World food prices increased dramatically in 2007 and the first and second quarter of 2008, creating a global crisis and causing political and economic instability and social unrest in both poor and developed nations. Although the media spotlight focused on the riots that ensued in the face of high prices, the ongoing crisis of food insecurity had been years in the making. Systemic causes for the worldwide increases in food prices continue to be the subject of debate. After peaking in the second quarter of 2008, prices fell dramatically during the late-2000s recession but increased during late 2009 and 2010, reaching new heights in 2011 and 2012 (see 2010–2012 world food price crisis) at a level slightly higher than the level reached in 2008. Over the next years, prices fell, reaching a low in March 2016 with the deflated Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) food price index close to the pre-crisis level of 2006.
The initial causes of the late-2006 price spikes included droughts in grain-producing nations and rising oil prices. Oil price increases also caused general escalations in the costs of fertilizers, food transportation, and industrial agriculture. Root causes may be the increasing use of biofuels in developed countries (see also food vs fuel), and an increasing demand for a more varied diet across the expanding middle-class populations of Asia. The FAO also raised concerns about the role of hedge funds speculating on prices leading to major shifts in prices. These factors, coupled with falling world-food stockpiles, all contributed to the worldwide rise in food prices.
Drastic price increases and possible causes
Between 2006 and 2008 average world prices for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, corn by 125% and soybeans by 107%. In late April 2008 rice prices hit 24 cents (US) per US pound, more than doubling the price in just seven months.
World population growth
Although some commentators have argued that this food crisis stems from unprecedented global population growth, others point out that world population growth rates have dropped dramatically since the 1980s, and grain availability has continued to outpace population.
To prevent price growth, food production should outpace population growth, which was about 1.2% per year. But there was a temporary drop in food production growth: for example, wheat production during 2006 and 2007 was 4% lower than that in 2004 and 2005.
World population has grown from 1.6 billion in 1900 to over 7.5 billion today.
Increased demand for more resource intensive food
The head of the International Food Policy Research Institute, stated in 2008 that the gradual change in diet among newly prosperous populations is the most important factor underpinning the rise in global food prices. Where food consumption has increased, it has largely been in processed ("value added") foods, sold in developing and developed nations. Total grain utilization growth since 2006 (up three percent, over the 2000–2006 per annum average of two percent) has been greatest in non-food usage, especially in feed and biofuels.
One kilogram of beef requires seven kilograms of feed grain. These reports, therefore, conclude that usage in industrial, feed, and input intensive foods, not population growth among poor consumers of simple grains, has contributed to the price increases. Rising meat consumption due to changes in lifestyle can in turn lead to higher energy consumption due to the higher energy-intensity of meat products, for example, one kilogram of meat uses about 19 times as much energy to produce it as the same amount of apple.
Although, the vast majority of the population in Asia remains rural and poor, the growth of the middle class in the region has been dramatic. For comparison, in 1990, the middle class grew by 9.7 percent in India and 8.6 percent in China, but by 2007 the growth rate was nearly 30 percent and 70 percent respectively. The corresponding increase in Asian affluence also brought with it a change in lifestyle and eating habits, particularly a demand for greater variety, leading to increased competition with western nations for already strained agricultural resources. This demand exacerbates dramatic increases in commodity prices such as oil.
Another issue with rising affluence in India and China was reducing the "shock absorber" of poor people who are forced to reduce their resource consumption when food prices rise. This reduced price elasticity and caused a sharp rise in food prices during some shortages. In the media, China is often mentioned as one of the main reasons for the increase in world food prices. However, China has to a large extent been able to meet its own demand for food, and even exports its surpluses in the world market.
Effects of petroleum and fertilizer price increases
Starting in 2007, the prices of fertilizers of all kinds increased dramatically, peaking around the summer of 2008 (see graphs by the International Fertilizer Industry Association). Prices approximately tripled for ammonia, urea, diammonium phosphate, muriate of potash (KCl -potassium chloride), and sulfuric acid (used for making phosphate fertilizer), and then fell just as dramatically in the latter part of 2008. Some prices doubled within the six months before April 2008. Part of the cause for these price rises was the rise in the price of oil, since most fertilizers require petroleum or natural gas to manufacture. Although the main fossil fuel input for fertilizer comes from natural gas to generate hydrogen for the Haber–Bosch process (see: Ammonia production), natural gas has its own supply problems similar to those for oil. Because natural gas can substitute for petroleum in some uses (for example, natural gas liquids and electricity generation), increasing prices for petroleum lead to increasing prices for natural gas, and thus for fertilizer.
Costs for fertilizer raw materials other than oil, such as potash, have been increasing as increased production of staples increases demand. This is causing a boom (with associated volatility) in agriculture stocks.
