the current economic crisis and limit its social costs. These policies point to another lesson: Societies can share the risks of economic downturns to provide lunches even when some people cannot pay. Policies can promote food security.