|
|
April 30, 2009
More on Origin of Swine Flu$BlogItemTitle$>
h/t to Fair Food Fight for this one. In a Q&A with ScienceInsider, the CDC's chief virologist Ruben Donis confirms what Columbia researchers declared: the current H1N1 swine flu virus is "all swine" in origin, the human and avian components present in the current virus date to the 1998 swine flu outbreak and that this is NOT a recent triple reassortment of swine/human/avian as has been reported: Q: How does it tie to the current outbreak?
R.D.: Where does all this talk about avian and human genes come from? I was describing a fully swine virus. For [the] last 10 years, this has been a fully swine virus. Previous to that was the the 1998 swine flu outbreak when there WAS a triple reassortment: Q: So where are avian and human sequences?
R.D.: We have to step back [to] 10 years ago. In 1998, actually, Chris Olsen is one of the first that saw it, and we saw the same in a virus from Nebraska and Richard Webby and Robert Webster in Memphis saw it, too. There were unprecedented outbreaks of influenza in the swine population. It was an H3. Significantly, Donis, at least, has NOT absolved the Smithfield facility in Veracruz, Mexico as a possible source: Q: What do you think about the pig farm in Veracruz?
R.D.: I don't know the details. They said they had a huge operation and the workers were not getting sick; that's what the company claims. The only suspicious thing in that story is this is the largest farm in Mexico. The fact that the index case also is from the area makes it interesting Smithfield isn't off the hook quite yet. So says the CDC. [ Update:] The AP agrees. It's swine flu. Although, Michael Shaw of the CDC clearly didn't get the memo: "We have no idea where it came from... Everybody's calling it swine flu, but the better term is 'swine-like.' It's like viruses we have seen in pigs, it's not something we know was in pigs." Um, Mike? Read. My. Blog. It's really is swine flu -- DNA doesn't lie. People do, though. Labels: farming, health
It's the Burps, Stupid!$BlogItemTitle$>
I'm sitting here at Princeton's conference " Feeding a Hot and Hungry Planet" which, so far, seems to be surprisingly friendly to biotech and conventional ag "yielding" us out of our troubles. More on that later. Right now, Henning Steinfeld of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization is speaking on livestock production. He made the point that more than 90% of livestock GHG emissions are from the BURPS not the FARTS. It's a devastating development for bloggers (no more "Cow Fart" headlines) but still good to know. It's this kind of groundbreaking (or is that wind-breaking) reporting we're known for here at Beyond Green. Labels: climate, farming
Good-bye, Swine Flu! Hello, H1N1 influenza A!$BlogItemTitle$>
First it was unnamed "officials [who] appeared to go out of their way... to not call the strain 'swine flu'" earlier this week. [ Update:] Then La Vida Locavore caught Tom Vilsack in the act. Next Obama did it last night. And today it's the World Health Organization's turn: The World Health Organization announced Thursday it will would stop using the term "swine flu" to avoid confusion over the danger posed by pigs. The policy shift came a day after Egypt began slaughtering thousands of pigs in a misguided effort to prevent swine flu. WHO spokesman Dick Thompson said the agriculture industry and the U.N. food agency had expressed concerns that the term "swine flu" was misleading consumers and needlessly causing countries to ban pork products and order the slaughter of pigs. "Rather than calling this swine flu ... we're going to stick with the technical scientific name H1N1 influenza A," Thompson said. Big Pork is good. It's very, very good. They managed this trick in a little over 48 hours. They will tell you that the term "swine flu" is inaccurate because it's not the pigs that are sick. Of course, the pigs were sick at one point -- this was after all a virus THAT ORIGINATED IN PIGS and has now infected us. There. I said it. Photo by Just Chaos used under CC licenseLabels: farming, health, politics
April 29, 2009
BREAKING: Flu May Be 100% Swine$BlogItemTitle$>
This intriguing notice posted to the International Society for Infectious Diseases by Columbia University researchers suggests that the current swine flu outbreak may be a "reassortment" (i.e. rearrangement) of existing swine flu viruses and not a swine, avian, and human influenza combo: The preliminary analysis using all the sequences in public databases (NCBI) suggests that all segments are of swine origin. NA and MP seem related to Asian/European swine and the rest to North American swine (H1N2 and H3N2 swine viruses isolated since 1998). There is also interesting substratification between these groups, suggesting a multiple reassortment.
