Epi Epiphanies

Much delayed posting of a good link or two

2008-09-30T09:28:00.000-07:00

Here's a few articles I've put aside to post, and haven't had time for:

How to read medical papers
Applying epi to gang violence
Growing meat in vitro
The feasibility of eradicating malaria
The loss of biodiversity in developing agriculture

No promises to start posting again, just thought I'd clean up my old backlog.

Should it be law?

2008-03-19T12:17:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to say if rBST (known most often to laymen as bovine growth hormone) is a good thing or a bad thing for the dairy industry. I'm not going to say if it is harmful to humans or not. I'm not even going to say if it is harmful to cows or not. Mind you, I have opinions on all these topics; I'm just not going to say right now.

What I am going to say is people should be able to choose to avoid it if their little hearts desire. According to this article, some people (with ties to the drug's largest producer, oddly enough), are lobbying to stop "hormone-free" labels.

I could understand, if there were local regulations banning the use of an FDA-approved drugs, lobbying to remove those regulations. Trying to create a regulation against a label that says you don't use those drugs? Unnecessary, wasteful, stupid! Allow people the choice. Maybe this means you lose your market, but that's how capitalism works (at least, in theory): informed people choose where to spend their money. If you can't afford to produce rBST-free milk at the price offered and you can't sell non-rBST-free milk, you need to get out of the dairy business.

At long last

2008-03-18T10:21:00.000-07:00

I've been busy again, lately, and haven't really had a chance to weigh in on the humane slaughter issue. Instead of breaking news, then, here's some afterthoughts:

I was not amused by this article. This is fear-mongering, fueled by the fact that most people don't know their burgers are coming from dairy cows (I've never met a layperson who knew that; they're always a bit shocked). The understanding of epidemiology here is particularly egregious:

Dairy cows can also carry some common maladies, including mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udder; foot rot, which they can develop standing for long periods in manure, mud and damp straw; and Johne’s disease.
Scientists believe these diseases are not carried into the human food chain, with one exception: Health and animal scientists are currently debating whether the traits of Johne’s are responsible for Chron’s disease in humans. Chron’s disease is an intestinal disorder that can cause inflammation of the colon, severe abdominal pain, diarrhea and weight loss. Some argue it’s these very problems that prompt farmers to dispatch the cows to the slaughterhouse in the first place.

One: why mention all these "terrible" diseases if they aren't entering the food chain? Two: hate to say it, but milk is a bigger risk than beef for MAP transmission (MAP is the cause of Johne's disease, and is under debate as a contributing factor in Crohn's disease), so I'd rather have them at the slaughterhouse, where the risk of contamination is minimal, than in the milking parlor.

Lesson: don't get your information about your food from the editorial page!

I was very amused by this article. USDA inspectors may not have been doing their job, but that's really no excuse for the Humane Society avoiding their legal responsibility . . . and why were they contacting local DA, then releasing the video on YouTube with national promotion? Sounds like they wanted to appear to do the legal thing while making the biggest publicity. Shame on HSUS!

Humane Society grilled on not advising USDA about Hallmark

By Janie Gabbett on 2/26/2008 for Meatingplace.com
WASHINGTON — Congressmen repeatedly questioned a representative of the Humane Society of the United States on Tuesday about why the group did not immediately inform USDA of video evidence workers were abusing downed cattle at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co.

At a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on food safety, Michael Greger, HSUS director of public health and animal agriculture, said the San Bernardino District Attorney's office asked the group to hold the information until it completed its own investigation. The congressmen, however, said HSUS could have discretely gone to USDA earlier than it did.

Greger hinted at more HSUS exposes, telling the committee the videographer's identity must be guarded so as not to compromise current and future investigations. The Hallmark/Westland video, which was shown at the hearing, resulted in the nation's largest beef recall. (See Hallmark/Westland recalls 143 million lbs of beef — largest in history on Meatingplace.com, Feb. 18, 2008.)

Hallmark/Westland President Steve Mendell did not attend the hearing, declining the committee's request for him to testify. Committee members said they are looking at compelling him to come before the committee sometime in the future.

Greger told the committee that Hallmark workers said in criminal testimony in California that they were pressured by supervisors to get the cows up and into slaughter. Hallmark slaughtered mostly spent dairy cattle, often fatigued after being trucked in from surrounding states.

Members of the subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), used the hearing as an opportunity to renew calls for: banning all meat from downer cattle from the food supply, mandatory traceability standards, mandatory recall authority for USDA and the Food and Drug Administration and the creation of a single food safety agency.

William Marler, a Seattle lawyer who represents victims of foodborne illnesses, however, suggested USDA might have actually gone too far with the Hallmark recall.

"Although stunned by the video …I am more stunned that the recall has ballooned to 143 million pounds of meat and is quickly encompassing products that might contain trace amounts of the meat. No people have been sickened. I wonder if resources are better spent elsewhere," he testified before the committee.

First ethanol, now methane?

2008-03-09T16:23:00.000-07:00

Apparently the NRC guidelines for nutrients in manure are out-of-date, causing a wonderful renewable source of energy to be scrapped. I have one question, though: couldn't they just change the process to make up for the change in the manure? Oh, wait, that would probably cost more money. Sometimes I forget why corporations exist.

Smithfield says manure didn't make the grade for biofuel

By Janie Gabbett on 2/13/2008 for Meatingplace.com

Smithfield Foods said it sold its Utah biofuels plant because after three years of trying, it concluded it could not generate enough methane from the animal waste it was using to make Smithfield BioEnergy economically practical.

The company explained what went wrong a day after Beacon Energy Corp. announced it had purchased the plant. (See Smithfield biofuel affiliate sold on Meatingplace.com, February 13, 2008.)

The goal of Smithfield BioEnergy was to capture methane from manure provided by Smithfield's Circle Four Farms swine production operation near Milford, Utah, convert the methane into bio-methanol, and then convert that — along with animal and vegetable fats — into bio-diesel fuel.

"However, we determined that our bio-methanol production plant was not economically feasible — and never would be," the company said in a statement.

Why not?

The facility was designed using engineering and planning assumptions about the strength of the nutrient content of animal manure taken from government data and technical guidance manuals. Those assumptions proved to be wrong.

The nutrient content of the animal manure produced on Smithfield's farms proved to be more than 50 percent below published data estimates, which the company attributed to such factors as:
animal genetic improvement
improved feed conversion
reduced water volume used in production systems
and precisely formulated animal diets
"The fact that our Circle Four Farms operation is producing fewer nutrients than had been anticipated is a good thing from an environmental perspective, but the unintended consequence is that we don't have enough methane to make our Smithfield BioEnergy operation economically practical," the company said.

Smithfield is applying what it learned to other facilities around the country to reduce its environmental footprint. For example, projects are in place at facilities in Tar Heel, N.C., Plainwell, Mich., and Green Bay, Wis., to capture and use methane as an alternative and renewable fuel source.

I should post this on Friday . . .

2008-03-09T16:20:00.001-07:00

. . . but at least it's still Lent. Yes, that's right, fish is not meat and poultry are not livestock! I wonder if the Pope will ratify the judge's ruling?

Judge rules poultry are not 'livestock'

By Alicia Karapetian on 3/5/2008 for Meatingplace.com

A San Francisco judge has ruled that chickens are not "livestock," and, as a result, are not subject to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, according to court filings.

A lawsuit brought by the Humane Society of the United States against the Agriculture Department argued that USDA had misinterpreted the 50-year-old act.

"The court finds the legislative history strongly demonstrates unambiguous congressional intent that livestock, as used in the HMSA, does not include poultry," U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel wrote in her opinion.

Judge Patel granted summary judgment in USDA's favor and dismissed the lawsuit.

HSUS's argument was based on a 1958 dictionary definition of livestock that said that the word encompassed "useful" animals on a farm, while USDA said that the term livestock has always internally meant to exclude poultry.

"The plain language of these bills indicates that Congress intended to exclude poultry from the definition of livestock when it enacted H.R. 8308, the bill that eventually became the HMSA," Patel wrote.

You should read/listen to this

2008-02-26T09:49:00.000-08:00

This week, NPR's series Climate Connections is focusing on the effect of global warming on disease spread. Yesterday was an interview with epidemiologists on the ground in the Amazon, today was a review of a book on yellow fever, which I reviewed here. I recommend checking out this series -- it does a spot-on job of covering some of the big issues involved, so far. We'll see what tomorrow adds.

A response to the meat industry, minus the shrillness

2008-02-10T16:28:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning to write about this article for some time now, but I've been too busy to do it properly. Even now, it'll be brief.

The idea is that we, as Americans, eat too much meat. I would have to agree. You could say we're biased, the author and I: he wrote a vegetarian cookbook, I was a vegetarian for a few years. Still, my experience is that little or no meat in my diet makes me healthier. His research shows that Americans are eating twice as much protein (mostly animal-based) as the (high-end) recommendation. I think we have an argument.

The environmental issue is a touchy one, but he makes his point well -- we produce far too much manure in concentrated areas to spread on fields (some dairy farms are now leasing fields just to spread their manure). We use a lot of water and energy growing and transporting grain to feed livestock. It's not true that all meat production should be banned; there are places in this world, as mentioned in the article, where grass-fed livestock is the only agricultural option. I've been to a couple of those places and believe me, you wouldn't want to be a vegetarian there! We shouldn't deny people a chance to raise their own food, no matter what the moral guilt of a rich society tells us we should do.

And that's really the point -- we, as citizens of a rich country with a wide range of food options, shouldn't be eating so much meat. What should we be eating? To quote another NYT columnist, "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

International Agents of Food Safety

2008-02-05T09:52:00.000-08:00

This seems to be a good idea: if we're going to import food from overseas, we should put it through an equivalent inspection requirement.

I'll admit -- I like this idea, in part, because it will drive up the price for internationally sourced foods, much closer to local foods, which might give people another reason to support their local farmers!

Imagining a theory

2008-02-05T09:47:00.000-08:00

Quick update on the cloned-animals-as-food issue: this article contains a scary quote from an FDA scientist.

It is beyond our imagination to even have a theory for why the food is unsafe.

Wow. They can't even imagine a theory. Umm, I don't want the people responsible for protecting our food supply (which mostly consists of imagining threats and counteracting them) unable to imagine a theory here. I can think of a few theories. Not good ones, of course, but he didn't say credible theory -- he said they couldn't imagine a theory.

