Tomorrow is January 1st, 2012. It is also a Sunday, and I don't do blog posts on Sunday. So, I want to say Happy New Year! tonight, and tell you that I hope you have a safe and joyous celebration as we begin anew again.
A lot of people will go to bed hungry tonight, and won't really feel much like celebrating. I hope we can at least give a few fleeting thoughts to those folks who are less fortunate than those of us working on our computers and enjoying more of the good parts of a modern civilization. Let us try to make 2012 a year of hope and progress for people everywhere, even if we don't reach every hungry baby in a desperate mother's arms. Some progress is better than none.
If I still have good enough health in 2012 I promise to keep you posted on what I am able to learn about the various phases of the "New Food" that is coming down the pike. And my hope is that it will better enable you to determine what your role should be in the "new system." Are you an interested consumer? Activist? Researcher? Government employee? Nutritionist? Writer/journalist? Marketing director? Corporate officer? Small business owner? Student?
Whatever your position in life as of tonight, I'm sure you have some favorite food stories to tell and I would like to hear from you. Just email me (see profile), or leave a comment. I will always be interested in your thoughts and suggestions. Good night!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Predictions for 2012
"Concerns grow over salmonella that survives antibiotics ------------ The frequency of outbreaks linked to antibiotic-resistant salmonella is rising, causing concern among consumer groups and food scientists. They fear it will take a deadly poisoning on the scale of the 1993 E. coli outbreak from Jack in the Box hamburgers to force change in federal regulation.
Contaminated ground beef sold in Maine this month is the latest salmonella 'superbug' to send Americans to hospitals. The meat — which has sickened 16 people — is tainted with one of four strains of salmonella that became resistant to multiple antibiotics as they evolved to survive.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture this year to prohibit the sale of poultry or ground meat containing those four strains of salmonella; the USDA has taken the petition 'under consideration.'
Government regulators and meat processors contend that if meat sold in stores contains the bacteria, proper cooking will destroy the bacteria and make the food safe to eat. Still, hundreds of people were sickened in 2011 because one of the four strains of antibiotic-resistant salmonella was in their meat. -------------- " (Jennifer Brown, The Denver Post)
This is but one of many concerns about food-borne illness that were voiced in 2011. One of the most recent. Jennifer went on to talk about E. coli and campylobacter, also, as well as other related topics. The part that I believe we should concentrate on right now is what can and will be done, if anything, to help reduce the risk of food-borne illness, especially by government regulators and inspectors. Because of budget battles and politics in general I really don't believe very much will be done. In keeping with a new year's theme, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what Marion Nestle is predicting for 2012 along these lines.
"Looking ahead to food politics in 2012
Marion Nestle
Friday, December 30, 2011
Q: What's on the food politics agenda for 2012? Can we expect anything good to happen?
A: By 'good,' I assume you mean actions that make our food system safer and healthier for consumers, farmers, farm workers and the planet.
Ordinarily, I am optimistic about such things. This year? Not so much. The crystal ball is cloudy, but seems to suggest:
Political leaders will avoid or postpone taking action on food issues that threaten corporate interests. Sometimes Congress acts in favor of public health, but 2012 is an election year. Expect calls for corporate freedom to take precedence over those for responsible regulations. Maybe next year.
Something will happen on the farm bill, but what? Last fall's secret draft bill included at least some support for producing and marketing fruits and vegetables, and only minimal cuts to SNAP (food stamps). Once that process failed, Congress must now adopt that draft, start over from scratch or postpone the whole mess until after the election.
SNAP participation will increase, but so will pressure to cut benefits. With the economy depressed, wages low and unemployment high, demands on SNAP keep rising. In 2011, SNAP benefits cost $72 billion, by far the largest farm bill expenditure and a tempting target for budget cutters. While some advocates will be struggling to keep the program's benefits intact, others will try to transform SNAP so it promotes purchases of more healthful foods. Both groups should expect strong opposition.
Childhood obesity will be the flash point for fights about limits on food marketing. The Lancet recently summarized the state of the science on successful obesity interventions: taxes on unhealthy foods and beverages, restrictions on marketing such items, traffic-light front-of-package food labels, and programs to discourage consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and television viewing. Expect the food industry to continue to get Congress to block such measures, as it did with U.S. Department of Agriculture school nutrition standards (hence: pizza counts as a vegetable).
The Federal Trade Commission will postpone release of nutrition standards for marketing to children. Although Congress asked for such standards in the first place - and the standards are entirely voluntary - it just inserted a section in the appropriations bill requiring a cost-benefit analysis before the FTC can release them. Why does the food industry care about voluntary restrictions? Because they might work (see previous prediction).