We are puzzled about sources of information that affirm that the virus is a reassortment of avian, human and swine viruses. It is true that the H3N2 swine virus from 1998 and 1999 is a triple reassortant, but all the related isolates are found since then in swine. We'll see if this analysis holds up and it certainly doesn't guarantee that the outbreak will be any easier to contain, but it does suggest that the current flu -- at the moment -- is not the triple-threat that it was reported to be. Stay tuned... Labels: health
April 28, 2009
Sen. Arlen Specter - Democrat!$BlogItemTitle$>
Former GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, in the face of polls that had him 20 points behind a conservative challenger, is now the newest Democratic member of the US Senate. This is significant for all sorts of reasons, not least of which he would be the 60th (and filibuster-proof) vote. As for us green-minded folk, with climate change legislation subject to filibuster, having Specter a Democrat suddenly makes the possibility of passage more than a pipe dream. While you could certainly argue that Specter won't vote for cap-and-trade even as a Democrat (especially with coal-producing Pennsylvania as his constituency), you can hope he displays the passion of the newly converted, as past party-switchers often have. As Matt Yglesias summed up the question, "Will he vote like a northeastern Democrat, or will he vote like Ben Nelson?" The good news: Pennsylvania is no Nebraska. With Dem Governor Ed Rendell and Dem Sen. Bob Casey breathing down his neck (and with the need to prove his chops to his new Democratic voters) Arlen has every reason to walk the Democratic walk. [ Updated 4:45pm]: Dave Roberts at Grist digs into the climate legislation implications of Specter's jump. Nutshell: He'll still vote against. I think that underplays the windblown nature of Sen. Specter. Right now, it's true that he can't be considered a supporter of something like the House climate legislation. On the other hand, as Dave points out, a need to tack left to fend off a Democratic primary challenge is always a possibility. But his vote will also depend on just how lucrative to the carbon-heavy states the Dems make the climate bill. Predominantly, this is about getting Midwestern Dems on board, but the calculus is the same for PA. If they focus investment and/or tax rebates in a particularly attractive way on coal-dependent states, I don't think it would be beyond Arlen to flip-flop and support cloture (at a minimum). Labels: climate, local, politics
Change is Good!$BlogItemTitle$>
Well, you might have noticed a few changes around here. I want to thank Kim Raznov Coon and Skip Coon (co-op members, natch -- you really all should join a food co-op. The benefits abound!) of the web shop Editundo for their fantastic work on this redesign. I'm really pleased with it and I hope you all are as well. That said, as with any new toy, please take it for a spin and let me know in comments of any bugs you come across.
April 23, 2009
Ag Subsidies are Popular Part Deux$BlogItemTitle$>
I had a back and forth and back with Matt Yglesias recently on the question of whether or not Americans support farm subsidies. At the time, all we had to debate was a single question from a single Pew poll -- which indicated that Americans like farm subsidies. But despite the merits of either argument, I just didn't buy that you could determine anything from a single, vaguely worded question: I'm sure you could easily craft a set of survey questions that teased out how voters felt about the current subsidy regime. They might not seem nearly so supportive of the particulars, even if they like the general idea. And lo and behold, along comes World Public Opinion to help fill in some of the blanks. It turns out that, as you might expect, Americans hold a fairly nuanced view on farm subsidies (and it doesn't seem to matter whether poll-takers lived in a farm state or not). They don't support them for large farm businesses but they do support them for small farms. This is, as the survey points out, ironic since small farmers currently receive little to no subsidies. Significantly, Americans generally oppose the new (yes, new) subsidy system: Americans are also at odds with the way that farm subsidies are provided. Most subsidies are provided on a regular annual basis, independent of whether it was a good year or a bad year for the farmer. However only minorities of Americans think that subsidies should be provided on a regular annual basis, whether for small farms (37%) or large farms (15%). The current system -- finalized in the 1996 Farm Bill -- removed all commodity price supports, ended the use of a federal grain reserve to control supply (we still technically have one but since 1996 it can't be used to control grain supply) and allows farmers to receive payments even during good times. This new "deregulated" farm subsidy system -- having unleashed market forces back into agriculture, an area where thousands of years of experience taught us it didn't belong -- has encouraged overproduction of commodities like corn and depressed prices far below farmers' costs of production. And like the financial system which was also deregulated into chaos, it desperately needs re-regulation. If you don't believe me, just ask the dairy farmers. All this is why one of Michael Pollan's suggested "fixes" for the food system involves establishing a strategic grain reserve (or more precisely allowing the current reserve to once again control supply). Sadly, the survey didn't get to some of the meatier aspects of the system, such as the fact that only a handful of commodities are eligible for subsidies while fruits and vegetables by and large are not. This just goes to show that the more you poll / inform people on this issue, the more likely you are to see hostility to the system we've got. None of that makes reforming the system any easier. But the more light we shine on a system that has been captured by a set of narrow interests, the easier it will be to build the coalitions we need to fight it. Charts by WorldPublicOpinon.orgLabels: farming, food, politics
