The fuel of food

The depth of the world's food crisis is hard to fathom sitting in Washington state at the onset of what likely will be another bountiful and diverse harvest of more than 200 different crops.

Yet people have lost their lives in Somalian rioting, unrest has erupted in Egypt and Haiti and the people in cyclone-ravaged Myanmar will have to wait even longer for assistance. Supplies of food, especially rice, have become meager due to a combination of drought and other weather-related problems, peculiarities of a globalizing marketplace and competition from the emerging biofuels industry for crops.

The solution certainly must include the old-school approach — wealthier countries, such as the United States, increasing their direct food aid to countries.

But it must also include shrewd investments in the agriculture of developing countries — so they can feed their people, improve subsistence incomes and ensure more-nimble response to avert future shortages.

This is already starting to happen, thanks in part to leadership from the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation.

The foundation is investing in agriculture production in Africa and South Asia to spur a modern-day Green Revolution, akin to efforts more than 60 years ago in India and Mexico that saved millions from starvation.

The foundation's assistance ranges from rehabilitating spent soil, to expert assistance in fighting plant diseases, and from making simple, affordable irrigation systems available, to improving access to markets — similar investments that have helped make American agriculture so successful. Other foundations, nations and world leaders are stepping up as well.

Earlier this month, President George W. Bush called for Congress to spend another $770 million in food aid to help with the world response in the budget year that begins in October. He also made a wise but controversial proposal that 25 percent of the food assistance be purchased directly from farmers in developing countries — a move that is also supported by the World Bank.

Some U.S. producers oppose the plan because, historically, commodities were purchased from U.S. farmers, providing a boost to the domestic industry. But world need is so urgent and fuel costs for shipping so high, clearly more food can be purchased and more people can be fed by this proposal.