I hope our FDA guys will start improving their imaginations, fast.

Homogenizing the world

2008-01-29T08:49:00.000-08:00

More catch-up in spare minutes: I'm not sure this is a good idea. I've already heard from a local producer that an attempt to sell her product (goat's milk cheese) at the local Wal-Marts fell through because the contract would have required her to provide whatever amount they requested, delivered the day it was requested, to any store they chose. Small producers can't meet those standards, and they certainly can't meet these auditing requirements (or their cost).

Wal-Mart to push for uniform standards for suppliers

By Janie Gabbett on 1/25/2008 for Meatingplace.com

Wal-Mart wants to lead an effort over the next three years with other major global retailers to create common social and environmental standards for suppliers, CEO Lee Scott told employees.

"We believe that there should be one framework of social and environmental standards for all major global retailers. And there should be one third-party auditing system for everyone," he told 7,000 Wal-Mart managers at an internal leadership meeting.

Scott said Wal-Mart is working on such a system with global retail and CIES, a consumer goods network, starting with social standards then planning to expand to environmental stipulations.

Wal-Mart supplier standards

Scott also said Wal-Mart would build specific environmental, social and quality standards into its own supplier contracts. He said these standards would apply to all suppliers who work with Wal-Mart through global procurement, who are domestic importers, or who are manufacturers of Sam's Club or Wal-Mart private brands.

"We have already started doing this, and we hope to extend the requirement to all the suppliers I mentioned within the next three to five years," he said in prepared remarks. He said the company believes suppliers can reduce the amount of energy they use to make Wal-Mart products by 20 percent.

Wal-Mart will only work with suppliers who maintain these standards, will make certification and compliance part of supplier agreements and will ask suppliers to report to them regularly.

To underscore the seriousness of Wal-Mart's commitment, Scott said, "We will favor — and in some cases even pay more i for suppliers that meet our standards and share our commitment to quality and sustainability."

The pandemic that wasn't?

2008-01-28T11:28:00.000-08:00

I have 10 minutes, so I thought I'd play a little catch-up. Basically, this article is saying that we got a combination of lucky and prepared to avoid pandemic avian flu. Good summary -- we were lucky it wouldn't (and didn't) mutate that quickly and we were prepared with large investments in vaccine and diagnostic research. The question now, of course, is how to keep those dollars coming in the face of large-scale complacency by the public. Here's hoping this doesn't turn into a "boy who cried wolf" scenario!

Epi 101: Publishing bias

2008-01-22T12:59:00.001-08:00

Why are we now finding out that antidepressant-making drug companies only publish (the better) 2/3rds of their trials? Is it because drug companies are evil, money-grubbing, and soulless? Not exactly -- it's probably also a form of publication bias. Journals don't like to publish papers that report no differences (although this is a valid, and important, scientific finding). I've recently had that complaint from a reviewer -- we didn't find a significant difference (actually, we did, just not an easy one to distinguish, but I digress), so what's the point in publishing the results?

The point is that science consists of two types of trials:

trials that work, and
trials that don't work.

Number 1 shows us what to do next. Number 2 shows us what not to do next. Both very useful to know. Never publishing number 2 leads to repetition of useless trials. This is one of my pet peeves.

Oh, and the drug companies probably didn't want to report less than stellar findings.

Cloned meat is safe? Or offspring . . . oh, never mind

2008-01-22T12:52:00.000-08:00

I've put off blogging for a little while (too much writing in my real job), but I do need to comment about this:

The FDA ruling does not mean you will be eating Beta. It means that people who have spent large amounts of money to clone their best cows will be able to sell you the milk and meat of their offspring. The actual cows are worth too much to butcher.

I'm not taking a stand on this issue -- I just don't want people to be more confused than the media has already made them.

Interesting thought, hard to prove

2008-01-07T07:45:00.000-08:00

No, despite Simon's suggestion, I didn't get a special Epiphany post up. Thought about it, but it didn't happen. Oh well.

I was intrigued by this article, though. It's an interesting idea, that violent movies could reduce crime, but there's an inherent flaw: how do you prove it? I haven't read their study, but I can guess that there are a lot of potential biases. Do you control for policing or sentencing changes, which would require using data from a regional or even local scale? Then you would need to include the presence of movie theaters, the dates violent films are shown, some sort of temporal analysis relating crime to the release of a movie. If so, your power is going to rapidly decrease (the more possible biases your study considers, the lower your degrees of freedom, the harder it is to notice anything). If not, well, any or all of those things could be biasing your results. The article hints at a possible temporal relationship:

Crime is not merely delayed until after the credits run, they say. On the Monday and Tuesday after packed weekend showings of violent films, no spike in violent crime emerges to compensate for the peaceful hours at the movies. Even a few weeks later, there is no evidence of a compensating resurgence, they say.

What did they use to measure this? Survival analysis? Whatever they did, to really get these results, would be pretty tricky stats, which the article doesn't mention.

Still, interesting thought.

Epi 101: Treatment Bias

2008-01-05T15:23:00.000-08:00

Here's another basic lesson in epi: if you give different treatments based on socioeconomic status, region, or willingness to pay, you will get different results. If you give the same treatments, but spend more money on one, you won't get different results. You will get more money.

That's the sort of bias this book seems to be addressing. There is no scientific basis for our bureaucratic nightmare of a health care system actually improving our health. All it does is improve the financial health of the people who own it.

Why typing is good, but can't do everything

2008-01-05T15:07:00.000-08:00

One of my friends sent me a link to news about the Listeria outbreak in Massachusetts. I hadn't followed it too closely because it wasn't really a new story to me, but I have studied these things more than most normal people.

In this case, the bacteria that sickened at least 4 and killed 2 was linked to a milk processor by typing, a useful process that can tell us how related 2 cultures of bacteria are. That lets us go in, shut the plant down, find the culprit, spread the horror stories (one that I heard a few years back: cartons used to take waste milk to a swine herd were pressure-washed in the bottling room), and hopefully learn something.

What typing can't do is stop the outbreak before people get sick. For that, we need to rely on processors to follow S.O.P.'s and farmers to control disease within their herds. This is what my research group focuses on, modeling food safety at all the levels of production. No, it's not "bench" research, but it can be useful.

I'm guessing that the plant in this case will find a simple procedural change that led to a Listeria overgrowth. This is why modeling is important; we can predict what changes will do before people have a chance to get sick. No amount of fancy DNA technology will do that.

Please forgive the rant; I get peeved sometimes about the bias against modeling. We are important!

More waiting for a Farm Bill

2007-12-18T09:37:00.000-08:00

It's been delayed for a few years because the process is so time-consuming. It's been delayed this year because Congress and Bush can't agree on anything. Oh, wait, it's still going to be delayed, because whatever they turn out is going to be vetoed.

Well, that's legislation for you -- but the ag committee can't do much else until this goes through. That means delays in funding the USDA. The USDA does a number of important things (food inspection, WIC and food stamps, not to mention basic research like mine) that really shouldn't get put on the back burner for too long.

But I guess that's why the bill is so difficult -- it has to cover all these things, too, along with little stuff like subsidies.

Senate passes farm bill, moves to conference under veto threat

By Janie Gabbett on 12/17/2007 for Meatingplace.com

The Senate on Friday voted 79-14 to pass a version of the 2007 farm bill the White House has already threatened to veto, sending the legislation to the House-Senate conference committee to hash out differences and agree a bill that the White House will sign.

"This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Unless the House and Senate can come together and craft a measure that contains real reform, we are no closer to a good farm bill than we were before today's passage," Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner said in a statement.

Conner acknowledged he was disappointed the Senate approved the bill by such a wide margin. Broadly, the Administration opposes the cost of the $286 billion farm bill, which it says includes $22 billion in unfunded commitments and includes $15 billion in new taxes, as well as the fact that it did not limit subsidies to wealthier farm owners as much as the Administration sought.

Packer livestock ownership

The Senate version of the bill includes a livestock title (Title X) that contains a provision that would only allow meatpackers to own livestock 14 days before slaughter.

"We have a number of concerns with key aspects of that whole competition title," Conner said, when asked on a teleconference with reporters if the Administration would seek changes in the packer livestock ownership provision.

"We're going to be working very closely with the conferees in both the House and Senate to address this issue very directly as we go into the conference," Mark Keenum, under secretary for farm and foreign agricultural services, told reporters, adding that the provision is, "impeding commerce and trade with a specific commodity, in this situation livestock, and that's a slippery slope."

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) praised the livestock title, saying in a statement, "The bill's livestock title will promote market opportunities for producers; it will protect animal health; and it will strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act."

COOL and state-inspected meat

Both House and Senate versions of the bill contain mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) provisions that meat industry groups have agreed they can live with.

The House version of the bill includes a provision that would allow some state-inspected meat to cross state lines.

Taking everything into account . . .

2007-12-10T07:57:00.000-08:00

. . . you can't.

New research is saying that local foods don't necessarily have a lower carbon footprint. When you consider technical economies of scale (i.e. more efficient transport -- containers on trains instead of boxes in pickups), mass-produced fruits and vegetables shipped across the country use less gas than local ones from small farms. This is based on, for example, the gas per strawberry. Many strawberries makes light footprint.

There are other things the article didn't go into (machinery efficiency, farm supply shipping, etc.) that large monoculture farms have going for them as far as carbon footprint goes. With all of these things, I have to admit that buying all your groceries at Wal-Mart, especially with only one trip a week, uses the least carbon.

If that's your goal.

Me, I eat locally for other reasons. I want to support local farmers and local industry. I want the flavor of the heritage varieties (wonder why they taste better than the shipped ones? flavor and storage value are inversely related for most fruits and veggies). I want to know where my food came from.

Yes, I feel guilty when I drive my car all alone to the farmer's market, only to go to the grocery store once or twice a week on separate trips. I used to bike it, but that was when I lived in Kansas (ah, flatness; the prospect of hauling my shopping up two blocks at 40% grade or more is rather discouraging). I used to do all my shopping on Saturday morning, going without rather than doing quick runs for one ingredient. I need to get back into at least some of those good habits.