April 21, 2009
Phthalates Make Us Fat[ter]$BlogItemTitle$>
The dangers of phthalates (an ingredient in some plastics) as an endocrine disruptor are well-known. Now we discover, via a study conducted by Mt. Sinai Hospital, that they may in fact play a role in the childhood obesity epidemic. Ezra Klein however is unimpressed: Thirty years ago, kids might have been sedentary and eating lots of crappy food, but they were eating less of it than they are now. Same for adults. According to CDC data, between 1971 and 2000, obesity in the United States shot from 14.9% to 30.1%. The main reason is simple enough: Average calorie consumption increased. Men went from 2,450 calories to 2,618 calories. Over the course of a year, that's an increase in 61,320 calories. The trends were even more striking for women: an average intake of 1,542 calories became 1,877 calories. That's 122,275 extra calories per year. (The gender difference here surprises me, incidentally.) Another study, this one from the USDA, estimated that "average daily calorie consumption in 2000 was 12 percent, or roughly 300 calories, above the 1985 level." This, they estimated, was the prime factor behind America's soaring rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. But Mrs. Beyond Green, a political scientist who studies public health issues, thinks Ezra is too quick to dismiss the potential role of phthalates. She points out that: It may seem like calories in-calories out is the obvious, clear answer. But I think we actually don't understand the hormonal regulation of metabolic functions all that well, and so it seems PLAUSIBLE that the obvious answer may actually be wrong. It may be that eating a lot more calories makes us fatter, but that absent any other disruptions to the metabolic system, most people would eventually adjust to the new calorie load without becoming morbidly obese -- just a little bit fat. Enter phthalates (and whatever other junk is out there). It disrupts something in the metabolic balance and causes us to be unable to adjust to the new calorie load. One thing that's worth noting in the Mt. Sinai study is that we don't know the calorie intakes of those kids. It could be that high exposure to phthalates (and these kids had much higher than average levels of phthlataes present in their urine) causes obesity at caloric intake levels that might only be slightly above normal. Ezra does, of course, agree this should be studied further, but thinks the focus needs to remain on diet. At the same time, he also points out, dealing with the diabetes epidemic may be beyond the capacity of our (or any) health system: [N]o one knows how you provide affordable medical services to a population where a solid quarter of the folks have type II diabetes. In fact, you probably can't do it. But that's where the trends are headed. Given the threat that diabetes represents to the system (not to mention to our health), it seems like even marginal contributors should be quickly addressed. Phthalates (along with their evil plasticizing brethren) may well have turned what might have been a manageable problem into an existential crisis. Photo by Steve Wampler used under a CC licenseLabels: health, pollution
April 20, 2009
Vilsack Staffing Up$BlogItemTitle$>
There have been a number of new USDA hires announced in the last few days -- the undersecretary in charge of nutrition programs and his deputy, as well as the head of the USDA research service. Now comes word that USDA Sec'y Tom Vilsack has named Robert Bonnie of the Environmental Defense Fund as his Senior Advisor for Environment and Climate. Each member of this group of appointments has come with varying amounts of controversy attached and Bonnie will likely be no different. Bonnie runs EDF's environmental markets programs and was also EDF's point person for US Farm Bill negotiations. It's worth noting that the EDF has been accused by some environmentalists of being overly cozy with its corporate partners -- Joe Romm hit EDF hard over its involvement with a group of large companies and enviro groups who put out a "moderate" cap-and-trade proposal. Meanwhile, the EDF's market-based incentives programs have been singled out as particularly problematic by some. On the other hand, the fact that Vilsack's top environmental advisor comes from one of America's pre-eminent green groups is noteworthy to say the least. Vilsack along with President Obama have made it clear they are committed to creating a market in so-called ecological services and the announcement of Bonnie's appointment stresses his experience in that area: Bonnie is a leading national expert on the use of markets as a means to reward stewardship on farms, ranches and forest lands, including carbon crediting and conservation banking for endangered species. We can expect to see continued, serious movement in that area. Also, Bonnie's direct involvement with the USDA's conservation programs through his work on the 2008 Farm Bill suggests a real commitment at the Obama USDA to what has been a program whose potential for bringing change has far outstripped its funding. Labels: climate, farming, politics
No One Cares about the Environment$BlogItemTitle$>
