Food Politics In Action, Indeed!

As I've mentioned before, a large part of my (current) work is keeping up with the many (and messy) facets of "food politics" --- the ongoing debate over what kind of food system the US (and world) should have, what we should eat and why, etc. (Oooh boy, is that a GROSS simplification of the "food debate.") Doing so means I follow the writing/politicking/activities of lots of activists and organizations, many of which (whom?) drive me batty, if only because they seem not to see the irony of their form of crusading.

Case in point:

Yesterday, someone at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the department supported a Meatless Monday initiative. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association promptly objected with this statement, describing the Meatless Monday campaign as:

an animal rights extremist campaign to ultimately end meat consumption.

(As near as I can tell, the MM initiative is sponsored by an outfit that calls itself the Monday Campaigns and is associated with various schools of public health. The MM initiative is specifically affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I don't see any mention of animal rights groups.) (Animal rights groups, I should add, drive livestock producers and meat manufacturers crazy.)

Almost immediately after the cattlemen complained, the USDA retracted its statement (via Twitter, no less) with an apology, explaining that what appeared to be an endorsement was actually part of an internal newsletter and that, really, the USDA didn't support Meatless Monday.

And the NCBA responded with its own statement, saying among other things:

“We appreciate USDA’s swift action in pulling this disparaging statement off its website.

(You can see why the "food debate" can be a thing of joy...)

Okay. Fine. So NATURALLY that brought this retort from perhaps my least favorite of the food politickers (I'm not intentionally picking on her; it's just that she soooo often sets herself up for it. I cannot help myself!):

If USDA is really supporting Meatless Monday, that’s big news. Historically, the USDA has worked hand in glove with the meat industry and has firmly resisted suggestions that it would be healthier for people and the planet to eat less meat.

Uh. Hmmm. What else is the USDA SUPPOSED to do?

Good question. Historically, the department's role is to support and promote American agriculture, from production to consumption. That means that, yes, on one day, the department urges people to eat meat, and on the next day encourages them to chow down on broccoli on the other .

Contradictory? Not really. Meat and broccoli are both agricultural products.

But according to My Favorite Food Activist, oozing snark, this is simply

Food politics in action!

Translation: the USDA doesn't support HER view of how the food system should work, and the department does not adhere to what she believes the USDA should do (i.e., abandon support for a significant chunk of the American agricultural economy). And therefore once again the USDA has fucked up and caved to the meat interests. Had the Department stood behind the newsletter, of course, that would have been a "win" for HER side, and a loss for a major chunk of the ag economy.

Yeah, baby. Food politics in action! (Can you see why I enjoy my work??)

Yo, Man! Ambitious Brew is DIGITAL!

Can you tell that I'm excited? Yes, I am. I am, I am, I am. Ambitious Brew is now an e-book, and for the low, low, price of just $8.25. (*1)

Sometimes it pays to ask: about six weeks ago, I asked my editor if there was any chance that AB would ever go digital. And she said, sure: get the photo permissions covered for an e-book and my wish would come true.

And YOWZA! There it is.

Yowie zowie kapowie! (No, it doesn't take much to set my excitement meter in motion.)

PS: Tell your friends! Tell your enemies! Tell the world!

_____________

*1: And remember: You do NOT need a kindle to read a kindle book. All you need is some a digital device and the Kindle app for that device.

Drought, Weather Cycles, and the Historian's View

Today's Washington Post has a short, but juice-laden piece on this summer's weather and its connection (or not) to "climate change" and long-term weather cycles. It's definitely worth reading, if only because so many commentators have jumped to the easy conclusion that this summer's weather is the result of global climate change. (*1) The WaPo piece puts that conclusion-jumping into perspective. I mentioned my view on that in my previous post, but the historian in me (you know: the person who takes the Long View of the Big Picture) would like to add this:

Sure, this summer's weather has consists of broken records: new high temperatures; new streak of days without rain, and so forth.

But it's worth noting the obvious: records can be, and are, broken, right? Back in the 1930s, for example, people marveled at the abysmal stretch of heat/drought/whatever, as records were broken right and left, and they wondered about its causes.

So, too, back in, say, the 17th century: When people experienced "exceptional" weather --- lack of rain; too much rain, etc. --- they looked for causes. At that time, they typically blamed human sin and error for their misery: god was punishing them. In the 21st century, we simply have a different explanation for "unusual weather." (Which, by the way, usually means the bad stuff. No one ever bitches when, as has been the case for the past three, four years, we have spectacular weather.)

Nor does it follow that new records/broken records are necessarily indicative of anything other than "Oh, hey, we're having an unusually brutal summer of a sort not seen since the 1930s" (or whenever).

Is climate change a factor in this summer's weather? Perhaps. Perhaps even probably. But we would do well to recognize that climate and weather operate in long-term cycles.

Indeed, at a time when everyone chatters about "nature" and the "environment," surely one way to honor both is by respecting their complexity, in this case by recognizing that many of nature's patterns are cyclical and that those cycles typically extend for periods that extend well beyond one persons lifetime. This year's awful weather may be more than just this year's awful weather or evidence of "climate change." It could be part of a long-term cyclical shift.

Embracing a deeper understanding of nature is as important as the knee-jerk conclusion that new weather records equal "climate change." Jump to a conclusion, and you may end up missing the bigger, more important story.