Still, I can't help thinking that basing a drastic shift in behaviors (an all-local diet, for example) on one good-hearted idea is dooming it to failure. As soon as you start bringing in other calculations, you'll run into complications, realize how complicated life is, and give up. Yes, we need to consider confounders. We still need to act, though, and it's up to you what confounders you use in your analysis.

Controlling(?) E. coli

2007-12-08T19:26:00.000-08:00

Someone was telling me last night about her friend's revolutionary work on controlling pre-harvest E. coli in cattle by feeding hay for a few days. I had to break it to her that it's common knowledge, now, that that works. There are probably thousands of studies going on right now to figure out E. coli reduction in cattle.

With all this work, though, who do people trust? The activists.

Yes, the people (in some cases) who say raw milk is healthier than pasteurized, or veganism is healthier than carnivorism, or homeopathy works. I'll grant them homeopathy -- there is a documented placebo effect if people believe something will work. Still, less than half surveyed trust the government on food safety! That technically includes me right now: I work for a land-grant university, studying pre-harvest food safety. But government isn't looking out for us like the activists are . . . I'm just going to stop now . . .

Less than half Americans see meat safety regulations as adequate: survey

By Janie Gabbett on 12/6/2007 for Meatingplace.com

In the wake of this year's spike in ground beef recalls, fewer Americans are confident the government has adequate food safety regulations for meat and poultry, according to a new GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media survey.

The telephone survey, commissioned by The Worldcom Public Relations Group, showed only 46 percent of 1,009 adults polled were confident meat and poultry were adequately regulated, compared to 48 percent for seafood, 57 percent for dairy, 58 percent for fruits and vegetables and 65 percent for cereals and grains.

At an average of 50 percent, confidence in food regulation in general ranked below every other category polled, other than toys (37 percent).

Trusting activists

The survey also found that U.S. consumers have more faith in activists and retail grocers than either the government or food companies when it comes to providing information about food choices.

While 64 percent said advocates and activist groups have consumers' best interests in mind when providing information about food choices, 62 percent felt that way about grocers, 53 percent about food manufacturers, 47 percent about the U.S. government and 26 percent about fast food companies.

"These results support the idea that activists may have been successful in dominating discussions about food policy," said Bob Giblin, a senior public relations counselor and research director who tracks food and agricultural issues for Morgan&Myers.

Subsidies aren't bad?

2007-12-08T19:21:00.000-08:00

Depends on who you are. If you're Malawi, it turned out to be the answer, the way out of the poverty trap.

The lesson here is not to ignore the experts, as the article's title says, but to work to your situation, not someone else's expectations and desires. Those experts Malawi was ignoring? The ones that said subsidies and big government would sink a poor country? They wanted Malawi to spend less of their (loaned) money. Most people could tell you, though, that sometimes a little more money spent is worth it in the long run.

Sometimes we're right

2007-11-20T09:11:00.000-08:00

Apparently, epidemiologists have been saying for a while that the UN's estimation of AIDS cases in low-income countries is flawed. Turns out, they were right.

I hadn't heard anything about the criticisms before this article, but I don't blame them for criticizing: estimates were based on anonymous women coming to free clinics for pregnancy or STD tests. Free clinics are primarily in the cities, and women needing pregnancy or STD tests are, by definition, sexually active. Rural, sexually inactive women would be ignored by this method. And they overestimated?

Lesson: think about biases before you extrapolate results to a general population.

Can you pay extra for a sterilized cooking staff?

2007-11-15T10:31:00.001-08:00

My first thought seeing this article: what will this mean for the CDC's 'cruise ship of the week'? After all, those things are great infection vats! Mostly because all the people are shoved together, though . . . maybe this will help.

Slow food revival? Nah.

2007-11-10T15:30:00.000-08:00

A friend was just asking me if slow food was as popular out East as it was back (for him) West. This seems to say that no, slow food isn't overly popular in the US in general.

I'm very worried by the statistic that 25% of family dinners are at restaurants. 1) You don't teach your kids to cook by going to a restaurant. 2) That probably includes (and is overwhelmed by) fast-food restaurants. Eek.

Americans like hamburgers, locally grown and convenience foods: poll

By Janie Gabbett on 11/8/2007 for Meatingplace.com
According to PARADE magazine's biennial "What America Eats" survey, 21 percent of Americans would choose a hamburger as their only food on a deserted island.

Respondents to the survey of 2001 Americans over 18 years of age were given a choice of seven foods. Pizza was the top choice at 37 percent, followed by hamburger (21 percent), fruit (17 percent), veggies (12 percent), chocolate (8 percent), apple pie (3 percent) and French fries (2 percent).

The survey also found that 82 percent of Americans use convenience foods (pre-made fresh, frozen, refrigerated, canned or packaged) and 22 percent are using more of such foods than a year ago. While 46 percent believe these foods are more expensive, 71 percent said the cost is worth it for the time saved.

Local, natural and green

The movement towards eating foods grown locally is "one of the hottest culinary trends to come along in years," according to the survey, which cited recent E. coli scares and tainted food from China as factors driving Americans to think about where their food comes from and how it is grown.

When shopping for groceries, 38 percent of respondents said that all-natural claims are important, while 34 percent said recyclable packaging is a big factor and 32 percent said "environmentally friendly" labels are an important purchasing consideration. And 70 percent said they are at least somewhat likely to buy products that won't harm the environment, even if they cost more.

Where we eat

87 percent said they eat home-cooked food for dinner, 5 percent chose restaurant take-out and only 1 percent eat supermarket-prepared meals
81 percent said they eat breakfast at home, but 59 percent admit they skip it and 4 percent eat it in a restaurant
60 percent eat lunch at home, with 36 percent skipping it and 10 percent in a restaurant
25 percent of family dinners are at a restaurant and only 5 percent don't eat dinner

More men in the kitchen

Men are doing more grocery shopping and cooking more meals than 20 years ago. The survey said 71 percent of women now do the grocery shopping versus 93 percent 20 years ago, and 68 percent of women said they prep and cook food for their household versus 94 percent two decades ago.

Fantasy meals

If a TV family could join them for dinner, 29 percent of respondents picked the cast of "Friends", while 24 percent preferred "The Brady Bunch" and 15 percent want to eat with "The Simpsons." Only 7 percent want to eat with The Costanzas from "Seinfeld".

Rachael Ray was the pick (38 percent) for the chef Americans want to cook their dinner, followed by (30 percent) Emeril Lagasse.

And if calories and nutrition were no object, 26 percent of Americans would most often eat pizza, 20 percent Chinese food, 14 percent fried chicken, 10 percent fast-food hamburgers and 9 percent deli sandwiches or wraps. A hot dog with the works was the choice of 3 percent of those polled.

The survey was sponsored in part by Sara Lee Food and Beverage and conducted by Mark Clements Research Inc.

Translation: foreigners are dirty!

2007-11-10T15:28:00.001-08:00

Okay, this doesn't really surprise me. What does surprise me is that this hasn't come up before. The real lesson: cook your meat fully (and don't drink raw milk -- the population of poultry workers and that of milkers isn't all that different).

More than 200 test positive for TB at poultry plant

By Alicia Karapetian on 11/5/2007 for Meatingplace.com
Some 28 percent of the 765 employees screened for tuberculosis at one of Wayne Farms LLC's poultry processing facilities in Decatur, Ala., tested positive, the Decatur Daily reported.

Final testing was completed at the Alabama State Department of Public Health's Tubrerculosis Control Division Wednesday, with a total of 212 positive skin tests.

The testing was done in two batches. On Oct. 11, 167 employees were tested, resulting in 47 positive skin tests, one of which was an active, and contagious, case.

More recently, the final group of tests was completed last week, which resulted in 167 positive skin tests from a pool of 598 samples. Those most recently tested and with positive skin tests will receive chest X-rays on Thursday to determine if any of those cases are active and contagious, according to the Decatur Daily.

Scott Jones, interim director at the state's TB division told the Decatur Daily that he is not surprised by the number of positive skin tests given that many of the workers at the facility were born outside of the United States.

Really?!?! Not a lobbyist?

2007-11-05T11:24:00.000-08:00

This is surprising! No, I'm not bashing Republicans -- most secretaries of agriculture have industry ties. Schafer, though, seems to be clean (of the ag industry; he has worked in other industries). Nice change . . . although the new Farm Bill looks like more of the same . . . one step at a time!

Bush nominates new ag secretary

By Tom Johnston on 11/1/2007 for Meatingplace.com
President Bush has nominated Edward T. Schafer to serve as the nation's next Agriculture Secretary, saying Schafer's service over two terms as governor of North Dakota has well qualified him for the job, the White House announced.

Schafer, a Republican who elected not to make another run for North Dakota governor office in 2000, will succeed Mike Johanns, who resigned to campaign for Nebraska's Senate seat. (See Johanns announces U.S. Senate bid on Meatingplace.com, Oct. 11, 2007.)

Chuck Conner, who has been serving as acting agriculture secretary, applauded the president's pick.

"Having served two terms as governor of an agricultural state, he (Schafer) knows the issues," Conner said. "He has led trade missions, promoted renewable energy and advanced rural development in his home state. His reputation for being a strong leader with a straightforward approach and optimistic outlook will fit perfectly here at the department, and it will be appreciated by the farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders whom we serve."

Jay Truitt, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, also spoke highly of Schafer.

"He will bring a fresh perspective to USDA at a time when American agriculture is facing many new challenges in policy development and opportunities in innovation and technology," Truitt said. "This is a critical time for U.S. agriculture, and we're looking forward to working with Mr. Schafer to help guide the cattle and beef industry into the future."

The title says it all

2007-11-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

Yep, no surprises here:

New cancer report says limit red and processed meat; industry disagrees

By Janie Gabbett on 10/31/2007 for Meatingplace.com

A new report by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research suggests limiting intake of red meat and avoiding processed meat as one of ten recommendations to reduce cancer risk.

The report, which updates the group's 1997 findings and reviewed over 7,000 studies, said it found that both red meat (defined as beef, pork, lamb and goat) and processed meat (defined as meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting or chemical preservatives) increased risk of colorectal cancer if eaten in large quantities.

It cautioned people who eat red meat to consume less than 500 grams (18 ounces) of cooked red meat a week and that they consume "very little, if any" processed meat, such as bacon, ham, sausage and lunchmeat.

