Freak weather is a factor. But so are dramatic changes in the global economy, including higher oil prices, lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China and India.How high a priority should it be for those who are comfortable to ensure that those who are not have food?
Among the driving forces are petroleum prices, which increase the cost of everything from fertilizers to transport to food processing. Rising demand for meat and dairy in rapidly developing countries such as China and India is sending up the cost of grain, used for cattle feed, as is the demand for raw materials to make biofuels.
Hint: I don't think the answer is some sort of "at all costs" or "anything" response. That is certainly not my first instinct. But, should we stop eating meat because doing so would dramatically increase the world's food supply? Should we pour research dollars into improving the food supply in excess of what our market driven research currently demands? Should we pay 1% of our income to a fund that reduces the cost of food? What about 10%?
Will our meddling make things worse?