Home › Elections › National
High food prices not mentioned once at debate
Key issue gets short shrift
ELECTIONS '08
Check out our elections coverage page for the latest news, editorials, results and voter information.
Enter now »
Timm Herdt's blog »
New Site: RedBlueAmerica.com »
STORY TOOLS 
More from NationalThe other day, I saw an elderly woman, bent over with osteoporosis, at the grocery store. She picked up a package of hamburger, looked at the price, sighed and put it back.
Later, I saw her in the bakery department, seemingly astonished because the price of her favorite loaf of bread had gone up again.
At the checkout counter, she laid out coins to pay for an apple and a half-price can of tuna. The clerk later told me the woman is very proud, very sweet and refuses help. The clerks all are worried about her.
That night Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton met for their final debate before the Pennsylvania primary. They argued over who is less elitist, if he has thoroughly disavowed the words of his pastor, if he should be on a board with an English professor who broke the law when Obama was 8, about her gaffe over not being shot at in Bosnia and his gaffe over equating guns and religion with frustrated, bitter voters.
They discussed bipartisan Social Security commissions, the high price of gasoline, how soon they'd like to get our soldiers out of Iraq and Iran's unbridled interest in nuclear weapons.
They never once talked about rising food prices here and around the world — wheat, corn and rice prices are soaring. (Of course, the ABC moderators, full of themselves over rehashing old and mostly trivial issues, didn't ask — another reason why I think the 22 debates have largely been a waste of time.)
Obama and Clinton didn't talk about whether our rush to subsidize and encourage ethanol and biofuels has led farmers to forsake other crops for pricier corn-for-gasoline, falsely assuming this would to lead to energy independence and help cool the earth.
(The Renewable Fuels Association says this is just the start. There are 147 U.S. ethanol biorefineries and 55 biorefineries under construction. How about a debate on whether we've been too smart for our own good on this issue?)
Obama and Clinton didn't discuss the escalating food riots around the globe and what the U.S. policy should be. They didn't talk about what hard-pressed Americans in their own cities of Washington, New York and Chicago are going to do if the food-price spiral continues.
It's hard to believe, when obesity in America is a major health problem, some people go to bed hungry. It's almost inconceivable that parents, trying to stretch paychecks that don't make it to the end of the week, are giving their children cereal for supper. But that is happening.
It's unnerving to read that researchers expect one out of 33 homeowners to lose their houses from foreclosure in the next two years, that oil has hit $115 a barrel, that the nonfarm payrolls have fallen by the biggest margin in five years, that builders have started 12 percent fewer houses in March than in February, that inflation is getting uncomfortable, that lenders, bracing for huge problems in education loans, are refusing more students seeking to borrow money for tuition.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, referencing that one day's worth of bad news, said Congress must work out a bipartisan solution to rising prices, foreclosures and higher unemployment as well as solutions for a "long-term economic recovery for America."
The presidential candidates, including John McCain, have talked peripherally about this but not in much detail and they have not been pressed to do so. The pundits have been swept up in whether Obama has blown his chance at the White House because of his seeming lack of reverence for gun-toters and Bible thumpers and immigrant bashers.
They've been distracted by critics who claim Clinton is not credible because she exaggerated the danger when she went to Bosnia years ago. They've been corralled by the debate over whether McCain is too old and too close to the policies of George W. Bush to become president.
It feels as if the boat is sinking, and those in charge are standing around quarreling about who should distribute the life jackets.
— Ann McFeatters has covered the White House and national politics since 1986. E-mail amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.
Posted by cassandra on April 21, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's giving me a headache. Consumers of corporate news seldom have a clue about what bad thing is coming down the pike until they are nose to nose with it. And then the response is always short term and shallow. Of course, Obama and Clinton don't talk about food prices even if media pundits had the sense to ask. They prefer to echo each other about chewed over non-issues.
Food shortages have been predicted for years in the indies. Indeed, whole disciplines have arisen to address the issue i.e. permaculture, for example, rain harvesting for another (google it).
The forerunners have been peak oil--stationary supply for at least three years and ballooning demand--degradation of soil and water resources, destruction of biodiversity, diversion for biofuels, climate change, and predatory trade and ag industry practices. (I mean, terminator seeds??? Beyond greed, just plain nuts.)
For some insight into the international ramifications, check out Indian activist Vendana Shiva at UCSB 4-26 at 7 p.m. For addressing local concerns and solutions, try the Oxnard United Methodist Church Earth Day event, also 4-26 2 to 5:30 p.m. on Faith, Food and Farming.
We can't expect corporate news to give us information we need. Their job is to suppress it. We can't expect national leadership to provide the direction we need when they themselves seem clueless. We are going to have to find a way to create resources and share locally ourselves.
Posted by cassandra on April 21, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A village in UK works on solutions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live...
Posted by sslocal on April 21, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not everyone has the land or resources to plant that much food and raise livestock. Not to mention that around here you can be cited for having livestock in town. This is not to disparage your idea. It's just not practical around here unless you live in the country. Remember, we have 36 million people liveing in this state. Not much country to be had although using your backyard to plant a garden is a very good idea.
I don't have much room but I have planted squash and peppers this year.
Posted by cassandra on April 21, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for you, SS. Try tomatoes too. They are virtually fool proof in this climate.
This is an eminently practical idea, but one that works best in community, not yard by yard. However some people have tried it and done very well. One Pasadena family raises literally tons of food on their little suburban lot. Also, I know a number of people with 3 hens (allowed unless the neighbors squawk.) producing eggs and providing fertilizer.
And there is Cornucopia, the eastside community garden as well as the westside smaller plot.
I will post a long U tube number of one family on a mere quarter acre doing just fine.
Posted by cassandra on April 21, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another shortage perhaps even more critical than peak oil is water, particularly in the west. Being able to raise food with limited water will be a terrible challenge. This couple is managing both raising food and harvesting rainwater. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFIkJG...
Posted by nannyfo1 on April 21, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra, this may be one issue that you and I absolutely agree on. I believe the days of going to the grocery store and getting cheap produce (produce at all?) is coming to a quick end. There is a church in the SF bay area, I forget the name, that developed a pipeline of produce between growers and consumers in their congregation. The farmers were able to sell their produce at a much higher price and still get it to families in the church fresher and cheaper than they could buy in the store. My wife and I are looking at land for this purpose. We feel that we will need to be able to grow all or most of our own food in order to survive in the near future. We will probably raise cows, chickens, pigs, etc in addition to fruits and veggies. We should be able to produce enough food to feed our family and a few others.
Posted by cassandra on April 21, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for you, Nanny.
Google CSA, (not Confederate States of America). City folk contract with organic farmers, sometimes become shareholders, so that their families get healthful good the source of which is know, and the small farmer who is statistically more productive per acre can survive.
Posted by nannyfo1 on April 21, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cutting out all the middlemen is going to be key for the small farmer to survive as well as for the consumer to get fresh, affordable produce. I about gag when I see avocados for $1.99 a piece.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.