The Food and Drug Administration will delay issuing front-of-package labeling guidelines as long as it can. The FDA asked the Institute of Medicine for advice about such labels. The institute recommended labels listing only calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and sugars - all nutrients to avoid. Although the institute did not mention traffic-light labels, it did recommend check marks or stars, which come close. The food industry much prefers its own method, Facts Up Front, which emphasizes 'good-for-you' nutrients. It is already using this system. Will the FDA try to turn the institute recommendations into regulations? Maybe later.
The FDA will (still) be playing catch-up on food safety. The FDA got through the 2011 appropriations process with an increase of about $50 million for its inspection needs. This is better than nothing but nowhere near what it needs to carry out its food safety mandates. The FDA currently inspects less than 2 percent of imported food shipments and 5 percent of domestic production facilities. The overwhelming nature of the task requires FDA to set priorities. Small producers think these priorities are misplaced. Is the FDA going after them because they are easier targets than industrial producers whose products have been responsible for some of the more deadly outbreaks? Time will tell.
On the bright side, the food movement will gather even more momentum. While the food industry digs in to fight public health regulations, the food movement will continue to attract support from those willing to promote a healthier and more sustainable food system. Watch for more young people going into farming (see Chronicle staff writer Amanda Gold's Dec. 25 article: sfg.ly/s3aZKW) and more farmers' markets, farm-to-school programs, school meal initiatives, and grassroots community efforts to implement food programs and legislate local reforms. There is plenty of hope for the future in local efforts to improve school meals, reduce childhood obesity, and make healthier food more available and affordable for all.
And on a personal note: In April, University of California Press will publish my co-authored book, 'Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics.' I'm hoping it will inspire more thinking and action on how we can change our food system to one that is better for people and the planet.
Marion Nestle is the author of 'Food Politics' and 'What to Eat,' among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. She blogs at www.foodpolitics.com. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com."
In my opinion, even the largest economy in the world (the U.S.) is not going to do much to reduce the cases of food-borne illness in 2012, and if the U.S. doesn't do much, what chance do the people have in second and third world countries where resources are even more scarce or are being horded for other "official" purposes?
My real point here is that food-borne illness is but one of many food-related topics that represent problems that are not going to go away. Some day enough people will see this situation as the major opportunity that it is (many already do), and work even harder (many behind the scenes to postpone the battles as long as possible) to perfect and present a viable alternative for "feeding" people around the world that is based on new high technology.
The stakes are enormous. Just think about how many trillions of dollars are involved in the global food industry each year as it exists today. Even if the new system will bring in only 50% as much money as traditional methods of producing food and feeding people, it will be the largest new pie for entrepreneurs to divide in the history of mankind.
Is this evolution worth watching? To me, an old Texas A&M agriculture grad, I can't think of anything more exciting or interesting short of the second coming of Christ. We all need "food" and water. Where will your children and grandchildren be getting theirs 20 or 30 years from now? It's real, folks. Stay tuned!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
Contaminated ground beef sold in Maine this month is the latest salmonella 'superbug' to send Americans to hospitals. The meat — which has sickened 16 people — is tainted with one of four strains of salmonella that became resistant to multiple antibiotics as they evolved to survive.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture this year to prohibit the sale of poultry or ground meat containing those four strains of salmonella; the USDA has taken the petition 'under consideration.'
Government regulators and meat processors contend that if meat sold in stores contains the bacteria, proper cooking will destroy the bacteria and make the food safe to eat. Still, hundreds of people were sickened in 2011 because one of the four strains of antibiotic-resistant salmonella was in their meat. -------------- " (Jennifer Brown, The Denver Post)
This is but one of many concerns about food-borne illness that were voiced in 2011. One of the most recent. Jennifer went on to talk about E. coli and campylobacter, also, as well as other related topics. The part that I believe we should concentrate on right now is what can and will be done, if anything, to help reduce the risk of food-borne illness, especially by government regulators and inspectors. Because of budget battles and politics in general I really don't believe very much will be done. In keeping with a new year's theme, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what Marion Nestle is predicting for 2012 along these lines.
"Looking ahead to food politics in 2012
Marion Nestle
Friday, December 30, 2011
Q: What's on the food politics agenda for 2012? Can we expect anything good to happen?
A: By 'good,' I assume you mean actions that make our food system safer and healthier for consumers, farmers, farm workers and the planet.
