Tag Archives: food

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Leave a reply

The USDA has a new version of Dietary Guidelines for Americans out. Sorry, TLDR, but the Harvard School of Public Health has a handy summary (along with some criticism). Basically, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains will never go out of style. Sugar will never be in style again.

I think people of my generation and older are still confused about fat. The guidelines say plant-based oils are pretty much A-OK as long as you stay within your calorie limits, but still recommend “lean meats and poultry”, “low fat dairy”, and limiting saturated fat. First, I am confused whether saturated fat is bad for everyone, even those of us with low cholesterol, or whether the USDA assumes we are too stupid to understand nuances and a blanket statement like this will save lives overall (if so, they’re probably right.) Harvard also criticizes USDA for not discouraging processed meat like bacon and ham (but bacon is so good…well, better to think of it as an occasional treat like a candy bar).

Men should limit alcoholic drinks to “no more than two” and women to one (sorry, ladies). By the way, a(n imperial, 16 ounce) pint of 7% alcohol craft beer is not a drink, it is actually almost two. Whereas 1.5 ounces of 40% alcohol liquor is one drink and actually easier to control. I love those craft beers though. Oh, and don’t touch soda – it’s death in a glass.

But you can have 2-3 cups of (black) coffee a day, with no known negative effects.

You can have more salt than I thought (2300 mg/day) if you don’t have any particular risk factors.

Harvard also points out that the science behind the nutritional benefits of all that meat and dairy is not all that strong, while the science behind the environmental risks is strong, and clear, and not mentioned in these guidelines.

Well, this is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Not the department of get your ass off the couch, go for a jog, and then eat some vegetables. We have an Environmental Protection Agency, but first of all it is not cabinet level, and second of all they don’t regulate agriculture. Nobody regulates the environmental impacts of agriculture! And the meat, sugar, corn (etc.) and food processing industries are massive, have enormously deep pockets, and use them to buy politicians who will keep it this way indefinitely.

vertical farming

Leave a reply

Forbes has an article on vertical farming under lights, claiming that a 2-acre vertical farm can replace a 750 acre outdoor farm and use 95% less water. It doesn’t talk about pollution, but in theory it should be relatively easy to collect and recycle/compost/digest/burn solid waste, and collect and treat wastewater, from a farm like this. I know LED lights are efficient, but you do have to produce enough energy to replace the sunlight that would have fallen on 750 acres of the Earth, plus some extra because the system is not perfectly efficient, and you have to produce fertilizer of some sort. These things will have an ecological footprint. On the other hand, if this is in an urban population center, you potentially have a lot of waste streams you might be able to recover energy and nutrients from. Then you also have 748 acres of land somewhere that you can theoretically reforest or re-wetland. Then you might have a healthy fishery somewhere downstream that is no longer choked by sediment and nutrients from farm waste.

October 2020 in Review

Leave a reply

In current events, this was just the month that the fall resurgence of Covid-19 exploded in the U.S. and around the world. Just a month when a new, controversial Supreme Court justice was sworn in. Just the last month leading up to the Biden-Trump election, amid a swirl of questions about a peaceful and orderly transfer of power if the voting goes the way the polls clearly say it is going to. Just a month when my home city erupted in “unrest” for the second time this year and the National Guard rolled in. (Incidentally, Joe Biden is also here as I write this on November 1, and I wonder if the National Guard rolling in is entirely a coincidence.)

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Global ecological collapse is most likely upon us, and our attention is elsewhere. The good news is we still have enough to eat (on average – of course we don’t get it to everyone who needs it), for now.

Most hopeful story: We have almost survived another four years without a nuclear war. Awful as Covid-19 has been, we will get through it despite the current administration’s complete failure to plan, prevent, prepare, respond or manage it. There would be no such muddling through a nuclear war.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: There are at least some bright ideas on how to innovate faster and better.

what’s really going on with the food supply?

Leave a reply

The USDA, the UN, and Bloomberg say there is a “food inequality crisis…sweeping the globe”. It sounds like supplies of soybeans and wheat are down somewhat due to drought in some places (South America and Europe) and storms in others (Iowa specifically is mentioned in the article.) In this environment, prices are up, and because incomes are down due to the pandemic, poor countries and poor people are outbid and going hungry.