"The panel emphasizes that this overall recommendation is not for diets containing no red meat or diets containing no foods of animal origin," the report said, noting that meat can be a valuable source of protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12.

"An integrated approach to the evidence also shows that many foods of animal origin are nourishing and healthy if consumed in modest amounts," it said.

The report pointed to excess body fat as a major cancer risk and noted that, "diets with high levels of animal fats are often relatively high in energy, increasing the risk of weight gain." It linked excess body fat to cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, endometrium and kidney, along with breast cancer in post-menopausal women.

To view the entire report, click here.

Industry response

The American Meat Institute (AMI) said the study's meat intake recommendations, "reflect WCRF's well-known anti-meat bias and should be met with skepticism because they oversimplify the complex issue of cancer, are not supported by the data and defy common sense."

"Given the complexities and conflicting research findings, it is inconceivable that WCRF could draw definitive conclusions and make such precise recommendations about specific food categories," said AMI Foundation Vice President of Scientific Affairs Randy Huffman, noting the causes of cancer involve factors like genetics, the environment, lifestyle and a host of other issues.

AMI also disputed the report's recommendations on processed meats. "Our own systematic review of the literature by independent epidemiologists has documented that 15 of 16 comparisons regarding processed meat and colorectal cancer were not statistically significant," said Huffman.

Harvard data

Huffman also questioned why WCRF didn't take into account a 2004 Harvard School of Public Health analysis that concluded that red meat and processed meat were not associated with colon cancer.

He said the Harvard study, involving 725,000 men and women, was presented at the 2004 American Association for Cancer Research Conference in abstract form but never has been published in its entirety.

Huffman called the Harvard paper, Meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer risk: A pooled analysis of 14 prospective studies, the largest study ever done on red meat and colon cancer. He said lawmakers are now asking Harvard why the study has not been published, given its completion three years ago and its federal funding.

The point is, again, how much can we trust epi studies? We can design a study to say almost anything; whether we can get it published is another issue. Should you refute a published study with an unpublished study? Or is it, as they imply, refuting a p.c. study with a politically blocked study?

How not to be part of the problem

2007-10-30T09:19:00.000-07:00

Good, timely article in the NYT today about MRSA and antibacterial . . . umm . . . stuff.

MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus, which caused, apparently, 19,000 deaths in the last year, 2 recently in healthy high schoolers.

antibacterial stuff: soaps, toys, cutting boards, etc. that have been impregnated with triclosan (an antibiotic) to prevent bacterial growth.

There is no direct epidemiological link between the two, but lab tests seem to indicate that over-use of the latter can lead to the former. (Interesting side note: should we reject a theory for lack of epi back-up, even though it works in the lab? Even when we also reject theories for lack of lab back-up, even when there's a statistical link in epi studies? Are we biased in our trust of the two methods?) Do we over-use the stuff?

If you want to control bacterial growth on stuff, as the article suggests, alcohol-based cleaners work better. If you want to control bacterial growth on your hands, ditto, but soap and water works too. Just in case, lets be sensible.

Geniuses can be stupid, too

2007-10-18T09:20:00.001-07:00

James Watson has been known to say stupid things about women, but now he's added Africans -- apparently, he thinks there's no reason for them to be as smart as Caucasians. After all, tests have proven it!

Much as I generally don't agree with Stephen Jay Gould, just read The Mismeasure of Man. Tests don't measure IQ (or IQ doesn't measure intelligence, if you prefer). We have to acknowledge that cultural familiarity plays a role in both questions and answers. I'm sure that an African-created IQ test would show the same differences . . . in the opposite direction.

Food is a right

2007-10-16T12:32:00.000-07:00

I hadn't seen anything worth the trouble of writing in a while, but apparently I missed World Food Day. It's good to see so many countries coming out in support of food as a human right (after all, if life is a right, food has to be a right). My one question: where was the US and why didn't we hear about this?

The oracle and Delphi

2007-10-10T11:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, Taubes strikes another blow at the epidemiologic stronghold! This time, though, he has a point . . .

Namely, people can be influenced by a strong opinion, especially if they aren't certain and/or multiple people express the same opinion. Peer pressure by any other name . . . it can certainly affect any study that requires expert opinions to fill data gaps.

That's why there's this great thing called the Delphi method. Basically, a survey is sent to a panel of experts (or they are interviewed, whatever your method). They are asked to answer a series of questions. Those answers are compiled for each question (range and mean for numerical data, lists for qualitative answers) and sent back to the panel with a fresh copy of the same survey. The experts can then change their answer based on what other people answered without one loud voice dominating. This process is repeated a few times, simulating discussion. Et voila! a consensus is reached in which everyone has an equal voice. A friend of mine used this method in his MS research and it worked quite well.

The price of free things

2007-10-10T10:31:00.000-07:00

Health agencies are starting to focus on giving away bed nets in Africa.

If you've been reading this for a while, you know how I feel about giveaways -- they cause dependency and ruin local producers/merchants! No hand-outs!

Except . . . giving away bed nets seems to be equivalent to giving away vaccines: bed nets actually have a protective effect on the community if used by a sufficient number of residents. First, really?--cool! Second, public health issues are actually considered to be areas in which the well-being of all benefits from public funding. Just like vaccines, it's in the public interest to provide bed nets to those who can't afford them.

So why the debate? Well, there are always a few small government advocates who want everything to be in the private sector. Also, some people don't like to let go of an idea once they get hold of it. I was once told that the correct answer to any question asked by an epidemiologist is 'it depends'. For the people who still cling to the concept that giving away free goods is the least cost-efficient development scheme, add this caveat: only if the societal benefit of the giveaway is less than the societal cost. In this case, that assumption fails, so we must change our stance and encourage bed net giveaways.

Can we even trust epidemiology?

2007-10-09T07:47:00.000-07:00

Another class assignment! In this case, just forcing me to do a more thorough review of an article I meant to review anyways. Here it is:

What level of proof is necessary to make a claim? That seems to be the question Taubes is asking in “Do we really know what makes us healthy.” I would posit that a more appropriate question would be ‘how do we interpret our claims?’

Taubes doubts the validity of epidemiological arguments based on his understanding of statistics as “tools . . . that may be unreliable” and “circumstantial evidence” that should be barely trusted, and only until clinical evidence is available. In one sense, he is right: as a science based on probabilities, epidemiology can be done badly and misused, with results that are untrustworthy. What about epidemiology done right? Sampling biases still exist: healthy users, atypical study subjects, compliance. Diagnostics are imperfect and that can bias results. Some confounders are unknown or immeasurable. However, dealing with these issues is one of the purposes of peer review. Taubes claims that the first report is untrustworthy simply because it lacks that peer review, ignoring the review process that is required to make that report. Any report published without peer review is indeed suspect, but that is true in any field. To re-quote John Bailar, “The appropriate question is not whether there are uncertainties about epidemiologic data, rather, it is whether the uncertainties are so great that one cannot draw useful conclusions from the data.”

The problem may come, not from the science itself, but from the understanding and application of the results. Taubes quotes an editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine on the role of the media in this debacle, namely, that the lay media interprets studies wrong. Rather than seeing an association as it is, they insist on a causative – it’s just easier to report. When a majority of these causations fail to materialize (although the associations may still be present), Taubes suggests they should reject epidemiology as an untrustworthy source.

Rejecting epidemiologic studies on the whole because a majority have been refuted is not a sensible choice. For example, many movies and even more books have poor to dismal ratings from tough critics; should I then reject all such media because the majority are considered bad? I would rather focus on the good, even if they are in the minority. That, of course, requires close, skeptical reading on the part of the science reporters.

Taubes champions the experimental study as the savior of epidemiologic conclusions. After all, if we can prove that the epidemiologists were right, we can ‘trust’ them (for a certain value of trust). However, one of the older studies he cites is ethically questionable (Goldberger trying to infect himself and colleagues) and the new studies he considers have plausibility problems of their own (H.R.T. studies choosing different subject types). In many cases, experimental studies are simply not possible, as Taubes admits. Why, then, does he end with a suggestion to wait for clinical trials to back up the epidemiologic associations?

The main problem with this entire debate, however, is the differing viewpoints. Taubes writes to inform the individual readers, who will try to apply the results of epidemiologic studies to their own lives. As any epidemiologist knows, those studies are not meant to predict individual results. To an individual, population-level data is a step removed. Maybe the problem comes simply in the application, stepping down to the micro what is meant to be macro – in other words, the ecologic fallacy.

It could happen here?

2007-10-05T09:01:00.000-07:00

Think I wasn't accurate about the UK being a little unlucky? Well, turns out their most recent FMD problem could happen here, too.

Just so you know. I mean, if I'm going to stay up at night worrying, why shouldn't you?

Unlucky? Unlikely

2007-10-03T07:11:00.000-07:00

Somebody asked Slate.com why British cattle get so many diseases.

Ummm . . .

Let's talk about information bias. To be specific, diagnostic bias and reporting bias. The UK has a fantastic diagnostic service. The UK also reports any diseases it finds. Therefore, the UK reports a lot of disease outbreaks. In sub-Saharan Africa, which has 75% of the world's disease burden according to a recent lecture I attended, there is no money for diagnostic services, so even strict reporting (which is unlikely) wouldn't lead to a lot of outbreak reports. Ditto for Southeast Asia -- diagnostics are lacking and reporting is low. China, on the other hand, probably has good diagnostic services; they don't report many outbreaks because they choose not to report what they find.

The reporting bias is an important point. On Promed, outbreaks in some countries are reported by the OIE or the country involved; outbreaks in other countries are reported by field workers or locals. If we only consider outbreaks in countries where reporting is through official channels, those (few) countries will look disease-ridden compared to the rest.

Okay, there may be some luck (or lack) involved in the case of the UK. I'm not sure Heathrow is a bigger international hub than Schipol or LAX. I'm not sure the UK has a bigger smuggling problem. They just got unlucky with FMD.

In the case of BSE, though, we got lucky that it happened in the UK. They diagnosed it (and fixed it) faster than most countries could have. Think SARS or avian influenza, but with no obvious animal link -- how long would it have taken Thailand to figure it out or China to tell us about it?

Zoonotic diseases? From livestock? You're kidding, right?