Ordinarily, I am optimistic about such things. This year? Not so much. The crystal ball is cloudy, but seems to suggest:
Political leaders will avoid or postpone taking action on food issues that threaten corporate interests. Sometimes Congress acts in favor of public health, but 2012 is an election year. Expect calls for corporate freedom to take precedence over those for responsible regulations. Maybe next year.
Something will happen on the farm bill, but what? Last fall's secret draft bill included at least some support for producing and marketing fruits and vegetables, and only minimal cuts to SNAP (food stamps). Once that process failed, Congress must now adopt that draft, start over from scratch or postpone the whole mess until after the election.
SNAP participation will increase, but so will pressure to cut benefits. With the economy depressed, wages low and unemployment high, demands on SNAP keep rising. In 2011, SNAP benefits cost $72 billion, by far the largest farm bill expenditure and a tempting target for budget cutters. While some advocates will be struggling to keep the program's benefits intact, others will try to transform SNAP so it promotes purchases of more healthful foods. Both groups should expect strong opposition.
Childhood obesity will be the flash point for fights about limits on food marketing. The Lancet recently summarized the state of the science on successful obesity interventions: taxes on unhealthy foods and beverages, restrictions on marketing such items, traffic-light front-of-package food labels, and programs to discourage consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and television viewing. Expect the food industry to continue to get Congress to block such measures, as it did with U.S. Department of Agriculture school nutrition standards (hence: pizza counts as a vegetable).
The Federal Trade Commission will postpone release of nutrition standards for marketing to children. Although Congress asked for such standards in the first place - and the standards are entirely voluntary - it just inserted a section in the appropriations bill requiring a cost-benefit analysis before the FTC can release them. Why does the food industry care about voluntary restrictions? Because they might work (see previous prediction).
The Food and Drug Administration will delay issuing front-of-package labeling guidelines as long as it can. The FDA asked the Institute of Medicine for advice about such labels. The institute recommended labels listing only calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and sugars - all nutrients to avoid. Although the institute did not mention traffic-light labels, it did recommend check marks or stars, which come close. The food industry much prefers its own method, Facts Up Front, which emphasizes 'good-for-you' nutrients. It is already using this system. Will the FDA try to turn the institute recommendations into regulations? Maybe later.
The FDA will (still) be playing catch-up on food safety. The FDA got through the 2011 appropriations process with an increase of about $50 million for its inspection needs. This is better than nothing but nowhere near what it needs to carry out its food safety mandates. The FDA currently inspects less than 2 percent of imported food shipments and 5 percent of domestic production facilities. The overwhelming nature of the task requires FDA to set priorities. Small producers think these priorities are misplaced. Is the FDA going after them because they are easier targets than industrial producers whose products have been responsible for some of the more deadly outbreaks? Time will tell.
On the bright side, the food movement will gather even more momentum. While the food industry digs in to fight public health regulations, the food movement will continue to attract support from those willing to promote a healthier and more sustainable food system. Watch for more young people going into farming (see Chronicle staff writer Amanda Gold's Dec. 25 article: sfg.ly/s3aZKW) and more farmers' markets, farm-to-school programs, school meal initiatives, and grassroots community efforts to implement food programs and legislate local reforms. There is plenty of hope for the future in local efforts to improve school meals, reduce childhood obesity, and make healthier food more available and affordable for all.
And on a personal note: In April, University of California Press will publish my co-authored book, 'Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics.' I'm hoping it will inspire more thinking and action on how we can change our food system to one that is better for people and the planet.
Marion Nestle is the author of 'Food Politics' and 'What to Eat,' among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. She blogs at www.foodpolitics.com. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com."
In my opinion, even the largest economy in the world (the U.S.) is not going to do much to reduce the cases of food-borne illness in 2012, and if the U.S. doesn't do much, what chance do the people have in second and third world countries where resources are even more scarce or are being horded for other "official" purposes?
My real point here is that food-borne illness is but one of many food-related topics that represent problems that are not going to go away. Some day enough people will see this situation as the major opportunity that it is (many already do), and work even harder (many behind the scenes to postpone the battles as long as possible) to perfect and present a viable alternative for "feeding" people around the world that is based on new high technology.
The stakes are enormous. Just think about how many trillions of dollars are involved in the global food industry each year as it exists today. Even if the new system will bring in only 50% as much money as traditional methods of producing food and feeding people, it will be the largest new pie for entrepreneurs to divide in the history of mankind.