______________

*1: Again: I'm not a climate-denier, or whatever term is being used these days. I've no doubt the scientists are on to something. But I'm also a long-time weather watcher with an enormous respect for nature and its forces, which are much bigger than me.

Drought, Heat, and The Price of Meat

In case you've not heard, the U. S. is having a dry (and, yeah, HOT) summer. Drought is one of the biggies when it comes to food prices. Grains are one obvious reason: lack of rain will harm wheat crops, for example, and so wheat will be in short supply, and the price of Wheaties will go up. Drought also affects meat prices. Why? Because cattle and hog producers rely on grasses and grain to feed their stock. (And please: let's not digress into yet another discussion about the wisdom of feedlots, okay?)

In the very short term, beef prices will drop. But over the long haul those prices will go up, up, up. To understand why, it helps to know something about livestock production.

Out in the far west (think Utah, Colorado, Wyoming), ranchers graze cattle on grasses. Those grasses are sturdy (they've evolved for an arid climate), but even they can suffer in severe drought.

When the grasses are in short supply, ranchers cull their herds: They'll sell off steers AND  cows that would otherwise produce more cattle. Why? Because they can't get enough feed for them.

BUT: even if there was plenty of rain in, say, Wyoming, those ranchers would start selling off their herds anyway. Why? Because they know they won't find buyers for them. Here's why.

Those ranchers sell their grass-fed cattle to farmers who "finish" them for market by feeding them a mixture of non-grass foods, especially corn and soybeans.  But if drought in, say, Iowa or Missouri, damages fields of corn and soybeans, the prices of those crops will soar (which is what's happening now).

So Iowa farmers who would ordinarily stock up on corn and soybeans as feed won't be buying it. It'll cost too much. And because they can't afford those feedstuffs, they also won't buy cattle from western ranchers.

Both groups of livestock producers know this. So what they'll do now is sell off their cattle as fast as they can. In the short term, the market will be glutted with cattle. Packers will have their pick of cattle,which means low prices for them and for consumers. In the SHORT TERM.

But over the next six or so years, beef prices will move up. Why? Because once ranchers/farmers cull their herds, the only way to rebuild those herds is with time -- it takes about seven years to rebuild a herd. Ain't no way to speed up the process of raising new cows who can then give birth to more cattle.

Pork prices will go up, too, because hogs eat corn. No corn equals high prices for feed equals not many hogs. But hogs don't take as long to reproduce, so the cycle for pork prices doesn't take as long to stabilize (plus hogs can and do have litters more than once a year).

So in the short run, expect bargain prices for beef, followed by higher prices over the long haul, and higher prices for damn near everything else that goes in the stomach (including things like beer, wine, and whiskey, all of which are agricultural products that are also affected by drought).

So, assuming you follow all of this, reports like this excellent piece from the New York Times should make more sense to you non-farmers. (I'm not a farmer; I only know this stuff because I just finished writing a book about meat). UPDATE: Here's another long NYT piece about the extent of the drought and its impact on foodstuffs.

And no, I have no opinion on the relationship between global warming and the Awful Summer of 2012. Not that I don't think global warming is "real." Rather it's that having lived in Iowa for nearly sixty years, I know this:

Weather is cyclical. About every seven years, we have a summer that's hotter than bejesus, and about every 15 or 20 years, we get excessive heat and drought at the same time. (Last time was in 1988, which I remember because we had just moved to a new house and it had central air. I'd never had air conditioning, and I remember being SO THANKFUL that we could shut the windows against all the dust that was blowing all day every day.)

For the past three years, we've had glorious summers, so I knew that we were due for a non-glorious summer. And -- ta dah! Here it is, in all its non-glory. I'm still glad to have air conditioning!

Smell That? It's RAIN! (Not Really. More Like "It's SCIENCE!")

Was just about to post this to Facebook and thought "NO, fool! Put it on the blog instead. Bring back that  habit!" This is SO cool. Yes, I can smell rain a'coming, and have all my life. (Out where I live, I can see, smell, feel weather all the time and that's a good thing. A necessary thing.)

But I had no idea the reason was so complex (although, doh, of course it would be!). I just figured it was the rise in humidity.

Anyway, this explanation from Scientific American is marvelous and fascinating. Enjoy!

Trying to Stay Cool? How's About Some Science Fiction History?

Maybe if I just aim for dinky stuff, I can "blog" w/out feeling guilty as I dig into the revisions of the manuscript of the meat book (folks, when a writer has a great editor, her/his edits make revising as difficult as writing the manuscript in the first place) This is utterly cool. Truly.

A  timeline of American science fiction, in the 1950s, from prose to politics to TV's view of the future. (The 1950s = a fascinating decade. For many reasons.)

"Found" this thanks to Twitter (an amazing tool for tracking ideas, events, new books, music, politics, general societal weirdness, etc etc etc....fill in the blanks as your imagination ponders the notion of a free-flowing ether of ideas!). (Specifically latched on to this via Ron Charles, a book reviewer for the Washington Post and a first-rate humorist/tweeter. Also on Facebook.)

Enjoy! (Me? I'm off in the astonishing heat of the summer of 2012 sitting at a desk staring at words, words, words.....)