2007-10-01T10:23:00.000-07:00

This is a serious problem; urban agriculture is a growing segment of the livestock industry in many low-income countries with large, sprawling cities. Especially with the lack of good water treatment facilities or sewage control -- the sewers were one of the biggest gains in public health in human history, so what happens if we don't have them and we have all sorts of livestock spreading manure in our cities? In traditional systems, we didn't have this problem because animals were kept out on ranges. Of course, the animal caretakers had issues to deal with . . . and still do . . . but now consumers are at risk.

This doesn't even address the issue of free-ranging animals in urban areas (cattle in India, poultry and small ruminants in many other areas). They could spread disease directly, as well as from their waste. No solutions from me, sorry -- this is a sticky issue that needs a lot of attention.

FAO sees disease threat from increase global meat production

By Janie Gabbett on 9/18/2007 for Meatingplace.com
Increase global meat and poultry production to meet escalating demand has pushed production closer to urban areas, increasing the risk of animal to human disease transmission, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

"The risk of disease transmission from animals to humans will increase in the future due to human and livestock population growth, dynamic changes in livestock production, the emergence of worldwide agro-food networks and a significant increase in the mobility of people and goods," FAO said in a policy brief titled "Industrial Livestock Production and Global Health Risks."

It warned the risk of pathogen transfer is increased by: animal movement; the concentration of confined animals; and the waste produced by large animal houses.

With global pig and poultry production growing the fastest, the FAO cited a trend towards industrialized livestock production replacing traditional systems in developing countries, most notably in Asia, South American and parts of Africa.

It also raised concerns that most chickens and turkeys in industrialized nations are now produced in houses with 15,000 to 50,000 birds and that both poultry and pig production rely on significant animal movement.

The FAO called on meat producers to: apply basic biosecurity measures, refrain from building production sites too close to human settlements or wild bird populations, regularly clean and disinfect farms, control staff and vehicles movement and train employees in biosecurity.

A long-overdue study

2007-10-01T10:20:00.000-07:00

What are the international trade barriers to US beef, and how do they effect the industry?

Are you kidding? Haven't they done this before now?!?! For all I know, of course, this is just a duplication of somebody's thesis that never got read . . .

ITC to investigate international trade barriers on U.S. beef

By Tom Johnston on 9/17/2007 for Meatingplace.com

The U.S. International Trade Commission said on Friday it launched a probe into the effects of international trade restrictions on U.S. beef.

The ITC investigation follows a request by the Senate's Finance Committee, which lamented the economic impact of restrictions by Japan and South Korea on the U.S. beef industry. (See Senator wants audit of Asian barriers on U.S. beef on Meatingplace.com, Aug. 8, 2007.)

The commission said it would provide an overview of the U.S. and global markets for beef, as well as information on animal health, sanitary, and food safety measures facing U.S. and other major beef exporters. It will also will render information on other barriers to U.S. beef exports in major foreign markets, including high tariffs, quotas and import licensing and distribution systems, as well as analyze their economic effects.

The ITC is slated to submit its report to the Senate's Finance Committee on June 6, 2008. It will hold a public hearing related to the investigation at 9:30 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007. Requests to appear should be filed with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20436, by 5:15 p.m. Oct. 18.

Sensible classes? Real-world ideas? Yes, thank you.

2007-10-01T10:16:00.000-07:00

I know, I've been away for a little while (busy, sick, etc), but I've built up a backlog of articles to comment on, so here goes:

MIT apparently started classes in basic technologies that could be used in countries with infrastructure or supply issues. Simple, useful ideas for heating, cooking, powering, processing -- this is exactly the sort of thing more development agencies should be doing.

Now, if only we could get the classes held on-site . . .

Not again!

2007-09-12T14:44:00.000-07:00

British farmers can't catch a break. Also, the government needs to start contacting people, if this article is anything to go by.

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: ProMED-mail <promed@promed.isid.harvard.edu>
Subject: PRO/AH/EDR> Foot & mouth disease, bovine - UK (England) (21): new, conf

FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE, BOVINE - UK (ENGLAND) (21): NEW, CONFIRMED
******************************

**********************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007
Source: BBC News [edited]
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6990913.stm>

New foot-and-mouth case confirmed
- ---------------------------------
A new case of foot-and-mouth disease [FMD] has been confirmed in the
same county as the UK's last outbreak.

The government has set up a 10km (6.2 mile) control zone centred on
the affected farm near Egham, Surrey, and a pre-emptive slaughter has
been ordered.

A national movement ban has been put in place to prevent the disease
spreading from Milton Park Farm, Stroude Road.

A report into the August [2007] outbreak blamed a leaking pipe at the
Pirbright animal research site in Surrey.

The latest outbreak comes just days after the government declared
Surrey to be FMD free.

Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers' Union, said it was
a "disaster" for British agriculture.

"The industry will be devastated that all the hard work it has put in
to eradicate the outbreaks of 3 Aug and 8 Aug 2007 when the whole
industry was completely locked up for a long time," he said.

Dr Reynolds, said the control zone was put in place swiftly because
"containment and eradication of FMD is our top priority".

She urged farmers to remain vigilant and report any suspicions.

The EU has halted plans to lift the export ban on livestock products
from the area around the original outbreak.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is due to chair a meeting of the Cobra
emergency committee at 1700 BST (1600 GMT).

A farmer at Stroude Farm, Stroude Road, said he had heard nothing of the news.

He said: "This has made me go all cold. It was only Monday [10 Sep
2007] that they opened up the country after the last time.

"I can't believe it's happening again. I have heard nothing about it.
You'd think they'd let us know."

The Cobra meeting will take place once the government has received the results.

The control zone was set up around the suspected outbreak at 0935 BST.

Earlier in the summer, 2 farms tested positive for the disease but
the all-clear has since been given.

FMD was confirmed in a herd of cattle at Woolford Farm in Surrey on 3 Aug 2007.

A 2nd case, at a farm nearby, was confirmed on 7 Aug 2007.

A report into the previous outbreak found it was probably caused by
leaking drains, heavy rain and building work at the Pirbright site, 4
miles from where the disease was originally found.

But the Health and Safety Executive said it was not clear which of
the 2 labs which share the site - Merial, a private pharmaceutical
company, and the Institute of Animal Health (IAH) - were responsible.

- --
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail Rapporteur Mary Marshall

[ProMED-mail would like to thank Chris Griot for submitting the
original alert that this outbreak was identified, shortly before the
laboratory confirmation was received. - Mod.MPP]

[DEFRA's press release on the suspected outbreak in Wegham (seemingly
confirmed in the meantime) is available at
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/animal-0912.htm>.

The declaration of a control zone, including a map, is available at
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/pdf/declaration-tcz120907-2.pdf>.

Details on the affected holding, number, species and age of the
animals involved, proximity to other animal holdings, the estimated
age of the erosions (if observed) and the suspected route(s) of
introduction, are anticipated. If in case clinical symptoms have been
observed now, the virus may have been circulating on the premises for
some time, up to several weeks. Unravelling the source and route of
the pathogen's introduction are crucial for the decisions on the due
steps which may be needed to contain the outbreak and subsequently
regain the UK's freedom of FMD. The earlier such information becomes
available, the earlier efficient measures may be applied, free
movement of animals of susceptible species within the UK is
reinstituted and UK's international trade in animals and their
products may be resumed. - Mod. AS].

Why does everyone hate animal industry?

2007-08-29T09:34:00.000-07:00

Okay, not everyone -- just the radicals. The ones who want to convince us that animals are worse for global warming than SUV's. Yes, scientifically, that is correct -- feedlots contribute more to greenhouse gas production than autos (at least, if we only count the driving -- I wonder about production and transport of autos and fuel, mining, the steel industry, etc.). That is a problem in our livestock industry.

Is veganism the answer? I don't think so. Before I'm written off as a carnivore apologist: I was a vegetarian for 4 years, and I rarely eat meat. My point is the difference between complete abstinence and sensible moderation: I eat meat (and dairy products, and eggs) in small amounts from local, mostly organic, farms. Local being upstate NY, these farms are in an appropriate place (I'd probably eat less dairy if the only local source was a mega-farm in AZ, for instance), more appropriate, in fact, than most organic produce. In other areas, there is no other agriculture option -- what do you expect the people of Karamoja, for example, to do with their land? It's only appropriate for livestock. The problem comes more from large feedlots full of corn-fed cattle being turned into triple cheeseburgers for consumers that live thousands of miles away. That system is the problem -- producing enough meat to feed the American appetite for it has led to an environmentally draining, non-sustainable industry standard.

There is a good lesson here: eat less meat. As a matter of fact, Al Gore's official response to this criticism is along the lines of 'I told people to eat less meat.'

I'm a little more peeved at this than I normally would be because of a conversation last night. Several intelligent, educated friends tried to claim that dairy was just bad for a person. I know the one person has no background in nutrition and gets information from misleading and plain wrong internet sources. The other was just railing against fat and environmental issues, and claimed that, since you couldn't expect people to be sensible about buying local, sustainable dairy products, we should ban all cheese as an environment-killing weapon of mass hunger. Sorry, but no. Eat less. Eat responsibly. Don't eat at all if you don't want to. But don't blame me for my choice to support (and work for) appropriate livestock production.

Alternative antibiotics

2007-08-29T09:26:00.000-07:00

Yes, you could get a cilantro film on your chicken that blocks antibacterial growth, to go with the cranberries! Someday, at least . . . I love this idea. No excess chemicals to safety-test, no antibiotic residues and resistance, no scary-scary radiation, just some spices and safer products.

Then again, as they say, we can't replace best management practices with fancy films -- basic food safety principles are still optimal.

Risk, from the Street's view

2007-08-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

This is a bit long for an article on my daily trawl (NYT Sunday magazine, I think), but it does give a fascinating explanation of risk, insurance, and what to do with the tails of a distribution.

Also, it confirms why I don't like the stock market.

Epi 101: Diagnostic Bias

2007-08-21T12:49:00.000-07:00

Other than not giving it a name, this NYT article gives a great overview of something called diagnostic bias. If we start looking harder for something, we'll see the prevalence increase. If we look harder for diabetes in men, we're going to find more diabetes in men. If we find the same amount of diabetes in men as in women, but we tried to find it in men about twice as hard, chances are there is more diabetes in women than in men.