Is this evolution worth watching? To me, an old Texas A&M agriculture grad, I can't think of anything more exciting or interesting short of the second coming of Christ. We all need "food" and water. Where will your children and grandchildren be getting theirs 20 or 30 years from now? It's real, folks. Stay tuned!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
Friday, December 30, 2011
"1 billion people live in chronic hunger." (FAO)
"Baby boomers will control 52 percent of the total dollars spent on groceries, making them the largest food influencers and making iconic brands like Orville Redenbacher and Reddi-wip even more important, according to Phil Lempert, founder of Food Nutrition & Science and CEO of The Lempert Report and SupermarketGuru.com. Lempert's Top 10 Food Trends for 2012 is featured in an article in the December issue of Food Nutrition & Science.
For more than 30 years, Lempert has predicted the top 10 food trends for the upcoming year. In 2012, Lempert says to expect farmers to become the next big food celebrities and for mobile phones to become the new way to check out at a market. '2012 is going to be an interesting year,' says Lempert. 'Food prices will continue to increase, but more people - including dads - will cook at home. While technology in the store will move us forward, resurrected nostalgic brands will remind us of the past.' " (PRNewswire)
Older people, in general, like to think about the past, "the good old days." At least the ones who were reared in decent circumstances. My guess is that very few baby boomers in America today ever think about the 1 billion people living in hunger. No, they can't wait to plan the next bar-b-que and bring out the nostalgic brands in between trips to their favorite restaurants.
I doubt if "Guru Lempert" spends much time thinking about the world's hungry. He has too much work to do making predictions about today's American supermarket industry.
The baby boomer generation in America will start to fade away pretty quickly now as they age, but they will remain a viable ally against change in today's global food industry ("Big Food"). They have the money to back up their biases, and a lot of political clout to go along with it. "New Food" will continue to work quietly in the background, and, one of these days, a lot of people will be shocked to find out what is waiting down the old rodeo trail, as we used to say in Texas a lot. Young people will get excited and be ready to try the "New Food," but the changes will be profound and shock a lot of older folks who will refuse to have anything to do with it - that is, until they get to the nursing home where the medical staff takes over with newer "medical foods" that are currently being developed.
Poverty, hunger and malnutrition can easily lead to riots in the streets, and many leaders are now asking questions about what can be done to feed more people in cost-effective, efficient and meaningful ways in order to quell the unrest that is happening at a time of economic uncertainty and challenge in the world today. Also, at a time when natural disasters are combining with economics to make the challenge even tougher. Disasters such as the Russian drought which caused a drastically reduced wheat crop and higher food prices around the world.
Many of those leaders are looking for answers regarding nutrition not because they are that concerned about their people, but because they are looking for ways to stay in power. Now that shooting your own citizens in the streets is not quite as easy to do because of cell phone cameras anymore, they are looking for other answers. If someone went to them with a high-tech, low cost idea, do you think they would listen? Everybody has dirt. If food can be made from dirt anywhere in the world without it coming from plants or animals, then the changes will indeed be profound.
This is so interesting to me, an old Texas A&M agriculture grad, that I just can't help myself. I have to write about it. I hope you will want to continue reading about it, and, some day, let me hear from you. There is an email link in this blog, or you may leave a comment. Stay tuned!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
For more than 30 years, Lempert has predicted the top 10 food trends for the upcoming year. In 2012, Lempert says to expect farmers to become the next big food celebrities and for mobile phones to become the new way to check out at a market. '2012 is going to be an interesting year,' says Lempert. 'Food prices will continue to increase, but more people - including dads - will cook at home. While technology in the store will move us forward, resurrected nostalgic brands will remind us of the past.' " (PRNewswire)
Older people, in general, like to think about the past, "the good old days." At least the ones who were reared in decent circumstances. My guess is that very few baby boomers in America today ever think about the 1 billion people living in hunger. No, they can't wait to plan the next bar-b-que and bring out the nostalgic brands in between trips to their favorite restaurants.
I doubt if "Guru Lempert" spends much time thinking about the world's hungry. He has too much work to do making predictions about today's American supermarket industry.
The baby boomer generation in America will start to fade away pretty quickly now as they age, but they will remain a viable ally against change in today's global food industry ("Big Food"). They have the money to back up their biases, and a lot of political clout to go along with it. "New Food" will continue to work quietly in the background, and, one of these days, a lot of people will be shocked to find out what is waiting down the old rodeo trail, as we used to say in Texas a lot. Young people will get excited and be ready to try the "New Food," but the changes will be profound and shock a lot of older folks who will refuse to have anything to do with it - that is, until they get to the nursing home where the medical staff takes over with newer "medical foods" that are currently being developed.