Elizabeth Kolbert is bummed. In an essay in the current issue of the New Yorker, she decries the government's collective shrug when faced with the looming catastrophe of climate change. On the one hand, "[t]o do something meaningful about global warming will require legislation even more far-reaching than the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act" while on the other "there are plenty of reasons to wonder whether serious steps to reduce carbon emissions will be taken this year or, indeed, ever." Making matters worse, Americans don't quite seem ready to take to the streets over climate change: Three and a half decades ago, when the nation's key environmental laws were approved, politicians were responding to the mood of the country. Today, the situation is largely reversed. Polls show that voters regard the environment in general, and climate change in particular, as, at best, middling concerns. In a recent survey, the Pew Research Center asked Americans about their priorities for Congress and the new President. "Dealing with global warming" ranked at the bottom of a list of twenty choices, far below "strengthening the nation's economy" and "reducing health-care costs," and even below dealing with unspecified "global trade issues." The recession seems to have dampened the nation's enthusiasm for any measure that could affect -- or, perhaps just as important, be portrayed as affecting -- people's pocketbooks. Last month, when Gallup asked Americans whether "protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth," only forty-two per cent said yes. This was the lowest proportion in the twenty-five years since the firm started asking the question. Results like these do not make action on climate change any less imperative. But -- especially since opponents can be counted on to spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying -- they do make it that much less likely. Climate change is turning out to be too diffuse a threat to mobilize around (for many Americans anyway). On top of that, many of the solutions involve changing the way we live -- never a popular thing to advocate for. During the Cold War, one of the main public (if not outright propagandistic) justifications for our conflict with the Soviet Union was "to protect the American way of life." To fight climate change, that's exactly what we can't do. Meanwhile, I don't know if a poll question that asks about "dealing with climate change" quite captures the immediacy of the crisis. It also presumes that the poll-taker knows what it means to "deal" with climate change. If questions were posed a bit differently, such as asking, "Should the government take action to prevent catastrophic crop failures" or "act against the threatened destruction of coastal cities" you just might get a more positive response. Of course, you'd also be accused of fear-mongering by the other side (to which I would respond that it takes one to know one). In the end, it's all a question of how hard President Obama is going to push to pass a climate bill. If he goes all out, both in his salesmanship to the American people as well as to Congress, it's clear that you can't write it off the possibility of success. Almost every speech Obama has given includes references to climate change and how addressing it is fundamental to the future of the country and the economy. He's marking Earth Day in Iowa and will undoubtedly repeat those themes in his speech. My hope is that in his effort to get climate change legislation passed we'll see the same pattern we've been seeing with him all along -- a weak start followed by a strong, and commanding, finish. One thing's for sure, the stakes couldn't be higher. If the public starts to understand that, everything changes. Photo by Vineus used under a CC licenseLabels: climate, politics
April 16, 2009
Sorry, Vegas$BlogItemTitle$>
Just to close the loop on the riveting debate over whether or not Las Vegas will get high speed rail: the answer is no. Obama spoke on HSR today and, according to Matt Yglesias, in an accompanying press release listed the rail corridors eligible for funding: —California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego) —Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC) —South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock) —Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta) —Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,) —Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami) —Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville) —Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh) —Empire Corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo) —Northern New England Corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany) Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor (Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, New Haven, Providence, Boston) to compete for funds for improvements to the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service, and for establishment and upgrades to passenger rail services in other parts of the country.
You mean all that GOP noise over Sen. Harry Reid inserting an $8 billion earmark in the stimulus for HSR to Vegas was utter balderdash? How unexpected. Labels: politics, transport
April 14, 2009
Schools Don't Need Vending Machines, They Just Need Money$BlogItemTitle$>
It's a good thing that NYC is putting explicit calorie limits on vending machine products in schools. According to the New York Post (via Atlantic_Food): In an aggressive attempt to combat the growing obesity epidemic, the Department of Education is setting strict guidelines for drinks sold in schools -- with a maximum of 10 calories per 8-ounce drink in elementary and middle schools and 25 calories per 8-ounce drink in high schools.
