THE US REPORT

The Information Wars

Indians are outraged over comments by President George Bush, with one economist suggesting the US is more responsible than India for the world food crunch because we eat more in this country. The International Herald Tribune reported, “During a news conference in Missouri, Bush mentioned India's growing middle class, and said, ‘when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.’ "

Ramesh Chand, an Indian Council of Agricultural Research economist responded, “The United States is responsible many times more than India for the world food crisis because of its higher food consumption.” IHT says the council “advises India's government on farming policy.” Then Pradeep Mehta, another economist, chimed in. If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, "many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates," Mehta said, adding that the money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead.

Red Flag alert. If I were Chand and Mehta, I’d try to find a scapegoat too. One thing about the US, though. If something like food goes wrong here, we raise hell at our own government officials and look to take care of it in-house. But here’s some domestic advice from Indian media. The Times of India suggests an explanation for why the US can eat what it wants to. Basically, Indian farmers don’t get the resources they need to help feed one sixth of the whole world’s population. TOI says,   “The reasons are essentially that in the advanced countries of the West, much more and better resources have been available to the farmers. If similar resources are made available to farmers in India or Bangladesh or Gabon and Burkina Faso, there is no reason why they too will not increase the yield tremendously. And this in turn will provide the much-needed food for their populations [May 11]."

A figure mentioned by the IHT article, based on data from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, notes that in the US, we eat an average of 3,770 calories per capita a day. I couldn’t find the data those figures are based on despite an exhaustive search at the UNFAO. And nobody in my US household eats that many calories a day. But calories have nothing to do with quantity of the item—a donut has 200, but I could eat a ton of iceberg lettuce before I consumed 200 calories. Americans’ eating habits may be lousy and fat and calorie-laden, but we’ve worked as a country to feed ourselves. And we manage to feed a lot of the rest of the world as well.

In the 4 decades spanning 1951-1992, the US contributed significantly to the $55 billion in aid India received from other countries to do something about poverty. It’s working—India is developing a middle class and they can buy more. George Bush brought it up and suddenly some Indian economist is yelling at us about liposuction?  And though aid has been reduced, we’re still giving. Why would anybody in India get into a hizzy, as we say in the American South?

Fact is the US is delighted India’s middle class is growing. We got lotsa stuff we’d like to sell you. We can also offer some tips on population growth, agricultural subsidies, laws of supply and demand and placing competent people in key leadership positions. And how much we eat has nothing to do with poverty in India. Look to your own kitchen before you rattle the pans in ours. (--filed by Kay B. Day)