Poverty, hunger and malnutrition can easily lead to riots in the streets, and many leaders are now asking questions about what can be done to feed more people in cost-effective, efficient and meaningful ways in order to quell the unrest that is happening at a time of economic uncertainty and challenge in the world today. Also, at a time when natural disasters are combining with economics to make the challenge even tougher. Disasters such as the Russian drought which caused a drastically reduced wheat crop and higher food prices around the world.
Many of those leaders are looking for answers regarding nutrition not because they are that concerned about their people, but because they are looking for ways to stay in power. Now that shooting your own citizens in the streets is not quite as easy to do because of cell phone cameras anymore, they are looking for other answers. If someone went to them with a high-tech, low cost idea, do you think they would listen? Everybody has dirt. If food can be made from dirt anywhere in the world without it coming from plants or animals, then the changes will indeed be profound.
This is so interesting to me, an old Texas A&M agriculture grad, that I just can't help myself. I have to write about it. I hope you will want to continue reading about it, and, some day, let me hear from you. There is an email link in this blog, or you may leave a comment. Stay tuned!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
What are Bt corn hybrids?
Bt corn hybrids are varieties of genetically modified corn grown by corn farmers around the world, especially in the U.S. In other words, "GM corn." Bt corn has been around since 2003, and it has caused a huge controversy centered around genetic engineering in crops that are part of the human food supply, the needs of the corn growers and other subjects such as the control of the genetic engineering which is affecting the price of seed corn and, ultimately, the price of commercial corn and corn products.
Why did plant geneticists want to produce Bt corn? Number one, because they can make a lot of money on it. How does it work? It works by causing the corn plant to produce a toxin that kills western corn rootworms which has been an enormous pest problem causing most corn farmers to spend a lot of money on insecticides to control the rootworms. So, the farmers are saving a lot of money net net by using Bt corn, and they don't want to change at this point in time.
It's been said that two-thirds of U.S. corn acres now contain Bt corn varieties, and this corn can easily end up in consumer food products such as cereal, corn oil and corn sweeteners. Is Bt corn hurting the U.S. population? That is still being hotly debated, and will be for a long time unless Bt corn suddenly goes away.
Goes away? Why in the world would I say that? Because western corn rootworms are becoming resistant to the natural toxin produced by the corn plant. A lot of people are very concerned about this and are trying to do things to stop or slow down this progression toward resistant rootworms. Corn farmers themselves are being blamed in many cases because they are not following the normal crop rotation practices that help keep the rootworm populations in check in their fields. They have been greedy, and, in many cases, have abandoned their crop rotation practices in favor of planting corn in the same fields year after year because of high corn prices relative to other crops.
There is evidence that these farmers are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The world needs higher yields and lower corn product prices. The U.S. needs as much corn as possible to export to offset some of its unreal balance of trade deficit. But, as usual, many farmers aren't interested in the big picture. Only what benefits them the most. This is understandable in a way to someone like myself who is familiar with benchmarking and commodity agriculture.
Variation is extreme in individual farm profitability, and the farmers in the Middle Third and Bottom Third of profitability are not only looking for a way to make more money, they are looking for ways to survive, period. Even Bt corn will not stop consolidation and liquidation in the corn growing community in the long run, but it may extend the life of some a little longer.
We need to stay on top of this corn rootworm resistance story as we go forward. I personally believe that it will, in the long run, prove to be more evidence that traditional agriculture such as corn breeding and corn growing is not going to be the answer to feeding the world. If it is not, what is the answer? In my opinion, high technology.
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
Why did plant geneticists want to produce Bt corn? Number one, because they can make a lot of money on it. How does it work? It works by causing the corn plant to produce a toxin that kills western corn rootworms which has been an enormous pest problem causing most corn farmers to spend a lot of money on insecticides to control the rootworms. So, the farmers are saving a lot of money net net by using Bt corn, and they don't want to change at this point in time.
It's been said that two-thirds of U.S. corn acres now contain Bt corn varieties, and this corn can easily end up in consumer food products such as cereal, corn oil and corn sweeteners. Is Bt corn hurting the U.S. population? That is still being hotly debated, and will be for a long time unless Bt corn suddenly goes away.
Goes away? Why in the world would I say that? Because western corn rootworms are becoming resistant to the natural toxin produced by the corn plant. A lot of people are very concerned about this and are trying to do things to stop or slow down this progression toward resistant rootworms. Corn farmers themselves are being blamed in many cases because they are not following the normal crop rotation practices that help keep the rootworm populations in check in their fields. They have been greedy, and, in many cases, have abandoned their crop rotation practices in favor of planting corn in the same fields year after year because of high corn prices relative to other crops.