Just think about the math: if men have a 20% true prevalence and we find 75% of cases in a population of 100 men, we identify 15 cases for an apparent prevalence of 15%. If women have a 30% true prevalence and we find 50% of cases in a population of 100 women, we identify 15 cases for an apparent prevalence of 15%.

Real world example? Ever heard of the diagnosis disparity between men and women with heart disease?

We can do without them

2007-08-16T08:53:00.000-07:00

Hurrah for CARE! They have chosen to phase out US-donated food aid, focusing instead on local production systems. After the Farm Bill has gone through Congress with subsidies still in place, it makes me glad to see someone is going to break the connection between over-subsidized crops in the US and low-balled markets in the developing world. Helping local farmers produce and sell the commodities needed is always the better way to develop.

Any relation to what's going on in the UK?

2007-08-15T05:48:00.000-07:00

The USDA is going to start up their committee on foreign animal diseases (again). Wait, why did we stop having one? Anyways, anybody think there's a relationship between this and the FMD outbreak in Pirbright?

Yes, our development money is being well spent

2007-08-14T12:46:00.001-07:00

Of course, the US needs a military base in Africa.

Sorry, but I agree with the Africans -- I want to know why!

What will be the next local?

2007-08-13T08:47:00.000-07:00

Looking critically at the idea of 'food miles' and greenhouse gas production, some people are starting to think that eating locally isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Well, it depends on how you eat locally.

For instance, I could eat locally by demanding the same level of aesthetic perfection in the same variety of foods, willing to pay extra for the fruit or vegetable that wasn't meant to grow in my region. In that case, the extra water, pesticides, energy, etc. used to grow that produce could outweigh the resources needed to ship it from South America or New Zealand.

On the other hand, I could eat locally by paying attention to growing seasons and regional specialties, willing to eat in-season, local varietals that may have a few blemishes. In that case, well, I'm eating like one of my ancestors, who would never have considered demanding California strawberries in December when they lived in New York. In other words, I'm decreasing my footprint the old-fashioned way.

What's that? You can't give up your exotic tastes? Then don't. But buy the exotic stuff from the places it's meant to be grown.

You want more variety in your diet, and less seasonal clumping? Shut up and eat your zucchini!

With little power comes . . .

2007-08-13T08:36:00.000-07:00

From today's Promed digest:

FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE, BOVINE - UK (ENGLAND) (13)
******************************
******************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>

Date: Thu 9 Aug 2007
From: ProMED-mail <promed@promedmail.org>
Source: Pressgazette [edited]
<http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/biography.asp?contact=31>

Two journalists covering the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Surrey
have been arrested after breaching a cordon inside a protected zone close
to Wanborough.

The 2 freelance male journalists were today [9 Aug 2007] charged under
Section 27 of the Animal Health Act and are facing prosecution by Surrey
Trading Standards.

They were arrested, disinfected, and their equipment was seized on Sat 4
Aug 2007 after breaching a cordon inside the protected FMD zone close to
Wanborough.

Peter Denard from Surrey Trading Standards urged journalists to act
responsibly. He said: "This is a virulent disease spread on contact and
proximity. The idea that anyone not wearing protective clothing and taking
no bio-security measures is trampling through a potentially contaminated
area of the countryside is beyond belief. The media performs an absolutely
vital role in ensuring that information is made available to the public and
that everybody is kept informed of events as they unfold, and responsible
reporting is absolutely key. The local needs of the community must also be
respected, and we have been exceedingly disappointed that various members
of this rural community have been repeatedly contacted by different media
outlets and at inappropriate times of the night. We want the media focus to
remain here, and we are delighted by the professionalism shown by the
majority of the journalists; we would hope that the minority would follow
suit."

Surrey Police assistant chief constable Mark Rowley added: "These
restrictions are in place to protect contaminated sites and prevent the
possible spread of the disease. We all want to avoid the terrible situation
in 2001, and officers will not hesitate to arrest anyone who enters these
sites. So far, 2 photographers have been arrested for breaching cordons
despite the obvious need to protect the area and clear signs prohibiting
entry. No members of the public have tried to get inside contaminated
areas, and, unfortunately, the only attempted breaches have been by some of
the media. I'm sure all the responsible journalists working at the scene
and the public would be shocked to think that a very small minority of
media representatives are risking the further spread of the disease for the
sake of a photo or video from inside a contaminated site."

[byline: Sarah Lagan]

- --
communicated by:
ProMED-mail <promed@promedmail.org>

[We saw this kind of behavior a number of times in 1967-68, usually by
young and inexperienced journalists. The usual response was to immediately
send them back to London with a letter of reprimand for their files and a
suitable comment to their editor to not let it happen again. On the other
hand, the older journalists (foxes) knew how to talk and charm their way in
with official permission and therefore gained much more information. The
Agricultural Correspondent at the Daily Mail and I got to know each other
to our mutual advantage. I say mutual because he did give me an important
"heads-up" when the farmers in a village north of Oswestry noted that new
outbreaks seemed to be following 4 days after a certain veterinary officer.
He gave me a call at 0930, and I immediately told the RVO. By lunchtime,
the officer had been pulled in for office duties for a week or so. It was,
in reality, one of those statistical coincidences of no epidemiologic
relevance. Normally, I talked with him with a senior officer listening in
on the phone call. - Mod.MHJ]

What is to blame for this kind of behavior? I think the important difference, between the photographers arrested and the moderator's friend, is the position of the journalist. Note that it was freelance photographers who were arrested, whereas the useful journalistic contact was a correspondent from a major paper. If we pay the freelancers only for what they can give us, we'll have to expect some level of shenanigans to get the story/photo/scoop.

That does NOT excuse this behavior, though! Responsibility is not limited to those with power, regardless of how we want to interpret Uncle Ben. People need to take responsibility for their actions, especially when they could affect many others. These people? They could have caused a repeat of the epidemic of bankruptcy and suicide that followed the last FMD outbreak in England. I'm sure they wouldn't have considered self-quarantine, if they were ignoring security barriers.

Really, what more can I say?

Answer: No.

2007-08-08T06:45:00.000-07:00

The New York Times is asking if raw milk should be legal. Asking with every intention, it appears, of convincing us that it should. Although they cite a few of the health risks, they focus on the 'brave' families breaking the law (or bending) to get raw milk in NYC. 'It tastes better!' 'It may have health benefits!'

Let me make this absolutely clear: there are no health benefits to drinking raw milk. It does not have any enzymes or bacteria that you need in order to drink milk. It is not enriched, like commercial milk, with vitamins A and D. It does not guarantee a better source, being closer to nature, environmentally-friendly farming, or any other advantage.

Not that it is universally unsafe -- I must admit that I drank raw milk as a child living on a dairy farm. I came out healthy, with a strong immune system. I was lucky.

However, now that I know what I know about food safety, I would never, ever give a child raw milk. Bad bacteria, people! Death! I have a feeling that the woman who said she drank raw milk while pregnant also gave up cold cuts -- Listeria lives in both! It causes abortions! Bad!

Trust me on this: you have no reason to drink raw milk.

Should it be illegal, though? Plenty of thinks I don't like are perfectly legal, and I'm not going to petition for their illegality. Raw milk, however, is a public health concern. When you get sick from drinking raw milk, you cost the health care system money. You cost our economy your work time while you're out sick. In the military, they refer to this as rendering yourself unfit for service. Gray area, in civilian affairs, but, if nothing else, we should be protecting these children. Right? Any law is okay if it protects children . . .

If you're curious about GB and FMD:

2007-08-06T06:35:00.000-07:00

As usual, ProMed has the best information. Very curious -- apparently, it's a leak from a vaccine production facility. For those who told me they thought Plum Island could be moved to the new BSL3 lab at K-state: this is why that would be a bad idea!

FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE, BOVINE - UK (02): 01 BFS67-LIKE VIRUS
******************************
***************************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>

Date: 4 Aug 2007
Source: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [edited]
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/animal-0803.htm>

Foot and mouth disease confirmed in cattle, in Surrey
- --------------------------------------------------------
The foot and mouth disease (FMD) strain found in Surrey is not one
currently known to be recently found in animals. It is most similar
to strains used in international diagnostic laboratories and in
vaccine production, including at the Pirbright site shared by the
Institute of Animal Health (IAH) and Merial Animal Health Ltd, a
pharmaceutical company. The present indications are that this strain
is a 01 BFS67-like virus, isolated in the 1967 Foot and Mouth Disease
outbreak in Great Britain.

This strain is present at the IAH and was used in a batch
manufactured in July 2007 by the Merial facility. On a precautionary
basis Merial has agreed to voluntarily halt vaccine production.

In response to this new information Debby Reynolds, chief veterinary
officer, has instructed that a new single protection zone be created
encompassing both the infected farm premises and the Pirbright site,
with a single 10-km [6.2-mile] radius surveillance zone.

Immediate action is being taken with an investigation led by the
health and safety executive at the Institute for Animal Health and Merial.

In addition an urgent independent review into biosecurity
arrangements at both sites has been commissioned led by Professor
Brian Spratt of Imperial University. It will report to Hilary Benn
and Debby Reynolds.

This incident remains at an early stage. It is too soon to reach any
firm conclusions. All potential sources of the virus will continue to
be investigated. All other precautionary measures announced yesterday
[3 Aug 2007] remain in place.

FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE, BOVINE - UK (ENGLAND) (04)
******************************
*****************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>

[1]
Date: Sun 5 Aug 2007
Source: Defra news release Ref 070803F/07 [edited]
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070805a.htm>

The culling of the cattle on the infected enterprise in Surrey was
completed yesterday [Sat 4 Aug 2007]. This included the 38 cattle
known to be infected and the cattle on the 2 additional sites, which
together make up this same farming enterprise. The cattle on these 2
sites, both within the Surveillance Zone, showed no clinical signs of
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) but were culled in line with normal
procedure and tested. Results today have revealed that of the
additional animals slaughtered, one of them tested positive for FMD.

In line with normal procedures, Debby Reynolds, Chief Veterinary
Officer has instructed that an additional 3-km radius Protection Zone
and wider 10-km radius Surveillance Zone be placed around the 2nd
part of the farm. In addition, as a precaution because of potentially
dangerous contacts, susceptible animals on one farm located next door
to the field are being culled.

All procedures are being applied in line with the agreed contingency
plan, and intensive work is continuing to be done around the infected
area to eradicate the disease. We are grateful for the cooperation of
the local community.