Of course, no specific flood, drought, or pandemic can be attributed to climate change…blah blah yada yada. Looking at the FAO Food Price Index, the current mini-spike is well below the major spikes of 2008 and 2011. Well, climate change is a long term signal embedded in a lot of short term noise, but dealing with food supply and food price issues in the short term could be a trial run for how we deal with the creeping long term problem before it is too late. The long term problem will gradually keep creeping up on us, embedded in lots of noise, and then some big event or series of events will be the straw that breaks the global food supply camel’s back. Let’s do something about it now.

What should we do? Well, I’m not an expert, but it starts with water. We need to stop overexploiting groundwater, and we probably need to think about shifting food production away from areas that rely primarily on glaciers and snowmelt, coastal areas that may experience saltwater intrusion or outright inundation, and areas expected to experience increasingly severe droughts. We need to pay attention to soil conservation. We need to pay attention to biodiversity, both to protect ecosystem services such as pollination and to make crops themselves more resilient (crops are subject to their own pandemics). We need sustainable fisheries. Maybe we need to move more production indoors under lights powered by renewable energy (or, I hate to say it, nuclear reactors). That might also help us control the nutrient pollution that is choking our coastal ecosystems. Recovering more nutrients from wastewater and farm waste might play a role. We may need to encourage people to eat more plants and less meat. Maybe we need more urban gardens and rooftop gardens and food forests. Finally, biotechnology probably has a role to play, but in my opinion we shouldn’t rely on this but should think of it as icing on the cake made of a mix of all the low-tech ingredients I mention above.

Living Planet Report

Leave a reply

This year’s Living Planet Report paints a bleak picture of ongoing ecological collapse. I think this is an organization that has some incentive to be on the bleak side of average, but still I tend to buy into the message. The alarm is sounding, but not reaching the general public or our political leaders. People just don’t understand this like they do the simplistic concept of carbon emissions, and of course even that we are failing to address in an adequate way. What’s the elevator pitch for why it matters, even for people who don’t value or have much emotional connection with nature? In a word, it’s the food, stupids.

July 2020 in Review

Leave a reply
Coronavirus certainly continues to be the main thing going on in current events globally. I just don’t have a lot of new or insightful things to say about it. Here’s some other stuff I read and thought about in July. WITH THE STUPID WORDPRESS BLOCK EDITOR, I CAN’T SEEM TO PUT A SPACE BETWEEN THESE PARAGRAPHS NO MATTER WHAT I DO. Most frightening and/or depressing story:
  • Here’s the elevator pitch for why even the most hardened skeptic should care about climate change. We are on a path to (1) lose both polar ice caps, (2) lose the Amazon rain forest, (3) lose our productive farmland, and (4) lose our coastal population centers. If all this comes to pass it will lead to mass starvation, mass refugee flows, and possibly warfare. Unlike even major crises like wars and pandemics, by the time it is obvious to everyone that something needs to be done, there will be very little that can be done.
Most hopeful story:
  • In the U.S. every week since schools and businesses shut down in March, about 85 children lived who would otherwise have died. Most of these would have died in and around motor vehicles.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:
  • The world seems to be experiencing a major drop in the fertility rate. This will lead to a decrease in the rate of population growth, changes to the size of the work force relative to the population, and eventually a decrease in the population itself.

Jeff Masters: We’re all going to die!

Leave a reply

Jeff Masters, who used to write a neat blog for Weather Underground before weather.com/IBM destroyed everything that was ever good about that site, has a dark take on climate change. He now writes on Yale Climate Connections, which is okay, but I notice that one by one my beloved RSS feeds are falling prey to neglect (there’s an RSS feed for Yale Climate Connections, which is okay, but not one for Jeff Masters’s blog specifically.)

When the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica melt, the forests of the Amazon transition to scrubland, and vast swaths of once-fertile land become inhospitable desert, there will be no climate change vaccine that will suddenly bring an end to these essentially irreversible catastrophes. Tens of millions will starve. Wars will break out over scarce resources. Hundreds of millions of climate change refugees will flee rising seas, coasts will be ravaged by stronger storms, and desert-like lands will be without the food and water needed to sustain civilization.