There is evidence that these farmers are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The world needs higher yields and lower corn product prices. The U.S. needs as much corn as possible to export to offset some of its unreal balance of trade deficit. But, as usual, many farmers aren't interested in the big picture. Only what benefits them the most. This is understandable in a way to someone like myself who is familiar with benchmarking and commodity agriculture.
Variation is extreme in individual farm profitability, and the farmers in the Middle Third and Bottom Third of profitability are not only looking for a way to make more money, they are looking for ways to survive, period. Even Bt corn will not stop consolidation and liquidation in the corn growing community in the long run, but it may extend the life of some a little longer.
We need to stay on top of this corn rootworm resistance story as we go forward. I personally believe that it will, in the long run, prove to be more evidence that traditional agriculture such as corn breeding and corn growing is not going to be the answer to feeding the world. If it is not, what is the answer? In my opinion, high technology.
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Dr. Ray Kurzweil and his prediction
From my reference website, Nutrigenomics and Human Nutrition (https://sites.google.com/site/nutrigenomicsandhumannutrition/ ):
"By the way, have you ever heard of Dr. Ray Kurzweil? In case you have not heard of him, here is some information about him to get you started. Why? Because of his track record on predictions through the years, and because he made some profound predictions concerning the future of human nutrition in his iconic book, The Singularity Is Near. Let me get you started by telling you that he looks a lot at the fields of genetics, nanotechnology and robotics ('G, N and R') as well as human medicine. He has 19 honorary doctorates from various universities (so far). He is in the U.S. National Inventors Hall of Fame. He has received medals for his work from 3 U.S. presidents (so far), and he owns and directs his own technology company. He helped found Singularity University on the NASA campus in northern California, and he has an almost cult-like following of futurists. A very interesting man with some very interesting things to say. Here is his prediction.
' ------ nanotechnology-based manufacturing devices in the 2020s will be capable of creating almost any physical product from inexpensive raw materials and information. ------ We have the ability to redesign the world in our minds and to put these ideas into action. ---- The Singularity will unfold through these three overlapping revolutions: genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. ---- Many approaches are being developed for micro- and nanoscale machines to go into the body and bloodstream. Ultimately we will be able to determine the precise nutrients (including all the hundreds of phytochemicals) necessary for the optimal health of each individual. These will be freely and inexpensively available, so we won't need to bother with extracting nutrients from food at all. Nutrients will be introduced directly into the bloodstream by special metabolic nanobots, while sensors in our bloodstream and body, using wireless communication, will provide dynamic information on the nutrients needed at each point in time. This technology should be reasonably mature by the late 2020s.'
This is not a new prediction. In fact, it is now 6 years old. However, in my opinion it is a very interesting and important prediction with major implications if it comes true. Dr. Kurzweil made this prediction in his book, The Singularity is Near (2005), and he describes the 'Singularity' as the point in time (the year, 2045, to be exact) when the computing power of the world's computers will be one billion times more powerful than all human brains combined. He arrived at his conclusions by studying the exponential growth of technology, and he says that we are now in the 'knee of the curve' of exponential growth, and that actual changes and the rate of change will be increasingly more profound and more rapid from now on.
It will be interesting to learn how close we will come to his prediction as we go along into the future. I, for one, believe that it has to happen because of humanitarian needs, NC diseases and medical costs, politics, the global economy, people opposed to GM foods, the inability to stop food-borne illness, rapid scientific advancements and many other factors that are in play on a daily basis. What do you think?"
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
"By the way, have you ever heard of Dr. Ray Kurzweil? In case you have not heard of him, here is some information about him to get you started. Why? Because of his track record on predictions through the years, and because he made some profound predictions concerning the future of human nutrition in his iconic book, The Singularity Is Near. Let me get you started by telling you that he looks a lot at the fields of genetics, nanotechnology and robotics ('G, N and R') as well as human medicine. He has 19 honorary doctorates from various universities (so far). He is in the U.S. National Inventors Hall of Fame. He has received medals for his work from 3 U.S. presidents (so far), and he owns and directs his own technology company. He helped found Singularity University on the NASA campus in northern California, and he has an almost cult-like following of futurists. A very interesting man with some very interesting things to say. Here is his prediction.
' ------ nanotechnology-based manufacturing devices in the 2020s will be capable of creating almost any physical product from inexpensive raw materials and information. ------ We have the ability to redesign the world in our minds and to put these ideas into action. ---- The Singularity will unfold through these three overlapping revolutions: genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. ---- Many approaches are being developed for micro- and nanoscale machines to go into the body and bloodstream. Ultimately we will be able to determine the precise nutrients (including all the hundreds of phytochemicals) necessary for the optimal health of each individual. These will be freely and inexpensively available, so we won't need to bother with extracting nutrients from food at all. Nutrients will be introduced directly into the bloodstream by special metabolic nanobots, while sensors in our bloodstream and body, using wireless communication, will provide dynamic information on the nutrients needed at each point in time. This technology should be reasonably mature by the late 2020s.'
