HUNGRY? MAYBE NOT YET-- BUT MILLIONS ARE AND SOON WE MAY BE TOO

Bush and Dupont have a concept they want to sell you

The way the political parties pick their/our presidential candidates has been completely perverted because Iowa (and New Hampshire) have grown accustomed to the attention and income that their early and completely unrepresentative caucus and primary bring them. It's a system that should have wound up on the trash heap of history long ago. But our political class is so devoid of even the most basic leadership qualities-- not to mention strength of character-- that it has just festered and helped rot out the system.

And largely because of Iowa's role, almost every pathetic political hack striving for higher office pays obeisance to Iowa's biofuels policy, a policy based on driving up the cost of corn. Today's Guardian reports (as does the NT Times) that political pandering to Iowa's (and others') illogical biofuels aspirations has driving up the cost of food-- worldwide-- by 75%.

The World Bank has been attempting to keep their analysis secret so as not to get into a conflict with the Bush Regime, which has fudged the figures-- as they do with everything (SOP)-- to make it seem that biofuels have caused food prices to rise by a benign 3%, rather than 75%.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

..."Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."

Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation."

President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."

Did your grandma ever tell you to clean your plate because people in China were starving? Mine did and it makes as much sense as Bush's assertion about higher demand in India and China. Both are net exporters of food, not importers. He just knows the Fox TV crowd has let him get away with the assertion that gasoline prices have risen because of demand from China and India-- rather than because of Bush's speculator buddies-- and thought he could make it work for the food crisis too. Of course Bush has food speculators in his circle as well, they have worked diligently to drive up the cost of food.

"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertilizer prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.

It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.

...The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact.

Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants.

And Iowa grows no sugar cane. And there are no presidential primaries in Brazil.