The major IFPRI ( International Food Policy Research Institute) Report launched in February 2011 stated that the causes of the 2008 global food crisis were similar to that of the 1972–1974 food crisis, in that the 1970s energy crisis was the major driver, as well as the shock to cereal demand (from biofuels this time), low interest rates, devaluation of the dollar, declining stocks, and some adverse weather conditions. Unfortunately the IFPRI states that such shocks are likely to recur with several shocks in the future; compounded by a long history of neglecting agricultural investments.
Declining world food stockpiles
In the past, nations tended to keep more sizable food stockpiles, but more recently, due to a faster pace of food growth and ease of importation, less emphasis is placed on high stockpiles. For example, in February 2008 wheat stockpiles hit a 60-year low in the United States (see also 2008 global rice crisis). Stocks are often calculated as a residual between production and consumption, but it becomes difficult to discriminate between a de-stocking policy choices of individual countries and a deficit between production and consumption.
Financial speculation
Destabilizing influences, including indiscriminate lending and real estate speculation, led to a crisis in January 2008 and eroded investment in food commodities.
Foreign investment drives productivity improvements, and other gains for farmers.
Commodity index funds
Goldman Sachs' entry into the commodities market via the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index has been implicated by some in the 2007–2008 world food price crisis. In a 2010 article in Harper's magazine, Frederick Kaufman accused Goldman Sachs of profiting while many people went hungry or even starved. He argued that Goldman's large purchases of long-options on wheat futures created a demand shock in the wheat market, which disturbed the normal relationship between supply and demand and price levels. He argues that the result was a 'contango' wheat market on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which caused prices of wheat to rise much higher than normal, defeating the purpose of the exchanges (price stabilization) in the first place. however, a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – using data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – showed tracking funds (of which Goldman Sachs Commodity Index was one) did not cause the bubble. For example, the report points out that even commodities without futures markets also saw price rises during the period. Some commodities without futures markets saw their prices rise as a consequence of the rising prices of commodities with futures markets: the World Development Movement (WDM, now Global Justice Now) stated there was strong evidence that the rising price of wheat caused the price of rice to subsequently rise as well.
Effects of trade liberalization
Some theorists, such as Martin Khor of the Third World Network, point out that many developing nations have gone from being food independent to being net food importing economies since the 1970s and 1980s International Monetary Fund (and later the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Agriculture) free market economics directives to debtor nations. In opening developing countries to developed world food imports subsidised by Western governments, developing nations can become more dependent upon food imports if local agriculture does not improve.
While developed countries pressured the developing world to abolish subsidies in the interest of trade liberalization, rich countries largely kept subsidies in place for their own farmers. United States government subsidies for 2008 pushed production toward biofuel rather than food.
Effects of food for fuel
One systemic cause for the price rise is held to be the diversion of food crops (maize in particular) for making first-generation biofuels. An estimated 100 million tons of grain per year are being redirected from food to fuel. (Total worldwide grain production for 2007 was just over 2000 million tons.) As farmers devoted larger parts of their crops to fuel production than in previous years, land and resources available for food production were reduced correspondingly.
This has resulted in less food available for human consumption, especially in developing and least developed countries, where a family's daily allowances for food purchases are extremely limited. The crisis can be seen, in a sense, to dichotomize rich and poor nations, since, for example, filling a tank of an average car with biofuel, amounts to as much maize (Africa's principal food staple) as an African person consumes in an entire year.
Brazil, the world's second largest producer of ethanol after the US, is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy and its government claims Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol industry has not contributed to the 2008 food crises. A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008 concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices", and also stated that "Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher". An economic assessment published in July 2008 by the OECD disagrees with the World Bank report regarding the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, finding that the effect of biofuels on food prices are much smaller.
A report released by Oxfam ( Oxford Committee for Famine Relief)in June 2008 criticized biofuel policies of rich countries and concluded that, of all biofuels available in the market, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is "far from perfect" but it is the most favorable biofuel in the world in term of cost and GHG balance. The report discusses some existing problems and potential risks and asks the Brazilian government for caution to avoid jeopardizing its environmental and social sustainability. The report also says that: "Rich countries spent up to $15 billion last year supporting biofuels while blocking cheaper Brazilian ethanol, which is far less damaging for global food security." (See Ethanol fuel in Brazil)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the rise in food prices is due to poor agricultural policies and changing eating habits in developing nations, not biofuels as some critics claim. On 29 April 2008, US President George W. Bush declared during a press conference that "85 percent of the world's food prices are caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices", and recognized that "15 percent has been caused by ethanol". On 4 July 2008, The Guardian reported that a leaked World Bank report estimated the rise in food prices caused by biofuels to be 75%. This report was officially released in July 2008.