Under the new rules, schools will also expel juices and other beverages with artificial colors or flavors -- including some of those sold by the current drinks vendor, Snapple, under its expiring $40 million contract. It's not just syrupy sweet beverages getting the boot. Snack-vending machines at the city's schools will also face tough new health restrictions. Treats must be no more than 200 calories, have less than 200 mg. of sodium and less than 10 percent saturated fat. I'm all for restrictions like that (especially regarding artificial flavors and colors being that they're poisons), but let's not delude ourselves. The only reason we have to fight battles to keep junk food out of schools is because we simply refuse to adequately fund our schools. The false dilemma is presented in the article: In addition to helping kids battle bulge, officials also want to expand education coffers. The Snapple deal gave the city's fitness and sports programs an extra $28 million through fiscal year 2008.
I think those phrases should be reversed. FIRST came the decision to raise money by giving junk food snack and beverage companies access to our kids in school. THEN came the need to create whole bureaucratic regimes to control the crap these companies were trying to feed students. This problem has a simple solution -- ban all vending machines from schools and increase funding to make up for the lost revenue. There is nothing hard about this. Or, rather, there is if as a society 1) we refuse to take responsibility for the costs of educating our children and 2) we insist on handing over our nutrition to corporations in the business of making food-like products rather than food. We have, in essence, made Coca-Cola, Pepsi/Frito-Lay and all the rest co-financiers of our educational system. Why are we now surprised that our kids are so fat? [Update:] And as this article in the Des Moines Register suggests, the soft drink companies are bringing their A Game to this fight (at the national level) in the form of Susan Neely, who helped create Harry and Louise.
Photo by Lower Columbia College used under a CC licenseLabels: health, politics
April 12, 2009
Me Talking$BlogItemTitle$>
Here's what I had to say on The Jeff Farias Show about ethanol, the food movement and the politics of ag policy -- Listen to the mp3
April 10, 2009
Adventures in the FUD-osphere$BlogItemTitle$>
FDR must have been talking about the Internet when he famously said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Everywhere you turn there is another study raising some new hazard and questioning some baseline assumption about how our society lives, eats or fuels itself. And then in short order, another study appears questioning the conclusions of the first -- leaving us all full of nothing but FUD. FUD, of course, stands for the bedrock principles of a depressingly large segment of corporations (and politicians) -- Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. The concept may go back as far as the 1920s, but it was Microsoft (inspired by IBM) that institutionalized it as a corporate practice. FUD was (and to some extent is) a strategy designed to maintain Microsoft's hold over its customers. "Sure," Microsoft sales reps would say, "You could switch to [Apple/Linux/Lotus Notes] but here's what will happen..." They would then shower wavering customers with horror stories about the competitor’s reliability, compatibility, even viability as a company. It was, as we know, very effective. What does this have to do with food and the environment? Well, in my opinion, what I like to call the FUD-osphere is now the greatest threat to any hope of victory in the fights against climate change, for public health and against unsustainable agriculture. The FUD-osphere -- that swirl of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that now permeates all media -- is made up of entities like the secretive product defense firms that companies hire to produce studies debunking negative health claims regarding their products. Fast Company did a fantastic profile of this network of Sith-lord scientists and unrepentant PR flacks who have no compunctions about tweaking their research methodologies (in this case over bisphenol-A) to generate results both favorable to industry and confusing to those trying to understand the truth. It's the product defense firms that allow the food industry to claim there isn't mercury in HFCS or that phlatates or VOCs or any other industrial chemical that might get some bad press aren't really harmful. The FUD-osphere includes doctors who perform industry-funded research to demonstrate the safety of new drugs (Vioxx, anyone?). It includes crackpot scientists and historians, like James McWilliams, who has an op-ed in the NYT in defense of factory-farmed pork (and in the past had a deeply flawed article in Slate -- debunked here -- accusing organic agriculture of responsibility for the presence of heavy metals in soil). And it certainly includes the entire global warming denier movement. Without the FUD-osphere relentlessly spewing pseudo-science and flawed resesarch, we wouldn't need Dave Roberts to categorize and debunk an exhaustive list of Climate Myths. It's useful to have that kind of thing handy when you see a leader of the denier movement, Marc Morano, profiled in the NYT. In fact, to read the article is to understand how many journalists are the FUD-osphere's true, and pernicious, partners in crime. Driven by a desire for conflict -- often in the form of "he said/she said" stenography -- and the contrary view, the mainstream media