Monday, July 07, 2008

Throw out your food - Take 2

A follow on from my original entry about food waste as Brown over in Japan is urging us to cut our food waste. Here's the story from the Guardian.

the UK throws away an annual 4.1m tonnes of edible goods
Wow because WRAP was talking about 6.7m tonnes, and the BBC was talking about 3.3m tonnes, makes one really trust these figures.

Anyway the whole point is that food costs more and it's not his fault, that lower-income families are spending a greater percentage of their income on food and it's not his fault (oh wait a sec, yes it is)
The poorest 10% of UK households spent 15 % of their outgoings on food in 2005-06, while the richest 10% spent just 7%.
Um duh, hold on where's my stats sheet. The median annual gross wage of the bottom 10% of all full and part-time workers in 2007 was £6,192, the top 10% £42,902. So the bottom 10% spend ~£929 and the top 10% ~£3,003 a year. Oh yeah percentages are really useful in this instance.
[the UK throws away] the equivalent of £420 for every home.
Yeah somehow I don't think those bottom 10% are throwing away nearly half their food purchases do you?
[food prices] have risen significantly - due to a combination of poor harvests, higher costs for energy used in agriculture and transport, diversion of some commodities to biofuel, and a long-term rise in demand for grain to feed a growing global population.
Poor harvests - blame the screwy weather (nothing to do with us, well maybe, or maybe not); higher costs for energy - done that; biofuel - yep that's got to be the biggest ironic twist; rise in demand - those damned Chinese thinking they can eat like Westerners, who do they think they are?

So the solution being proposed is an "international body to oversee food security" just what we need another bloody committee. Who's betting that is this body comes into being food quotas will be the next step.

Okay fair cop our food prices have been damn cheap and we've got spoiled by them, but the prices have shot up not because of any market readjustment but because of greed and 'panic'. Like water and energy, food is a necessity and it's all been placed in the hands of companies whose sole function is to make money.

Unlike energy the supply really has gone down while demand has increased so who can be shocked that the price increases; the laissez-faire marketers state that the increase in prices will lead to more people entering the food market because there's profit to be made now. Yep start tearing down those rainforests we need more growing area there's profit to be made.

Here's an interesting stat from an American department - each citizen requires 1.2 acres to provide the standard amount of food they consume. So for the UK population of 60m we need ~295,000 km² to live at that level. Land area of the UK - ~242,000 km². Self-sufficiency advocates take note.

[To contrast the US needs ~1.5m km² and has a land area of ~9m km². China needs 6.4m km² and has a land area of 9.3m km²]

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The land area figures aren't really comparable: don't forget that much of the US is desert, and China's growing conditions are seriously variable across the country. The UK has a pretty good mix, with some nice fertile arable land, and even the mountainous areas are suitable for extensive livestock farming.

As you say, the laissez-faire people are not really in the real world. I'm sure a small increase in food prices will make them tear down all the housing estates that have been built over farmland recently. Or maybe not.

FlipC said...

I did wonder about making a note about that, can't seem to find any figures for 'usable' land area anywhere.

However one could argue that should the price increase so much, then even the non-suitable area may become profitable to convert by installing a full scale irrigation system etc.

In theory every bit of land can be grown on if it becomes profitable (or necessary), the same could be said about floating some artificial islands; so I could've included water area too :-).

As for laissez-faire I've never trusted certain groups of economists since they equated a single 21-year old with a shiny new degree in whatever and a recently unemployed and retrained 45 year old family man with the same shiny new degree. In theory everything they say could be true if the slate was completely wiped clean, which unfortunately some seem to be trying to do.

Anonymous said...

Oh mighty Gods of the Black Magic of statistics… show me some numbers which demonstrate a high probability of me getting laid… this century.