Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Food safety and giant supply chains - a contradiction in terms

So now it turns out, according to The New York Times, that America's packaged food manufacturers don't actually know whether their food is safe. In fact, they don't have a very clear idea of where the ingredients they use come from. So they want to make us responsible for the safety of their food. All we need to do, they say, is heat it properly - in other words, hover over our microwaves, food thermometer in hand, sticking it into the food (in several places) to make sure it's hot enough. (When the enterprising Times reporters tried this with some Banquet pot pies, they discovered that you can heat them enough to burn the crust and still not get them hot enough to be safe. Sounds appetizing, doesn't it?)

The whole fuss has provoked outraged comments from many of my food-passionate friends. And it is, of course, preposterous that companies that are selling their pitiable excuse for food to hundreds of millions of people don't actually know where the ingredients come from or how to make them safe to eat.

But personally, I think it's also funny. Because the truth is that we can't ever know - for sure - that what we're eating is safe. Too many things can happen to the food between the grower and our plates. Food is an accident waiting to happen; careless treatment anywhere along the line can make it lethal.

The real problem here isn't that the food companies can't ensure our safety. It's that the consequences of their failure can be so dire. The Banquet pot pies that the New York Times used as its example of the problem sickened 15,000 people.

Of course, Con Agra sells roughly 100 million of those pies annually. In an operation of that size, 15,000 is a rounding error. A rounding error that brings Con Agra a ton of bad publicity, costs it a lot of money, clogs up our health care system, and messes up a bunch of lives - but in the context of our mammoth food system, it's still just a rounding error.

The problem isn't that the food companies can't keep us safe. It's that the food system is so humungous that the consequences of the almost inevitable failures to keep us safe are devastating.
(Just think - as terrorist experts do - of what would have happened if instead of salmonella, it had been something seriously lethal in those pot pies.)

We've got a food system that's too big to fail and is at the same time bound to fail. It's a pretty dumb way to feed a planet.

Because I buy almost all my food from farmers I trust, many of whom are my friends, I'm personally protected from massive food-system threats. I don't have to search my freezer every time a food company announces a massive recall - and when I ran my eyes down the endless list of no-name hamburger brands involved in the recent recall of almost 100,000 pounds of ground beef, I was very grateful for that.

But I know that buying my food locally doesn't guarantee I won't get sick. (Anyone who drinks raw milk becomes painfully aware of the food risks they may be running. "You could get tuberculosis," said one friend. And I could, I suppose.) But I can be confident that I won't get sick at the same time, or from the same cause, as the 15,000 or 150,000 or 1.5 million people who might suffer from a massive screw-up in, or attack on, our food system.

After all, most of the farmers I buy my food from don't sell to 15,000 people, let alone 150,000. If they sell a piece of contaminated beef or a few gallons of bad milk, it's not going to make more than a handful of people sick. If I'm one of them, and the FDA comes around looking for the source of the illness, it won't have to cross oceans to find it. All it has to do is ask. Because I know the answer.

And that knowledge, in and of itself, makes me feel a whole lot safer.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Of laundry and sunshine and washing days

One of the things hanging out the laundry has done - for me, anyhow - is to make me wonder about the vision I always had about our forebears. Back when men were men and women were houseproud, I thought, they always did laundry on Monday. I don't know just where I got this idea - was there a household schedule in Mrs. Beeton's book? - but I sure had it. There was a Baking day, there was a Cleaning day, and there was a Laundry day.

But if hanging out the laundry teaches you anything, it's flexibility. Because if you decide to do the laundry on Monday, it is almost guaranteed that while the sun will shine brightly on Sunday, it will pour on Monday and Tuesday. There is nothing quite so chastening. to those of us who think we have some control over our lives. as hanging out the laundry. Combine that with gardening, and you really know how little you're in charge and how frail your scheduling is. In the northeast, the weather has for the past several weeks been so generally wet and dismal that an English friend of mine recently announced to the world that she wanted to go back to England, where it was drier.