Jeff Masters, Yale Climate Connections

I think that’s a pretty good elevator pitch for the “why should I care?” crowd: (1) massive melting of ice sheets on both poles leading to catastrophic sea level rise, (2) loss of the Amazon rain forest, which along with the oceans maintains the mix of gases in the atmosphere that we have become accustomed to throughout human history, (3) loss of huge amounts of what used to be productive farm land, due to high temperatures and lack of water. These processes will play out slowly, maybe over decades. We are the frogs in the slowly heating up cook pot. We may see slowly rising prices for food, and we will have to clean up after increasingly frequent storms, floods, and fires. Eventually we may see absolute food shortages. These acute crises will start to affect poorer nations, and poorer people in richer nations, before others, of course. Mass migrations, civil conflicts within nation-states, and geopolitical conflicts between nation-states may break out. Throw in a few random events like earthquakes and pandemics at already vulnerable moments, and things may get dicey.

This sounds awful, and there is certainly no worldwide effort to effectively deal with it. At the same time, science, technological know-how, and financial wealth continue to increase, although they obviously are not spread equally or fairly among the world’s people. We have seen examples of effective leadership and cooperation in the past at times of crisis, and maybe these will emerge again. As Jeff Masters rightly points out though, unlike wars and pandemics, a big difference with climate change is that when it becomes obvious to absolutely everyone that something has to be done, there may be no good options left.

May 2020 in Review

Leave a reply

You can’t say that 2020 has not been interesting so far. The Covid-19 saga continued throughout May. I certainly continued to think about it, including a fun quote from The Stand, but my mind began turning to other topics.

 

Most frightening and/or depressing story:

  • Potential for long-term drought in some important food-producing regions around the globe should be ringing alarm bells. It’s a good thing that our political leaders’ crisis management skills have been tested by shorter-term, more obvious crises and they have passed with flying colors…doh!

Most hopeful story:

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:

  • There are unidentified flying objects out there. They may or may not be aliens, that has not been identified. But they are objects, they are flying, and they are unidentified.

biodiversity, food and agriculture

Leave a reply

Morally, biodiversity should matter to us just because it is. Life on Earth is special, and beautiful, and possibly unique in this universe. But it also matters because losing it could be bad for us humans. The more genetically uniform our sources of food are, the more vulnerable and less resilient they are.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization put a massive report out on this last year. The verdict? Diversity is lower than it should be, it is declining, and some things are being done but not enough things are being done to reverse the decline. Doesn’t that describe most of the thorny problems facing our planet and species at the moment? We better pay attention to food though – cleaning up after storms, fires and floods is one thing; a few million babies and old people out of billions dying prematurely is another thing; but a serious food crisis could be the one that brings our civilization to its knees.

could coronavirus lead to food shortages?

Leave a reply

The coronavirus is a worldwide tragedy, but for the moment at least, most of us seem to have a reliable supply of water, energy, and food (at least, those of us who normally have these things – some people in the world clearly do not and that is not equitable or fair in the best of times).

But could the coronavirus situation somehow lead to food shortages? Well, there are a few ways. One is if countries that normally export food decide to stop doing so, at least temporarily. This would hurt countries that import a significant amount of food – small, densely populated nations come to mind, as do populous nations in inhospitable environments like deserts. Bloomberg says there are some indications this process has started, but only on a small scale so far.

Kazakhstan, one of the world’s biggest shippers of wheat flour, banned exports of that product along with others, including carrots, sugar and potatoes. Vietnam temporarily suspended new rice export contracts. Serbia has stopped the flow of its sunflower oil and other goods, while Russia is leaving the door open to shipment bans and said it’s assessing the situation weekly.

Bloomberg

The problem would not be an absolute lack of food, but a possible lack of workers to pick specific crops at specific times. Then there could be supply chain problems as the crisis impacts truck drivers, warehouse workers, grocery store workers, etc.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization maintains a food price index, updated monthly. At the end of February, the index was a relative low indicating ample supply and smoothly functioning trade and supply chains.

So it sounds to me like the food supply may weather this particular storm unless we are unlucky enough to have major droughts, storms, floods, heat waves, etc. in key food growing regions at the same time.

When it comes to electricity, Wired says the U.S. supply is safe for the time being. One concern there is that mostly automated power plants are run by a relatively small number of highly skilled people, and if significant numbers of them were to get sick at the same time it would cause problems. Add to this the possibility of severe weather putting further strain on the system, and again we need a certain amount of luck to get through this.

Relying on luck is not the hallmark of robust, resilient, long-lasting systems.