the unwound road

One of my favourite family stories has to do with food. My mother grew up near London, and remembers standing at the back door and watching bombs falling during the Second World War. The frequent air raids meant that visits to the nearby bomb shelter became part of the family’s daily routine. On one occasion (that I know about), her mother ran out of the bomb shelter during a raid to fetch the roast from the oven. Bombs may be falling, but the family has to have its dinner!

The western world’s focus has recently turned from the consumption of “stuff” to the consumption of food. Much has been written about the current global food shortage crisis.

Yet how can it be a crisis is when people have been talking about a global food shortage for at least 10 years? There have been famines and other food-related crises in the world before now. Perhaps this time is different because the wealthy countries are sitting up and complaining, too.

The food shortage is affecting countries in different ways. There have been protests in Mexico, where the price of tortillas rose 400% in at the end of 2007, and Haiti, where the poor are eating “dirt cookies” (made of dirt, water, salt and butter. India recently banned the export of all except the highest quality rice. A sharp increase in the cost of milk (blamed on floods in Argentina and a drought in Australia) have affected foods from cheese to croissants. Higher wheat and fuel costs were blamed for a 20% increase in pasta in Italy. There have been bread-queue riots in Egypt, and unrest across Africa.

In some parts of the world, food prices for staples have risen 50% or more over the past year. However, in the United States, consumers have had to cope with a 6.5% increase in their grocery bill.

A UN official recently listed a number of causes:

• growing populations
• crops being used for biofuels
• more sophisticated (or diverse) diets in places like India and China
• a lack of strategic grain reserves
• the effects of climate change causing drought conditions in places such as in Australia, affecting wheat production in recent years.

A related problems is that of inefficient food distribution and food wastage. Have many of us have refrigerators full of food we don’t need and might not get around to eating? I can’t even imagine how much wasted food restaurants and grocery stores throw into the garbage. In 1995, the BBC reported that 17 million tonnes of food is added to landfills in Great Britain each year because it’s cheaper for the food industry to dump it than give it away.

And with the globalization of food production and distribution, more people are beginning to rely on processed or pre-packaged food. Western foods (can you say MacDonald’s?) are a cultural as well as commercial influence.

The fact is, like the cheap energy we have been used to, food doesn’t get any respect. I’m not suggesting that high food prices are good — there are too many people in this world who have barely enough to eat as it is — but that the North, as the source of much of the world’s food, doesn’t know how to tighten its belt. (And while I’m on the subject of belt-tightening, I know I’m not the only person who should be eating less!) The word “rationing”, familiar with the Second-World War generation but a foreign idea to most westerners today, is coming into vogue again.

People react to the threat of a global oil shortage produces in two ways: by panicking and and buying up all remaining stocks (have you seen the price of gas lately?), or increasing research into alternative energy sources in order to wean themselves off oil dependency.

That’s why I think the boom in biofuel research and production — as wrong-headed as some of it is turning out to be, what with everyone running off madly in all directions — is a good sign. It means that costs are now high enough to make people value alternatives, and maybe think more carefully about conservation and how to stop wasting the energy we produce now.

And so I recommend the “don’t panic” approach to the current food shortage. (Waves of panic-buying of staples and rice-rationing have already hit some U.S. food stores.) Greed won’t get us out of this difficulty, but thankfulness might. We need to appreciate what we already have, and support ongoing work to better manage food distribution, diversity, and sustainability. Let’s get our governments to find some swords-into-ploughshares funding and share the wealth… of food, that is!

SHARE : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Related Links:
CBC interactive: Global Food Prices
CBC: “Beef is out, wheat is in: farmers”
Guardian, UK: “Change in farming can feed world: report”
Telegraph, UK: “Potatoes could solve food shortage”
ABC: “UN warns on food shortage riots”
Financial Post: “Forget oil, the new global crisis is food”
Time: “How to End the Global Food Shortage”

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s been a green revolution over the past few decades — at least in the industrialized world — and it’s turned our buying and trashing habits upside-down. Small grassroots initiatives have led to local programs such as recycling, support for products such as organic foods, and increased government regulation. Not surprisingly, now that the corporate world has cottoned on to the financial benefits of “being green”, there’s also an increase in the amount of skepticism from consumers.

Generally speaking, skepticism is a good thing; a responsible consumer should ask questions and do research before making a decision. And the research shows some claims about so-called green goods are insupportable.

According to a recent news report, Canada’s Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association will be soon releasing national guidelines on the use of recycling, chemical-related and other environmental terms. The new guidelines are designed to prevent companies from making vague claims. For example, instead of simply saying a product is recycled, a company will now have to say how much of its content is from recycled materials. Companies will also not be allowed to say products are free of chemicals or substances if the products never contained those items in the first place. Any eco-friendly statements will have to be backed up with data.