Notes to editors

1. The Defra public helpline is currently operating from 6 am-10 pm.
The public should call: 08459 335577.

2. Advice from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) is that Foot and
Mouth Disease is not a direct public health threat. The Food
Standards Agency considers that foot and mouth disease has no
implications for the human food chain.

3. FMD is a disease of cattle, and very few human cases have ever
been recorded, even though the disease is endemic in animals in many
parts of the world, including Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South
America. Foot and mouth disease only crosses the species barrier from
cattle to human with very great difficulty. The last human case
reported in Britain occurred in 1966. The disease in humans, in the
very rare cases that have occurred, is mild, short-lived and requires
no medical treatment.

4. The exact details on the measures that apply in Protection and
Surveillance Zones can be found on the Defra website at:
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007//footandmouth/>.

- --
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail <promed@promedmail.org>

******
[2]
Date: Sun 5 Aug 2007
Source: BBC News [edited]
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6931858.stm>

Health and safety inspectors have arrived at the laboratory complex
identified as a possible source of the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Surrey.

The strain of the disease found is identical to that used for
vaccines and testing at a Pirbright research site.

Inspectors will 1st be examining Merial Animal Health, a private
pharmaceutical company on the site. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said
the efforts were to "contain, control and then eradicate this
disease." He also said the disease's "transmission mechanism" had
still to be discovered. "I'm determined that we do everything to
ensure that the biosecurity that we want to see is properly in place
and we can be assured of that," he said.

Mr Brown said the inspectors' report would be completed in the next
48 hours and that the ban on the movement of cows, sheep and pigs
would remain in place.

There have so far not been any further outbreaks, but Environment
Secretary Hilary Benn has urged people to remain vigilant, as the
source has not been confirmed.

Following the arrival of the inspectors at the site, Merial's
managing director David Biland said "our initial investigation shows
no breach of our procedures."

Defra has widened the size of the protection and surveillance zones.

Mr Biland stressed that the company's Pirbright centre had produced
millions of vaccine doses in the past 15 years without any problems.
"It is too early in the investigation for anyone to determine the
source of the outbreak," said Mr Biland.

As well as Merial Animal Health, the Pirbright site houses the
Pirbright Laboratory, a research facility of the government's
Institute for Animal Health (IAH). The institute's director,
Professor Martin Shirley, said there had been limited use of the
strain at the institute within the past 4 weeks but insisted there
had been "no breaches of our procedures." He said that the facilities
at Pirbright were being redeveloped following a report made in 2002
as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak the previous year, which
had criticisms of the institute.

The strain of the disease identified at Wolford farm, near Guildford,
was also used in a batch of vaccine manufactured on [16 Jul 2007] by
Merial. When the strain was identified, Merial voluntarily halted
vaccine production as a precaution.

Mr Benn said earlier that safety inspectors would 1st examine the
Merial part of the site, "because we know that vaccines were being
produced last month [July 2007] using the particular strain." As well
as the health and safety inspection, an urgent review of biosecurity
would be carried out at the site, he added.

Staff are also expected to be questioned on management procedures,
particularly in relation to biosecurity issues.

Mr Benn told BBC News "24 Sunday" the link to the Pirbright site was
a "promising lead," but he added: "We don't know for sure, and
therefore it's very important that people continue to be vigilant."

Conservative leader David Cameron said that if the virus was found to
have been released from the Pirbright site, then it would be
"astonishing news, because the organizations responsible for stopping
things like foot-and-mouth will effectively be responsible for starting it."

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
has increased the size of the protection and surveillance zones
covering farms in the area to 10 km.

The strain of foot-and-mouth identified is not one normally found in
animals but is used in vaccine production and in diagnostic laboratories.

In a statement, Defra said: "The present indications are that this
strain is a 01 BFS67-like virus, isolated in the 1967 foot-and-mouth
disease outbreak in Great Britain."

BBC science correspondent David Shukman said that if the virus did
escape from the Pirbright site, the question to ask was how. He said:
"Experts speculate that either it escaped through the ventilation, or
possibly an employee carried it out accidentally on a boot or clothing."

The review of biosecurity measures at Pirbright will be led by
Professor Brian Spratt of Imperial College London, who will report
back to Mr Benn.

A ban on the movement of all livestock is in place in England,
Scotland and Wales.

Northern Ireland has imposed a ban on all cattle, sheep and pigs from
Britain, but there are currently no restrictions on the movement of
livestock within NI and across the border.

Britain has also imposed a voluntary ban on exports of all animals
and animal products, Defra said, and the European Commission said it
would ban live animal exports from the UK, as well as meat and dairy
products from the area affected by the outbreak.

Some 64 cattle have since been culled at Wolford farm, and another
herd at an adjacent farm were also culled as a precautionary measure.

The outbreak in 2001 led to between 6.5 million and 10 million
animals being destroyed and cost as much as GBP 8.5 billion [USD 17
326 400 000] .

Defra has set up a helpline in response to the latest outbreak on 08459 335577.

- --
Communicated by:
Keith Marshall <kcm@cix.co.uk>

[The FMD virus which caused the 1967-8 outbreak in the UK was
designated FMDV-O1 BFS 1860/UK/67; its detailed sequencing data and
references are available in the table "Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus
O" at IAH's website
<http://www.iah.bbsrc.ac.uk/primary_index/current_research/virus/Picornaviridae/Aphthovirus/fmdv_seqs/FMDV-O_seq.htm>.

Experimental data during the 70's showed that this particular strain
was characterized by its capability for a relatively long-distance
air-borne transmission. To infect a susceptible animal, a minimal
infective dose is required. The number of airborne FMD virus
particles which may reach the respiratory system of the target animal
depends upon several factors, particularly their number at the
emission source (virus output), as well as wind speed and direction,
weather conditions such as relative humidity, cloud cover and
precipitation in the region of the outbreak, and latitude and
topographical features of the area.

A computer program for the analysis (and prediction) of airborne FMD
virus spread was developed by researchers of IAH and the UK
Meteorological Office in 1981; it was based upon data pertaining to
the BFS 1860/UK/67 virus strain (see references 1, 2).

References

1. Gloster J, Blackall RM, Sellers RF & Donaldson AI (1981).
Forecasting the airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Vet Rec.
108(17):370-4.

2. Gibson CF & Donaldson AI (1986). Exposure of sheep to natural
aerosols of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Res Vet Sci. 41(1):45-9.

Or you could just irradiate it . . .

2007-08-06T05:59:00.000-07:00

Well, what won't they think of next? Cranberry concentrate apparently slows bacterial growth without altering meat flavor. Of course, irradiation would do even better . . . but radiating your meat would make you radioactive, right? And cranberries -- it's like you get a serving of fruit in your hamburger!

Sometimes, I just . . .

Cranberries shown to prevent bacteria growth in hamburgers without affecting taste

By Ann Bagel Storck on 8/6/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Building a better burger usually involves ingredients like lettuce, tomato and cheese, but new research shows cranberries might be the most important addition of all.

Dr. Vivian Chi Hua Wu at the University of Maine led a study that found cranberries can help reduce the growth of bacteria such as salmonella and E. coli in beef patties without affecting how burgers taste.

In a study presented last year at the Institute of Food Technologists show, researchers added cranberry concentrate to samples of raw ground beef tainted with several types of bacteria that frequently cause food-related illness. After observing the ground beef over several days, scientists discovered that the cranberry concentrate significantly reduced the growth of salmonella, E. coli and other dangerous bacteria in the beef.

In the new study, Wu and her colleagues reproduced these results with a strain of pathogenic E. coli and tested the effect of different amounts of cranberry on the taste of burgers. "We focused on taste and found that it wasn't sacrificed," Wu said. "This is great news for consumers who are seeking natural alternatives to chemical additives in food."

Would it kill us?

2007-08-02T07:44:00.000-07:00

Yes, subsidies are absolutely necessary for the survival of the American farmer. Promise.

That's what they thought in New Zealand, too, but apparently they were wrong.

Another Farm Bill has almost passed (just the Senate and a signature to go) with subsidies almost completely intact. Sorry, developing world, but our family farms would go bankrupt otherwise.

Except, wait, who actually gets most of the subsidies again? Oh, right, producers of corn, cotton, soy, sugar -- commodities like that. What do most family farmers grow? Vegetables (unsubsidized), fruits (unsubsidized), meat (unsubsidized), dairy (okay, they get a little help). So who's getting the subsidies? Corporate farmers. Now you have US officials saying that ending subsidies would bankrupt our family farms and force them to sell out to corporate farms. The ones who would sell out either have already or are on the verge of it! The family farms we want to protect are the ones we're not helping.

No, we're not the next New Zealand. We can't raise our dairy cows on grass (at least not if we want affordable milk). We're bigger and more corporate to begin with. But maybe we could be the next Australia . . .

Sustainable gourmet

2007-07-31T10:30:00.000-07:00

In a conversation with a friend (a chef) this weekend, he said "I think local is the new organic." I'd like to make sustainable the new local.

We're not as bad-off as Australia . . . yet. But we may be headed that way -- in my time in Kansas, I learned that the Ogallala aquifer (the source of water for all of Western Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and parts of Texas and Eastern Colorado) is expected to run dry in 5-15 years. I learned that people are shot over water theft in parts of Colorado. I got scared. Coming from a wet area, drought wasn't really a factor in my life -- we had dry summers, but nothing too bad. Of course, now my parents have to conserve their well water in drought conditions, but that means only watering part of the garden each day. Not no-water-in-the-ground.

So where does gourmet come in? Where do we get our beef? Our corn? Where do our beef get their corn? I'm not against having cattle on the western plains; in fact, I think they're the most sensible thing to have out there. Grazing. Not eating corn grown on land that can't support it. Grass-fed beef? Not tender enough, according to some, but better than turning Nebraska into a desert. It may be best to plan your cooking, even your gourmet cooking, around foods that could be here in a decade.

Why Africa fears western (noun)

2007-07-31T10:25:00.000-07:00

This editorial seemed to me sad, but not unexpected. You see, we've been mishandling our PR in Africa ever since the West decided to go there. Not just our PR, but the African people -- when we focus on imposing our goals and expectations or ignoring African goals and expectations, we create animosity. When we hold positions of power, animosity becomes fear.

