I Got a Beef With Beef

In my Future of Food posts I mentioned that we needed a new definition of sustainable where the food industry is concerned.  I decided, purposely, to avoid defining the word because I wanted to use various news stories to highlight how the system could be more sustainable and expand some of my thoughts from the previous posts.  I would not claim prophetic powers, but I must admit the events in Alberta did not completely come as a shock to me, and they shouldn't to you, either.  And so, I will exploit them, here, to expand on some of my earlier thoughts.

In a recent Globe and Mail commentary, Sylvain Charlebois wonders if Canadians will rally around the beef industry the way they did during the Mad Cow episode.  He believes that consumers are more interested in where their food is coming from and are more likely to ask about issues of safety and ethical production.  He notes that the cost of raising beef and the increased dollar have impacted the price of food and goes on to suggest that, with the economic downturn, this combination may be too much for Canadian consumers to ignore.  I think he is right.  I believe that the industry will pay for this in the short term, obviously, but also in the long term.  But, what Charlebois does not discuss is where the blame should be placed.

In the eyes of the Government the blame is undeniably NOT with them.  As another article in the Globe and Mail points out, George Da Pont claims the blame lies solely with XL Foods and that the delay in acting was due to delays in receiving reports from the company.  Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz insists that the government has hired more inspectors while the union claims that's not true and the opposition and press suggest that further cuts are imminent.  In the early stages of the crisis Ritz suggested it was no big deal because no one got sick, then some people went ahead and got sick.

If ever there was a time for consumers in Canada to express their displeasure with the current system through their wallets it would be now.  Clearly the government has decided that it no longer wishes to be the guardians of the public health.  While they can spin their employment numbers any way they want the bottom line is THEY are responsible for inspections.  I assume this means they make notes, fill out forms, etc.  If there are plenty of inspectors why were you waiting for information from the company?  Why were you not in possession of all the documents related to the testing, inspecting and recording?  Why did you have to be notified by inspectors from another country first? Is it because you don't actually do the testing, inspecting and recording but simply pop in for a check once in awhile?

It is easy to lay the blame at the feet of a nameless corporation and accuse them of greed.  But, is it not the very nature of corporations to look for maximum profit off minimum investment?  Is it not also the nature of corporations and humans to put their own good ahead of the good of others?  Anyone who would answer that last question with a no is a liar disingenuous and/or naive.  There is a true conflict of interest when a corporation is left to be their own compliance overseer.  That has always been what the role of government was to be; an arbitrator, rule maker, investigator and protector.  In return we all agree to be loyal, patriotic citizens.  But, corporations the government of Canada are not living up to their parts of the deal. Don't blame an institution dedicated to maximizing profits for behaving exactly as they were predicted to have behaved.

Bottom line: meat processing needs to be done in smaller, local abattoirs.  Limits need to be placed on the amount of market share any one plant can dominate (40% of all meat from one plant is unacceptable).  Inspectors need to be government employees with autonomous powers to shut down production whenever they suspect a threat to public health.  This cost needs to be born by the processors (yes, I know it means higher prices...so what?).  Cattle farms must come under inspection for conditions at the farm and adherence to ethical best practices.  All grain feed producers also need to come under inspection and be certified.  But, mostly, Canadians need to start a new relationship with their food.  We can start by eating less meat.

A New Take On Corn Mazes

Let me know if these articles are depressing you.  Here is another story of the effect global warming is having on the food supply.  In this case, the poor corn crop will have an astounding impact on several consumer products, not just the corn itself.  Gas prices will be higher; milk and other dairy prices (which have already been climbing) will increase; beef, lamb, chicken and even pork will be more expensive.  In addition, other grains such as wheat, oats and barley will increase in price as farmers look to replace corn as their main winter feed.  As grains become scarcer in grocery stores, consumers will look to other staples to replace them, so expect increases in potatoes, rice and legumes.

These are the kinds of every day struggles humans will have to get used to in the uncertainty of a rapidly warming planet.  Mix in our ever expanding populations and our tenuous hold on civility could unravel as quickly as it has in the Arab and North African regions.  Our society needs a cultural make over; one that places less emphasis on the automobile, coal fired electricity, disposable everything and the belief that everything will always be there when we want it.  It seems to me that, in the story of the grasshopper and the ants, our generation has missed the moral.

Some of the ways to limit the impact of these uncertain times are already trendy amongst the hipster foodies, which is a shame because those trends always get lost when new ones take their place.  But, we need to start looking at food as less about pleasure and more about sustenance if we are to accomodate more of us.  The good news is, we can still find pleasure and enjoyment in this list:

1) Grow your own.  If you have access to some land that could be cleared and tilled and seeded you would do a lot to secure your food supply by planting a few basic crops to supplement your grocery list.  And it doesn't even take a lot of land to do it.
2) Share your seeds.  If you do start to grow your own food, the first thing you will notice is how expensive some seeds and seedlings can be.  But, learning to save your own seeds is easy enough and you can even trade with your friends and neighbours
3) Canning and Preserving.  This is where food and culture really meet.  Have a canning party; give preserves as gifts; exchange recipes.  It's fun for the whole family.  And, if you need a lesson, I will bet there is an Italian family within walking distance of you, if your live in Markham/Toronto/Anywhere, who would be happy to show you how easy it is.
4) Attend food swaps.  Here you can swap what you have too much of for items you are in need of.  Can't find a local swap?  Check our YYZ Food Swap on Facebook.