In its own frustrating way, that's one of the joys of hanging out the wash. Nothing I've ever done has put me quite so much in tune with the weather and the changing of the seasons - with the earth in its absoluteness. It's not just whether it's sunny or rainy. Wind has a lot to do with how fast the laundry dries, as well as how soft it is when you take it off the line. So, I discovered today, does the leafiness of the trees: the sheets I hung out a few weeks ago. when the trees were just leafing out, dried in half the time it took today, with all the trees in full leaf and the sunshine that much less penetrating. Then there's the length of the days. It doesn't matter how bright the sun may be in October, there just isn't enough of it to dry the towels in a single day.

And what on earth did our ancestors do in February? Just the thought makes "spring cleaning" suddenly seem like a lot more than a metaphor.

Labels:

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Is there such a thing as ecological intelligence? And would it help matters if there was?

The Financial Times recently reviewed Daniel Goleman's Ecological Intelligence," a follow-up to his Emotional Intelligence of a few years back.

Now I haven't actually read the book yet, so it's distinctly presumptuous of me to sound off about it. But I'm going to, because from everything I've read about it, I think the book is wrong-headed in two directions at once.

The subtitle of Goleman's book, to me, gives it all away. "
How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything." Goleman's argument, according to the FT, is that if they knew the effects of the products they buy, "shoppers in Berlin or Brooklyn or Beijing could make informed choices that would speed the conversion of China’s power grid from coal-belching plants to alternate sources ... or enhance the health of miners in Africa."

There are two problems here. First off, knowing the hidden impacts of what we buy doesn't necessarily change our behavior. I challenge you to find one SUV-owner in the United States who isn't, in at least a part of her brain, perfectly aware of the by now not-so-hidden impacts of her gas-guzzler, and who doesn't feel both guilty and defensive about them. None of which stops her from driving that sucker.

If Goleman is saying that all it takes for that SUV-owner to change her behavior is to tell her about the terrible consequences of the stuff she's spewing into the atmosphere, then he's simply asking for more environmental nagging. And I think we've already had quite enough of that. I was turned off of nagging as an effective way to change behavior some 30 years ago, when in a burst of well-meaningness, I tried shopping using a little
guide called "Shopping for a Better World" (now out of print), which ranked companies on a variety of social issues and then told you what products each of them made. That effort didn't last more than a month. I wanted some of the stuff that the nastiest companies made, and I didn't like the purer substitutes, and the only difference it made in my life was to stop me even trying for many years.

But just for argument, let's say that he's right - that, if informed about the result of their buying choices, consumers will do their best to use their buying power to clean up the Chinese power grid or improve the health of African miners. Just how, exactly, should they go about it? Should they buy only Chinese products manufactured using renewable energy? How will they know? So maybe they'll just stop buying anything made in China. If falling consumer demand pushes the Chinese economy into collapse, will that clean up its power grid? Has Goleman never heard of the law of unintended consequences?

What I suspect Goleman means by environmental intelligence is the desire to save the world from environmental collapse. But it's one thing to want that, and quite another to understand - much less agree - how to get there. On a listserve of the Society of Environmental Journalists, there's a passionate debate going on right now over biodiversity and poverty. To one camp, what is often hailed as biodiversity in desperately poor communities is actually the result of poverty so deep that it robs people of the ability to farm efficiently. To another, it is an ancient and freely chosen practice of great wisdom.

And - by the way - all parties in this debate are commited environmentalists.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 3, 2009

It's nice to be linked to, but....

I don't mean to pick on Chelsea Green, but.....

This morning they had a post publicizing Sandor Katz's new book (and a wonderful book I'm sure it is - I went to one of his workshops and not only did I have a ball, but I've been making kimchee ever since).

What worried me was their introduction, which said "We know that raw milk is now the single most briskly traded illicit commodity in the US, after illegal drugs. So what's the attraction?"

Not surprisingly - since I wrote it - that phrase "most briskly traded" leaped out at me. Only I didn't say it quite that way. What I said (in the story you'll find here) was: "Apart from illegal drugs, raw milk -- milk that's unpasteurized and unhomogenized, just as it comes out of the cow -- may be the most briskly traded underground commodity in the United States."

Note that: may be. I actually haven't a clue how many illegal drug trades there are in the US, let alone how many raw milk sales. But since I have certainly never heard of any illicit commodity besides drugs that's as popular as raw milk, I made a guess. A good guess, I hope - but a guess.

But as the story got passed around (and it has been, widely), the "may be" morphed into "is" and a new fake fact was born.

It's just kind of scary that it started with me.



Labels: , ,