The Competition Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency, was spurred to act following a New York Times report that questioned environmental claims made by clothing company Lululemon. In November 2007, the Bureau forced Vancouver-based Lululemon Athletica to remove any references to the therapeutic benefits of its VitaSea clothing products because it made claims that could not be verified. The clothing’s advertising said it would release minerals and vitamins in to the wearer’s skin when wet and could improve skin in a variety of ways and reduce stress.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is also in the process of updating its guidelines for environmental marketing by holding workshops to get consumer input on terms like recyclable, biodegradable and sustainable along with perceptions of third-party certification of green claims.

At the same time, TerraChoice (which regulates the use of the Ecologo certification) released a study of 1,018 “green” products from big-box stores which found that all but one were marketed with false or misleading eco-claims. Researchers claimed these products were committing what they called the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”:

1. a hidden tradeoff (e.g. toxin-loaded electronics touting their energy efficiency);
2. no certifiable verification of green claims;
3. flat-out lying about certification;
4. vagueness (e.g. products claiming “all natural” status, which could include hazardous substances that occur naturally);
5. irrelevance (e.g. products claiming to be CFC-free even though CFCs have long been banned)
6. or a lesser of two evils (e.g. organic cigarettes).

According to the study, Cascade paper towels were the big — and only — winner, with claims of being chlorine-free, having recycled content, and having legitimate logos checking out as accurate.

The main problem hampering adoption of green habits and products isn’t skepticism or lack of choice, but misinformation. Take the case of CFLs, or compact fluorescent light bulbs, for example. CFLs last up to 15 times longer, use between one fifth and one quarter of the power of an equivalent incandescent, and waste a lot less energy due to heat output. Therefore, they are better for the environment and the household budget. However, their mercury content makes them more hazardous when it comes to disposal than the old incandescents.

Yet, because of a story that broke last spring — and travelled like lightning around the world — about a homeowner in New England who spent $2,000 on clean-up of a broken CFL, enviro-skeptics still say that the CFL campaigns are a scam. What they failed to read were the follow-up stories, the admission of over-reaction by the Hydro company, and the facts about the proper disposal of CFLs. Yes, there is mercury, but new standards have meant the amount has already been reduced, and clean-up is focused on allowing air circulation, then disposing safely of broken glass. And nearly all stores selling CFLs have now said they will take care of disposal as well.

As with any innovation, there are questions that need to be asked, and a watchdog role for consumer groups. But skeptics and early adopters alike have a responsibility to base their decisions — not on fear or blind optimism — but on balanced information.

SHARE : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Related Links:
Terrachoice: “The Six Sins of Greenwashing”
“Most products’ green claims exaggerated, study claims”
Greenwashing
Ecologo Program
CBC: “‘Green’ Ad claims must be better defined”
Energy Star answers
Slate: “The Case for CFLs”
“How much do flourescent bulbs really cost?”
The CFL clean-up: urban myth

Invasive species are threatening to take over our environment. So what are we going to do about it: wring our hands in despair?

We humans have long been told we are the invasive species, the top predator on our planet. There’s already too little food to go around, and if we don’t act now, the aggressive plants and animals could take control. So, what better solution than to let our predator instinct out from under the veneer of civility. C’mon, guys, let’s go after those alien invaders!

A fun and practical idea popped up on a trend blog in Japan recently (thanks to the link from Naturally Interesting), where adventurous restos have been making the special of the day a little more unusual. In Japan, invasive species such as the North American Blue Gill and Black Bass are responsible for the diminishing population of local fish. So, what do they do? Eat them!

This found food is tapped to be a new fad; kudos to the suppliers who saw the current eco-interest and found a way to bring awareness about species population control to the table. Apparently the non-traditional burgers are delish!

Applying this idea to North America is a good fit, because we have lots of invasive species from which to choose. Take zebra mussels, for instance.

Originally from the Balkans, Poland and the former Soviet Union, zebra mussels were first discovered in North America in 1988, and now they’ve spread from the Great Lakes down to the Texas panhandle. Zebra mussels are notorious for their ability to reproduce: in one location, researchers noted that in one square metre, zebra mussel populations jumped from 1,000 to 700,000 in six months. They cause deterioration of dock pilings, plug water pipes, encrust boats, and disrupt fish habitat and the flow of nutrients.

Are they edible? The contaminants they filter out of the water then concentrates in their flesh, and causes sickness or death in the fish and water birds which eat the infected mussels. So, first let’s keep contaminants out of the water, then get out the butter and garlic!

Speaking of garlic, garlic mustard is considered to be one of the most invasive exotic plants in Canada. It thrives in roadside ditches and woodlands. Once it moves in, it steals water, nutrients and light away from native plants, and chokes out forest understory growth, threatening the health of the forest ecosystem. Garlic mustard is also toxic to butterflies.