I hear you all saying that you can't fit that into your busy schedules.  Well, cut down on dinner parties and pot lucks and throw seed exchanges and food swaps instead.  Just as easy as a cookie swap at Christmas without all the annoying christians.  All of this, I am convinced, would be better for our health, our planet and our society.

The Future of Food - Pt 1 The Challenge

Let's take a trip into the future.  You can stay right there on your couch or chair.  We aren't going far, only a scant 50 years or so.  In fact, we can start just 3 years from now and see what food challenges we might expect to face.  How about, greater economic pressure on poor regions to meet the rising cost of staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn.  As early as this time, experts expect a doubling in the food demand due to increased populations.  It was not so long ago that the population estimate was at 6 billion, it is now over 7 billion; 77,000 net population growth per day!  This will see a 40% increase in food costs for the wealthiest countries and will see 40 million more humans thrown into starvation in just 3 years, according to The Future of Food documentary.

Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant.  The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble).  With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.

Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth.  Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population.  As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration.  Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.

But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000).  Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history.  According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years.  Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season.  We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia.  Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels.  All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.

Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources.  Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants.  Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways.  As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation.  Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.

One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events.  Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year.  Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions.  Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations.  Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found.  Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people.  This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle.  Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.

In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers.  Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers:  more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system.  In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.

Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program.  The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels.  Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people.  As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west.  With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.

Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole.  With this wealth has come a growing middle class  and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins.  The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year.  India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising.  In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago.  The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport.  The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases.  With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.

So, seafood seems to be the answer, right?  Why not?  Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land.  Great.  Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed.  For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians.  Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums.  In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished.  The same can be said for European waters.  But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken.  The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights.  Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.

The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model.  China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land.  Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements.  New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.

The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store.  Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home.  The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise.  The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand.  Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.

But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem.  Take the case of the Cavendish Banana.  This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world.  In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana.   Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality.  But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana.  This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year.   It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor.  In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity.  It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today.  I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.

Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future.  We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions.  Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day.  With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them.  Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise?  If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years?  If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture?  How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?

That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources.  I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead.  But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do.  Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy.  With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise.  But what road should we take?

Talk of Foie Gras Ban Galls Me

The State of Confusion California, has a ban on foie gras set to become law on July 1st of this year.  Restaurants currently selling foie gras will have had 7 years to find an alternative menu item.  There has been a lot of talk about the subject and where there is talk there is inevitably misinformation.  Regardless what your initial feeling is about foie gras, take a couple of minutes and see for yourself here, here, here and here, whether you think the practice is cruel or not.

All animals that are raised by humans as food will inevitably die, that is just a simple fact.  We are obliged to provide those animals, I believe, with as respectful and stress free an existence as possible.  Respect includes reducing the waste from those animals by using every edible portion of each animal we kill and finding uses for the inedible portions where possible.   I personally feel that the duck farmers that produce foie gras have, are and will continue to do just that.  I don't like liver and giblets, sweet breads and organs, but I do like foie gras and I see its production as nothing more than taking advantage of the duck's genetic trait.  For me there is no ethical issue.  I have more concern for the treatment of cattle, pork and chicken on most farms.  And, if you have ever witnessed animals at an abattoir you would realize the last moments of their lives are not so comfortable, either.  Add to that the treatment of chickens in the entire production process and you can certainly find far more deserving sectors of agriculture for a ban.

But, maybe you are not convinced by the links and you still think that foie gras is not ethical for you.  That's fine: convince me.  Define what is ethical.  If you are a vegan, congratulations, but let me remind you that agricultural practices of humans are the single biggest contributor to global warming, desertification, loss of top soil and water shortages; not to mention damage to ecosystems from over use of synthetic AND organic fertilizers and reduction of habitat for wild species.  None of which, in my opinion, is very ethical on face value.  But, you believe your life style is doing some good and this allows you to sleep better.  Fair enough.  And, I respect that.

The State of California did pass a law banning the shark fin trade, that I happen to agree with.  "Oh, hold on Dennis," I hear you cry!  "What hypocrisy is this?"  well, the difference is that shark finning is having an ecological impact that goes beyond whether or not I think it is ethical to eat shark (for the record I would be ok with farmed shark where no threat of extinction exists).  My guide for all matters seafood is the Seafood Watch program from Monterey Bay Aquarium.  There are some alternatives suggested by Seafood Watch, but unfortunately, the really prized fins come from the more endangered species and are usually harvested in the most wasteful manner using only the fins.  That is why I am opposed.  I respect the culture that wants to keep this traditional item in its cuisine, though I would respect it more if it found a  more sustainable, respectful and humane way to do so.

But, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, there are some limits to what I am prepared to do to convince you, or others, of my stance.  One limit is to avoid criminal behaviour including publishing your personal details on line for the world to see.  Or, having my supporters contact you to harass or threaten you.  But, mostly, I will respect the privacy of your family and especially your children.  Some in the California legislature are less principled.