Time Magazine has picked up on the raw milk movement that has been building among urban consumers. One woman drives two hours to upstate New York each month to pick up a supply of raw milk. Another has bought shares in a dairy farm to insure her raw milk take. "In Manhattan," the magazine reports, "some raw-milk drinkers hire a mule to bring the white stuff to an agreed-upon location in the city, where they stock up during a strictly enforced two-hour window."

The Food and Drug Administration since 1987 has required all milk sold across state lines to be pasteurized. Only six states allow raw milk to be sold at stores while 28 allow sales of raw milk straight off the farm. This is not meeting the demands of those who believe that regularly drinking raw milk can relieve asthma and eczema.

All the health experts contend drinking raw milk is not the greatest of ideas. But people want it and dairy farmers are finding it a lucrative product.

A two and a half year study of "industrial farm animal production" by a special commission has concluded that while "industrial farm animal production has benefits, it brings with it growing concerns for public health, the environment, animal welfare, and impacts on rural communities." The report, sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public, finds that the costs of large scale animal production are "human illnesses caused by drug resistant bacterial associated with the rampant use of antibiotics on feedlots and the degradation of land, water and air quality caused by animal waste too intensely concentrated to be neutralized by natural processes," according to the Washington Post.

The commission concluded: "Research consistently shows that the social and economic well-being of rural communities benefits from large numbers of farmers rather than fewer farms that produce increased volumes. In rural communities where fewer, larger farms have replaced smaller, locally owned farms, residents have experienced lower family income, higher poverty rates, lower retail sales, reduced housing quality, and persistent low wages for farm workers."

The global food crisis is leading countries to rethink their bans on genetically modified seed, hoping the new products will increase crop yields.

The global food crisis has been on the front page of the New York Times the last two days. Friday, the Times continues its of the turmoil caused by global food shortages. "That anger is palpable across the globe," writes Marc Lacey. "The food crisis is not only being felt among the poor but is also eroding the gains of the working and middle classes, sowing volatile levels of discontent and putting new pressures on fragile governments."

The day before, the Times explained one part of the problem: a six year drought in Australia. Dry weather has forced rice mills in Australia to shutter. Good charts here and a great slide show of how Australian producers are coping with the dry weather that may be caused by global warming. (See photo above.)

The drought has spurred incredible innovation among Australian ranchers and farmers. "The flexibility of farmers and ranchers here has persuaded some climate experts that, particularly in developed countries, the effects of climate change may be mitigated, if not completely avoided," the Times reported. “I’m not as pessimistic as most people,” said Will Steffen, the director of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at Australian National University. “Farmers are learning how to do things differently.”

Yes, food prices worldwide are rising and basic foods are in short supply. But it's hard to put all the blame for riots in Haiti and shortages in India on corn ethanol in the U.S.