embraces the FUD-osphere as a crucial element to any good story. Making matters worse, the media's has adopted a twisted definition of journalistic objectivity. A journalist in a paper of record or in a national magazine will almost never directly rebut or debunk even outright lies. They will merely record the other side's objection, leaving the conclusions to be drawn by the reader. The Fox News tagline of "We Report, You Decide" perfectly encapsulates this approach. In the case of Morano, nowhere in the article is any claim he has made directly addressed. It's left to "environmental advocates and bloggers" to provide a critique, which gives the reader not objective facts, but two sides of a coin. Meanwhile, politicians -- Republicans in particular -- are masters of this game. Only those well-versed in the techniques of FUD could pull off a maneuver like successfully promulgating the claim that Obama is cutting overall defense spending when he's really raising it. You could almost say that at this point the GOP is the Party of FUD -- how else to interpret the Bush administration's famous assertion that they can "make their own reality." Even the good guys can enter the FUD-osphere. The scare emails surrounding H.R. 875, one of the food safety bill before Congress, is a perfect example. No matter how many times the erroneous claims that this bill will "destroy farmers markets" or "end organic agriculture" are debunked, the emails, often from groups that support local, organic food, keep coming. In the FUD-osphere, as in Newtonian physics, every action as an equal and opposite reaction. In physics that phenomenon demonstrates the power of inertia. In society, it's the power of the status quo. In an environment where every time you yell "Yes," someone else yells "No" even louder, it's awfully hard to make any headway, rhetorical or otherwise. Raising the decibel level by yelling louder clearly isn't the answer. Unfortunately, I don't know what is. Labels: climate, health, politics
April 9, 2009
Big Media Me$BlogItemTitle$>
If you're a glutton for punishment, you can listen to me on my talk radio debut. If all goes to plan, I'll be on the Jeff Farias Show tonight at 8pm EDT. You can listen in at: http://www.thejefffariasshow.com/
Bully for the CBO$BlogItemTitle$>
The Congressional Budget Office just released a paper looking critically at the relationship between ethanol, food prices and carbon emissions. But it gets better. The CBO blogged about it! Most ethanol in the United States is produced from domestically grown corn, and the rapid rise in the fuel's production and usage means that roughly one-quarter of all corn grown in the U.S. (nearly 3 billion bushels) is now used to produce ethanol. The demand for corn for ethanol production has exerted upward pressure on corn prices and on food prices in general. CBO estimates that the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008. In turn, increases in food prices will boost federal spending for mandatory nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) and the school lunch program by an estimated $600 million to $900 million in fiscal year 2009. The Special Supplemental Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children--better known as WIC--is a discretionary program that provides a specific basket of goods to recipients rather than a set cash benefit, so changes in food prices in 2008 had an immediate impact on costs for the program. Under the assumption that the effects are much the same, increased production of ethanol would have added less than $75 million in fiscal year 2008 to the cost of serving the same number of WIC participants as in 2007. Last year the use of ethanol reduced gasoline usage in the United States by about 4 percent and greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector by less than 1 percent. The future impact of ethanol on greenhouse-gas emissions is unclear. Research suggests that in the short run, the production, distribution, and consumption of ethanol will create about 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the equivalent processes for gasoline. In the long run, if increases in the production of ethanol led to a large amount of forests or grasslands being converted into new cropland, those changes in land use could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions--because forests and grasslands naturally absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than cropland absorbs. In the future, the use of cellulosic ethanol, which is made from wood, grasses, and agricultural plant wastes rather than corn, might reduce greenhouse-gas emissions more substantially, but current technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol are not yet commercially viable.
Apologies for the long quote, but when bureaucrats speak with such venom, it's hard to resist. Okay, maybe it only reads as venomous if you're an ethanol lobbyist or House Ag Chair Rep. Collin Peterson. I especially liked the direct linkage between ethanol's effects on food prices and the increased cost to the government via the school lunch program. And hearing a government agency expressing real concern over land-use issues surrounding ethanol is music to my ears. Even the future value of cellulosic ethanol is questioned. It's all good. Bonus: Once you start pitting interest groups against each other (i.e. nutrition vs. ethanol), you have a much better chance of finding the political will to attack wasteful programs. This a pretty loud clarion call that the end is nigh for corn ethanol's Congressional free pass.