This is not a new prediction. In fact, it is now 6 years old. However, in my opinion it is a very interesting and important prediction with major implications if it comes true. Dr. Kurzweil made this prediction in his book, The Singularity is Near (2005), and he describes the 'Singularity' as the point in time (the year, 2045, to be exact) when the computing power of the world's computers will be one billion times more powerful than all human brains combined. He arrived at his conclusions by studying the exponential growth of technology, and he says that we are now in the 'knee of the curve' of exponential growth, and that actual changes and the rate of change will be increasingly more profound and more rapid from now on.
It will be interesting to learn how close we will come to his prediction as we go along into the future. I, for one, believe that it has to happen because of humanitarian needs, NC diseases and medical costs, politics, the global economy, people opposed to GM foods, the inability to stop food-borne illness, rapid scientific advancements and many other factors that are in play on a daily basis. What do you think?"
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
About Ray Stanford, Jr. and Louis L'Amour
My name is Ray Stanford, Jr. I have been associated with agriculture one way or another virtually all of my life. I grew up in Texas where I helped my dad in the poultry industry starting when I was 10 years old, and I did quite a bit of cowboying on area ranches during my teens and early twenties. I also worked for and received two ag degrees from Texas A&M University (Poultry Science and Animal Science). My "career years" included time at Hy-Line International (a division of Pioneer, the corn company), Chilson's Management Controls, Inc. and a couple of other places in between.
All of my experiences were rewarding, but the work I really enjoyed the most was when I was an agricultural management consultant with Chilson's. I did that work for about 15 years in all (3 contracts). It enabled me to bring all of my previous experience in production, processing, marketing and general management to one place and combine it with new skills I learned in the field of benchmarking. Working with consulting clients to produce and review benchmarking reports taught me what is really going on in commodity production agriculture. How current systems of production and management philosophy position the players in an industry. How different management teams view the future, where they want to try to be in that picture and how they intend to get there. Trust me, there is so much variation out there it is incredible.
The variation still exists today, and it will be even greater in the next 40 or 50 years because of technologies that will come into play more and more that were not available 20 and 30 years ago. This blog will emphasize the role of technology, because I believe it will be the deciding factor in who will control global nutrition and how - in the not-too-distant future. I predict that the global food industry is in for an enormous shock as a new paradigm shift takes place, and, because the global food industry is so big in its entirety with so much money invested in various ways, there will be enormous global political wars and other reactions until the new paradigm is secure, at least for the time being.
The rate and volume of change is increasing with the changes in computing power, and a lot of people will be "blindsided." Won't even see it coming because of the speed until it is too late. But for now I want us to slow down just a little, step back in time and remind ourselves of something that has always been the way of the world regardless of things like rate and volume. It is something we must never forget.
Like I said earler, I grew up in Texas and I did my share of cowboying. As a result I have always liked stories about the old west, and Louis L'Amour is probably my favorite author. I have read many of his books including all of the Sackett books, and, as a result, I have learned that Louis L'Amour was quite a philosopher and a wise man. He frequently wove life lessons into his stories for us to consider. For example, in his book, The Lonely Men (one of the Sackett novels) (circa 1875-1879), we find the following words in chapter 11. I hope you will take the time to read them, and then think about what was said.
"Long after the others had turned in, I sat in the quiet of the old Don's study and talked with him. The walls of the room were lined with shelves of leather-bound books, more than I had ever seen, and he talked of them and of what they had told him, and of what they meant to him."
'These are my world,' he said. 'Had I been born in another time or to another way of life I should have been a scholar. My father had this place and he needed sons to carry on, so I came back from Spain to this place. It has been good to me. I have seen my crops grow and my herds increase, and if I have not written words upon paper as I should like to have done, I have written large upon the page of life that was left open for me.'
'There is tonic in this.' He gestured toward the out-of-doors. 'I have used the plow and the Winchester instead of the pen and the inkstand. There is tonic in the riding, in the living dangerously, in the building of something.'
'I know how the Apache feels. He loves his land as I do, and now he seeks another way of life supplanting his. The wise ones know they can neither win nor last, but it is not we who destroy them, but the times.'
'All things change. One species gives way to another better equipped to survive. Their world is going, but they brought destruction to another when they came, and just so will we one day be forced out by others who will come. It is the way of the world; the one thing we know is that all things change.'
