Firstly the EU could rein in its mad dash to biofuels. This would have the effect of returning large quantities of agricultural land to food production rather than the chasing of the chimerical green agenda.

Then it could address the CAP properly rather than the cosmetic changes that have been made so far. Of course it has promised to look properly in 2013. Not soon enough. But as it is still in hock to the French farming lobby expect no changes.

Another thig it could do is to let people know what is going on. It is amazing how this trouble is apparent to anybody who knows where to look, but despite the hundreds of millions spent by our governors they never mention it. When the shit hits the fan, which it surely will who will do something to held those most vulnerable. The Governments will be unable to as they have not put the plans in place, and they have not warned the population so they will face massive problems changing tax benefit policy. 

This crisis has already been two years coming, but nobody has done anything about it.

Oh not just tortilla riots, beer riots in Mexico too.

Elaib Harvey

This will be a BIG problem. Italian consumers were asked to boycott pasta in order to protest against price rises of up to 27% over the last year. In January 2007, Mexico saw a 'tortilla riot' as tortilla prices have skyrocketed more than 700% since 1994. The energy-intensive practices of industrial agriculture spread around the world by the so-called 'Green Revolution' are not sustainable, indicators like the mysterious disappearance of bees over the last year and the growth of drug-resistant Staphylococcus bacteria are signs of the precariousness of the vast monocultures on which our current food system is based. With the contradictions of the industrial food system piling up to potentially deadly effect, it is high time to reject this unsustainable model and turn to a more sustainable model of local production and food sovereignty. That is probably the Chinese intention.

@ Jason

As I said earlier, I do not understand what the message of the article is, or what specific point the author is trying to make.  And, if I were an EU official, I would not know what to do with this kind of 'muddled' criticism.  How does one respond to it?

Your points are easier to understand.  First, you claim that there is "famine" in China.   I doubt that very much.  Perhaps, there may be some localised problems of hunger, here and there, but there is certainly not a general famine.   

Second, even if we were to accept your starting position (which I don't) - i.e. the presence of "famine" - the question then becomes whether "export taxes" would be an appropriate policy tool to deal with the problem?  Let's investigate that further. 

-- If export taxes could solve the problem (by re-directing grain to local markets), then clearly there is no "shortage" of grain.  The problem then seems to be that local people cannot buy grain because the producers are exporting (attracted by higher returns on world markets).  Thus, clearly, the problem is neither "famine", nor grain "shortage", but rather the fact that local market prices are 'divorced' from world market prices for grain.  If that is the case, then we clearly have a problem of an artificially-induced 'shortage', and the solution would be to investigate the causes for this 'divorce', and remove them. 

-- The imposition of export taxes (in order to force local 'prices' or returns to producers closer to world market prices) would certainly be an INefficient way of dealing with the problem in the long term.  It could perhaps be defended as a short-term band-aid, until local prices could be made to move in line with world market prices, but maintenance of such taxes over a long period would be very wasteful.   In essence, it is a form of taxing production, instead of income or consumption.  It would guarantee lower output over time compared with a situation of raising similar tax revenue levied on consumption and/or income. 

--  Your comment appears to be inspired by equity concerns.  You want to subsidise the poor in China so they can afford to buy enough grain.  Well, if that were to be the true motivation of the Chinese government, then that is what they should do: subidise the poor.  That would be the most economically efficient policy measure.  It would mean: (a) to let producers maximise their returns (by selling in the most-remunerative markets), (b) tax these higher incomes, and (c) redistribute this tax money to the poor for buying grain. 

By contrast, taxing exports is economically inefficient, because it interferes in the decisionmaking of both consumers and poducers, who will then be making consumption and production decisions on the basis of 'artificial prices'.  These prices will not reflect the true scarcity of the product, nor the true costs involved in its production. 

Now, the Chinese know all this. Since they liberalised their economy, over 2 decades ago, and thus allowed markets to operate, their economy has taken off considerably.  However, unlike rich Europe, they do not yet have the same 'luxury' to waste resources by introducing such market distorting measures as "export taxes".  And they know it (unlike you)! Therefore, if they do it anyway, it must be a temporary measure, and they must have temporary reasons for it. 

It is true that, under certain circumstances, such a measure could reduce a "famine" in the short term.  In the long run, however, export taxes are more likely to promote "famines", because they lead to inefficent use of resources in the economy. 

I fail to see the point of this article, unless it is simply to join the chorus of (renewed) "inflation is coming"!

The author asks "What does the EU do?".   One could just as well ask: What would he want the EU to do?

If the Chinese are raising taxes on grain exports, that in and of itself will add somewhat to inflationary pressures abroad, depending on the size of China's grain exports to world markets.  That is probably not very significant.  While understandable from an administrative and (perhaps) also 'social' perspective, the imposition of export taxes is not a very sensible economic policy measure.  The Chinese would do better to let their producers (including of grain) to sell where they can obtain  the highest returns.  Export taxes interfere with that, and will 'discourage' exports.

With the CAP, the EU used to pursue a nonsensical policy as well (artificially boosting agricultural output), but one that tended to depress prices for agricultural products on world markets (thus, the opposite of the recent Chinese measure).  Perhaps, the CAP has been sufficiently reformed so that this is no longer the case.  If so, could someone explain how?

 

So we destroy soil by deflorestation, turn crops into fuel, and then lament that cost for feeding ourselves is rising. So the 'wealthy' ones will have to pay a lot more, the other 99% will turn to be vegetarians. No problem, the 'wealthy' ones continue to drive their Porsche.