Labels: carbon, energy, farming, politics
April 7, 2009
What's Bad for the Goose$BlogItemTitle$>
 I don't have much to add to the debate going on at La Vida Locavore over foie gras. Jill Richardson kicked things off by speculating on the possibility of "humane" foie gras, which is made by force-feeding geese. Another diarist, who writes under the name Asinus Asinum Fricat, squashed that speculation like a bug: Imagine this: someone grabs you by the throat, pries open your mouth wide, inserts a 10 inch lead pipe (or plastic, doesn't matter, same pain level) deep into your gullet, scarring your esophagus in the process, a button is pressed and one whole kilogram of pap made with corn boiled with fat (to facilitate ingestion) is mechanically delivered into your stomach! That's life for unlucky geese or ducks, done at least three times a day, quite often five or six times. The liver grows up to ten times its normal size in a matter of weeks. Force-feeding begins when the ducks or geese are just three months old. For nearly a month large deposits of fat in the liver are made, thereby producing the buttery consistency sought by the producers. Oh, and he also points out that the stuff might give you Alzheimer's to boot. I think perhaps there comes a time when we can look at a particular food-related practice and declare that its moment has passed. And gavage -- as the force-feeding technique is called (and which dates back to ancient Egypt if not before) -- definitely qualifies. I have eaten foie gras several times in my life. But it's certainly something I can live without. And so, I'm quite sure, can the geese. Photo by Jim Linwood used under a CC licenseLabels: food, health
April 2, 2009
Ag and the Climate Bill$BlogItemTitle$>
I bet you're all on the edge of your seats wondering how the ag sector fared in the Waxman/Markey climate bill. Well, Meredith Niles of the Center for Food Safety waded through it and announces that it's a good news/bad news situation. First the good news: The bill would require emissions standards for heavy duty nonroad equipment including tractors, combines and other heavy agricultural machinery. As well, nearly every food processing industry would be included under the cap if they produced above the threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalents a year. This would include everything from animal slaughter facilities to wet corn milling and snack food processing plants. In the Green Jobs section, the bill specifically notes the importance of establishing education and training programs for sustainable agriculture and farming and sustainable culinary practices. And, the bill includes fantastic initiatives to establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Council, which would examine the broad impacts of climate change on a variety of areas including agriculture. I would also note that synthetic pesticide and fertilizer production (along with diesel fuel production) would fall under capped sectors. All of that addresses huge components of industrial ag's carbon footprint. But as for agricultural activities that directly cause emissions, especially of -- you know where I'm going -- methane? Well, you can guess: Under the proposed legislation the agricultural sector is explicitly exempted under the definition of "capped sector"... Unfortunately, the bill goes one step farther and makes additional exemptions under the uncapped sector section as well, where sources of emissions will be listed and then, in several years, formed into standards and promulgated into regulation. The bill specifically designates that sources of methane emissions be a separate category of this uncapped sources list, but then explicitly exempts enteric fermentation (i.e. livestock burps and farts) from being included on this list. Enteric fermentation is literally the largest source of methane emissions in the entire country. This means that not only are livestock left out of this bill, but the largest source of methane emissions would be left out of all future regulations for methane emissions in the United States from the uncapped sector. In fairness, this is similar to what the EPA did in its recently announced national carbon inventory i.e. it won't count enteric fermentation. The EPA, however, explicitly included manure management at factory farms -- itself a major source of methane. Waxman/Markey doesn't mention it. Niles assumes that leaves manure exempt but I'm not so sure. My reading would be that if you're not named as exempt, you're in. However, it's disconcerting that such a major source of methane doesn't get listed in some "including the following" type of clause. I imagine there was a fair bit of wrangling going on. Still, I don't think you'd say agriculture got a free pass -- there are several other ag-related methane sources (such as rice farming) that, while unmentioned in the bill, are also not specifically exempted from future regulation. We're clearly not ready as a society to face explicit limitations on meat production and this bill acknowledges it. That said, I wonder what factory farms will look like under a capped system, i.e. when much of the external costs related to raising livestock are incorporated. Meat (especially beef) certainly won't seem quite so cheap anymore. Will that, I wonder, be enough? Photo by JenWaller used under a CC licenseLabels: carbon, climate, farming, food, politics
|
 |
|
|
|