Is it edible? It’s a member of the mustard family, smells like garlic, and was originally grown as a healing herb. What do you think?

So, what about the Asian Long-Horned Beetle, which tunnels into not only dead and dying trees, but also attacks apparently healthy trees? It prefers maple, poplar and willow, but also devours horse chestnut, mulberry, plum, pear, black locust, elm, chinaberry, citrus, birch and rose of Sharon.

This bug sure fits the bill, but is it edible? Well, here’s some food for thought, from a paper by Gene R. Defoliart of the University of Wisconson:

“Many species of insects have served as traditional foods among indigenous peoples, especially in warmer climes, and the insects have played an important role in the history of human nutrition. As part of the hunter-gatherer style of life, the main criteria for selection of these traditional species appears to be medium-to-large size and easy availability… Thus it is not surprising that many insects considered as crop pests in modern agriculture have served as important food sources.”

And, yes, there’s actually a website with insect recipes and information on bug-eating around the world. For those of you with unsqueamish stomachs, check out What’s That Bug for a description of Roasted Giant Water Bugs and other tasty specimens.

These are just a few ideas to get you thinking; what other invasive species should be on the hit (and eat) list?

SHARE : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Related Links:
Invasive alien species in Canada
CBC: Alien Invasion
Invasive Species (Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation)
Invasive plants and pests
The Nature Conservancy: Invasive Species page

Cloned food: according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, it’s officially “safe to eat”… but does anybody want to eat it?

I’ve been following some of the discussion around the ethics of cloning — and wondered whether manipulation of animals at the cellular level is just another step down the road from other “unnatural” methods like artificial insemination — when I realized all the hypothetical “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” were about to be put to the test. All that fuss around Dolly the sheep and other cloned animals should have led me to the obvious question: what are the cloned animals to be used for?

Food is only part of the answer. No matter which way you slice the cell, cloning can cost up to 10 times more money than just breeding an animal for food. And a cloned animal doesn’t just spring fully-formed from the test tube — it uses the same resources, food, drugs, vet bills, etc as the other animals. So I would have thought it was an interesting experiment, in the same vein as climbing Mt. Everest (because it was there), but that it wouldn’t affect the rest of us non-scientific plebes.

According to a Newsweek article, the main purpose of cloning is to produce prize livestock to be used for breeding:

An elite cow—one whose genes are optimized for producing the healthiest, longest-living and most productive offspring—can fetch more than $100,000. With such a price tag, elite cows aren’t allowed to bear calves at the natural rate of one per year. Farmers insist on a blistering 10 to 20 births a year. To keep up this pace, veterinarians employ an array of reproductive technologies, including in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. Cloning is the latest, and perhaps the most powerful, reproductive tool in the vet’s black bag.

So, while it’s not likely that these elite animals will find their way into the food chain, their offspring might. And its the offspring which could turn out to be the fly in the ointment. Critics are worried that too few studies have looked at successive generations of animals from cloned parents, and that no one knows exactly how DNA and molecular biology will change as a result of the cloning process. Could the unknown changes be harmful to the animal, and to human consumption? Add to that the low percentage of successful clones; a French study found that, out of 100 embryo transfers, fewer than five of the fetuses were born alive. And that could raise a whole lot of ethical questions.

In Great Britain, meanwhile, cloned animals are seen as a possible solution to predicted food shortages. A Guardian article points out that a cloned top-producing animal saves generations of cross-breeding, and provides an environmentally friendly alternative to other methods of increasing meat and dairy production, such as the use of chemical fertilizers to provide more fodder. The article quotes Tim Lang, of the sustainable development commission, who says consumers need to change their attitudes and their spending habits:

The problem is that consumers expect cheap and plentiful meat, fruit, vegetables and groceries, yet their production causes harmful greenhouse gases and is unsustainable because of the UK’s limited availability of land, oil and water.

When I think about the prospect of eating cloned meat, the picture that springs to mind is the food replicator onboard the Starship Enterprise. Since food is, as far as I know, a bunch of chemicals, proteins and other atoms anyway, it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine a futuristic computer putting together food on the molecular level and reconstituting it to tempt our human taste buds. (OK, maybe I’ve read too much science fiction…) So is cloning that much different?

Anyway, science fiction aside, I’m not convinced about the benefits of cloned food. First of all, there’s the “yuck factor”. And I’d rather support local farmers and buy organic foods which are better for the environment. Still, although the U.S. has asked farmers to hold off on putting cloned meat into the human food chain — for now — in a few years we may see meat from the offspring of cloned animals in the supermarket. Clone appetit!

SHARE : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Related Links:
Guardian UK: “The clones are coming — to a supermarket near you”
European Food Safety Authority draft statement on cloned food
Newsweek: “Is Cloned Meat Safe to Eat?”
“Clone, clone on the range”