'Each of us in his own way wars against change. Even those who fancy themselves the most progressive will fight against other kinds of progress, for each of us is convinced that our way is the best way.'
'I have lived well here. I should like to see this last because I have built it strong and made it good, but I know it will not. Even my books may not last, but the ideas will endure. It is easy to destroy a book, but an idea once implanted has roots no man can utterly destroy.' "
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering
All of my experiences were rewarding, but the work I really enjoyed the most was when I was an agricultural management consultant with Chilson's. I did that work for about 15 years in all (3 contracts). It enabled me to bring all of my previous experience in production, processing, marketing and general management to one place and combine it with new skills I learned in the field of benchmarking. Working with consulting clients to produce and review benchmarking reports taught me what is really going on in commodity production agriculture. How current systems of production and management philosophy position the players in an industry. How different management teams view the future, where they want to try to be in that picture and how they intend to get there. Trust me, there is so much variation out there it is incredible.
The variation still exists today, and it will be even greater in the next 40 or 50 years because of technologies that will come into play more and more that were not available 20 and 30 years ago. This blog will emphasize the role of technology, because I believe it will be the deciding factor in who will control global nutrition and how - in the not-too-distant future. I predict that the global food industry is in for an enormous shock as a new paradigm shift takes place, and, because the global food industry is so big in its entirety with so much money invested in various ways, there will be enormous global political wars and other reactions until the new paradigm is secure, at least for the time being.
The rate and volume of change is increasing with the changes in computing power, and a lot of people will be "blindsided." Won't even see it coming because of the speed until it is too late. But for now I want us to slow down just a little, step back in time and remind ourselves of something that has always been the way of the world regardless of things like rate and volume. It is something we must never forget.
Like I said earler, I grew up in Texas and I did my share of cowboying. As a result I have always liked stories about the old west, and Louis L'Amour is probably my favorite author. I have read many of his books including all of the Sackett books, and, as a result, I have learned that Louis L'Amour was quite a philosopher and a wise man. He frequently wove life lessons into his stories for us to consider. For example, in his book, The Lonely Men (one of the Sackett novels) (circa 1875-1879), we find the following words in chapter 11. I hope you will take the time to read them, and then think about what was said.
"Long after the others had turned in, I sat in the quiet of the old Don's study and talked with him. The walls of the room were lined with shelves of leather-bound books, more than I had ever seen, and he talked of them and of what they had told him, and of what they meant to him."
'These are my world,' he said. 'Had I been born in another time or to another way of life I should have been a scholar. My father had this place and he needed sons to carry on, so I came back from Spain to this place. It has been good to me. I have seen my crops grow and my herds increase, and if I have not written words upon paper as I should like to have done, I have written large upon the page of life that was left open for me.'
'There is tonic in this.' He gestured toward the out-of-doors. 'I have used the plow and the Winchester instead of the pen and the inkstand. There is tonic in the riding, in the living dangerously, in the building of something.'
'I know how the Apache feels. He loves his land as I do, and now he seeks another way of life supplanting his. The wise ones know they can neither win nor last, but it is not we who destroy them, but the times.'
'All things change. One species gives way to another better equipped to survive. Their world is going, but they brought destruction to another when they came, and just so will we one day be forced out by others who will come. It is the way of the world; the one thing we know is that all things change.'
'Each of us in his own way wars against change. Even those who fancy themselves the most progressive will fight against other kinds of progress, for each of us is convinced that our way is the best way.'
'I have lived well here. I should like to see this last because I have built it strong and made it good, but I know it will not. Even my books may not last, but the ideas will endure. It is easy to destroy a book, but an idea once implanted has roots no man can utterly destroy.' "
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering
Welcome to "Controlling Global Nutrition!"
Hello and welcome to my blog! I need to do this post to be able to work some more on the design of the blog, but I also want to invite you to put on your thinking cap and get ready for a wild ride. We will be discussing such things as current and future human nutrition, who is in the food game in a big way today, the potential for good and evil when it comes to feeding the world in the future, technology advances related to foods and nutrition, nutrigenomics and how it will relate to nutrition design, hunger, malnutrition and related diseases, the psychology of future feeding programs, who will try to control the "food supply" in the future and much more.
If that doesn't get your juices flowing I don't know what will. Like I said, put on your thinking cap, and let me hear from you real soon. Thanks!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fruits vegetables food borne illness
If that doesn't get your juices flowing I don't know what will. Like I said, put on your thinking cap, and let me hear from you real soon. Thanks!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fruits vegetables food borne illness
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)