What we need is a giant PR campaign, continent-wide, explaining that we're trying to help. At the same time, we need to actually try to help. Otherwise, more people are going to be convicted of harming Africans deliberately.

After long absence . . . debate!

2007-07-30T08:28:00.000-07:00

I have been on a much-enjoyed vacation, but this article convinced me to come back to blogging (at least for now).

You see, with Farm Sanctuary being in Watkins Glen and my DVM alma mater being only 1 hour away, I treated some of these rescued animals as a vet student. They got extraordinary treatment -- months of PT for a calf, radiation therapy for a goat, exploratory surgery for a pig -- at extraordinary cost. People sponsored many of these animals, sending in money each month to ensure they never had to die without the finest of treatment. Many ran up bills in the thousands of dollars and up.

What are you people thinking????

For the money spent on cancer therapy for that goat, I'm guessing 20 families in Africa could have been provided with milk goats that would be loved, cared for, and given happy lives (while feeding the members of said families). For the surgery on the pig (which resulted in euthanasia due to an untreatable problem), 10 children in SE Asia could have been sent to school from the proceeds of a pig-raising operation. When did animals rank above humans?

I am concerned about animal welfare, and I believe the article makes some excellent points about the need to work together despite differences of philosophy, but I think groups like Farm Sanctuary have their priorities skewed.

This weekend, my parents and I had a goat roast for a group of my international friends. One member of the group who couldn't come emailed me, concerned about goat slaughter methods in Muslim communities. This is a reasonable concern (although proper halal slaughter is quite humane). My issue is with people who consider animals before people.

In my book, kids eat first.

A lack of courtesy

2007-05-31T13:29:00.000-07:00

I'm not a lawyer (unlike the man involved), so I can't say it's illegal to fly commercially while knowing you have TB. It does show a lack of courtesy, though.

Every article I've seen mentions that the man knew he had TB when he left on his honeymoon. He didn't know it was XDR until he was already gone. Knowing that he had XDR-TB, he avoided federal officials who were attempting to get him safely home in order to sneak into the country himself.

What does it take to knowingly expose not only a large number of strangers, but also your new wife, to TB? How does a lawyer justify trying to hide his movements from government agents? I'm guessing a) he can afford to have the good stuff (like a long European honeymoon with at least 5 flights), so he's not used to being 'thwarted' or controlled in any way; b) he hasn't been taught to think about others if that will make life less than easy for him; c) he either never knew or has forgotten any basic health protocols (I wonder if he always washes his hands). In other words, he's self-centered and independent -- probably from my generation (Gen-X). Selfish.

Yes, the officials could have moved faster -- but I can't imagine how much louder the press would be if that had happened. Remember, he's a lawyer. You have to be very very cautious about how you treat lawyers. Many of them throw their figurative weight around to get their own way (not all, but you get conditioned; based on his behavior, I think Mr. TB would have been dangerous if detained without media outcry for it). I'm not really going to fault them. I fault him. He had no courtesy.

Book Review: A Journal of the Plague Year

2007-05-27T18:44:00.000-07:00

Okay, this is fiction. It doesn't feel like it, but it is. Really. Defoe was only a child during the plague. These are not his memoirs.

Still, he captures a few problems that will be experienced in such situations:

if quarantine is forced on a population, they will do what they can to get out of it
people will panic too much and too soon, but they will also recover from their fear too soon
the poor suffer the most from epidemics because they have to work to eat

Just for the understanding of those points, A Journal of the Plague Year would be worthwhile. I find it amusing reading, too, but I'm an epidemiologist -- I like the lists of numbers of infections, the exact representations of deaths, the debate on the best control measures. I love the consideration (in the 18th century!) of diagnostic bias and its effect on understandings of the mortality bills. Really, if you like epi, you should read this book.

If you don't like epi, and you don't like old non-fiction (this doesn't read like fiction, I'm serious), then you won't enjoy this. It's a dry account of 'what happened' during the great London plague.

Regulations backlog

2007-05-23T18:39:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of catching up, three articles to discuss about regulatory issues:

1) Well, Russia wants to join WTO, does it? And will slowly decrease tariffs . . . wait, aren't we supposed to NOT be protectionists in the WTO?

Russia to join WTO
By Tom Johnston on 4/9/2007 for Meatingplace.com
Russia will become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organization by year's end, or by the beginning of 2008 at the latest, an official said Monday at the conference "Russia-WTO: Hopes and Strategic Opportunities" in Moscow.

Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref said it's not a matter of when, but how. In other words, the negotiation of terms on which Russia would join WTO is the top priority.

Gref said the average weighted rate of customs duties on goods and services would be reduced from 12.9 percent to 11.5 percent toward the conclusion of the transitional period. For some goods, the transitional period will be as long as seven years.

Additionally, Gref said Russia would reserve the right to satisfactory quotas on beef, pork and poultry until 2009. The country would then begin negotiations on a future quota calculation formula.

Overall, the average weighted rate of customs duties on farm produce will be reduced from 22.6 percent to 18 percent over a period of three to five years, he said.

"The degree of protection will not worsen for any group of goods," Gref said.

2) And now Australia joins the game. More incredibly expensive cloned animals to . . . uh . . . what is it we're doing with them, now? We're not eating them yet (and they cost too much to eat, anyways). I think this is more in the same line as above -- we want to do it because the other kids all did it!

Aussies deliver cloned beef cow
By Tom Johnston on 4/17/2007 for Meatingplace.com
Scientists on Tuesday announced they cloned a beef cow, the first of its kind in Australia.

Cloning "Mini," a Brahman cattle, cost her central Queensland-based owners about $30,000, media reports indicated.

Dr. Richard Fry of Clone International explained that the process is difficult, with a success rate of about 10 percent.

"There are problems with the genetics because if we don't completely rub off the memory of the cell that we've used, then you get the incorrect expression of genes," he told reporters. "You don't get embryo forming, and they won't result in pregnancy."

Chris Fenech of the Fenech Brahman Cattle company says "Mini" was cloned from one of his family's prized stud bulls.

3) No, we don't eat horses here. Not wild horses. Not domestic horses. That's cruel! Now go get me my burger and chicken fries! And pick up some Lamb and Rice dog food while you're out.

Wild horses run free: House votes to ban their sale for commercial processing
By Ann Bagel Storck on 4/27/2007 for Meatingplace.com
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted to prevent the sale of free-roaming wild horses and burros for slaughter.

A 1971 law originally prevented the Bureau of Land Management from selling the animals for commercial processing, but in 2004, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) inserted a measure in a spending bill allowing their sale.

About 29,000 wild horses and burros were roaming on public lands as of February, according to BLM, which wants the number at about 27,000 to 28,000.

The House voted last year and in 2005 to end the sale of the animals, but the Senate never took up the issue.

In related news, on Wednesday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved a bill that would outlaw horse slaughter across the nation.

Just too funny . . .

2007-05-23T11:22:00.000-07:00

Ok, this is dogs and not in my line but (apologies to Sallie), pugs need a recall. Don't buy them. Please.

Higher education follows primary?

2007-05-22T09:30:00.000-07:00

I was interested by this article because I've visited Cheikh Anta Diop. In fact, I have a friend who is a professor there. They aren't kidding -- the vet school (one of the few, if not the only, in W. Africa) is in good shape for them, but there isn't much there. Their entire lab space is about the size of the gross anatomy labs at any school here. They don't have a clinic to practice in. It's not where you'd want to be training the front line against avian influenza, rinderpest, and other diseases that could devastate our economies if they surged.

Why should we care? Besides the large proportion of grad students coming into this country from Africa (who need to know things they might not learn there), we benefit from their improved education by not having to pay Western researchers to do the needed field trials for African problems. They work cheaper even when they have the education, so we can put more development money into the infrastructure and project funds, less into the staff salaries.

I've been given this incredible blessing of attending good colleges and universities. One day, I may even leave them; for now, I'd just like to share that opportunity with people who've worked much harder to get much less.

Makes me feel guilty for not practicing

2007-05-21T08:26:00.000-07:00

It's starting to become news outside of the AVMA:

Farm animal vet shortage prompts fears of disease outbreaks
By Ann Bagel Storck on 5/1/2007 for Meatingplace.com
Surveys by the American Veterinary Medical Association indicate a shortage of farm animal veterinarians, which the organization fears could lead to disease outbreaks.
Although AVMA estimates the shortage at only 4 percent, that doesn't necessarily mean the situation isn't critical. "It's not like the other 96 percent can pick up the slack," Dr. Lyle Vogel, director of AVMA's animal welfare division, told the Associated Press. "Because of the distances and workload of the remaining veterinarians, they just can't fill in that shortage."

AVMA's findings echo those of another study conducted last year. (See Vet shortage could threaten food security, Meatingplace.com, June 2, 2006.) The shortage could be due to a large number of veterinary school graduates choosing to pursue small animal medicine with its perceived regular hours and better pay.

In response to the shortage, the National Academy of Sciences in March started an 18-month study to find gaps in veterinary care and look for ways to coordinate resources to fill them. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also has launched a pilot program that admits one student from each of the nation's 28 veterinary schools to a course focused on handling emergency disease outbreaks.

I disagree with their explanation for the reason, though. Although some may choose to switch to small animal for the money, it's more likely for the ability to not get beat up on the job -- large animal vets don't have an easy life, physically. The biggest reason, though, is that relatively more people are applying to vet school with NO large animal experience and no desire to work in rural areas with food animals. Therefore, we're admitting more small animal-minded people and they're not being convinced to change their plans. Why would they be? The curriculum in vet school is becoming more focused on the interests of the majority, which means the food animal subjects getting squeezed out for topics like oncology (a required course and rotation at Cornell now, but happily not until I left).

What do we do about it? Recruit. Maintain. Encourage. Fund. The program that APHIS is referring to does not select for food animal interest, but general interest, and I'm sure plenty of the attendees are not food animal-minded. How about a program that provides a good scholarship to one or two farm animal students at each vet school every year? That might be a little more efficacious. Money does talk.

What's the WHO been doing?

2007-05-21T08:11:00.000-07:00

While I've been slaving away at my thesis, the WHO has done some interesting things with regards to avian influenza (bird flu, for those of you relying on the general news media). First, promising vaccine to low-income countries:

WHO pledges AI vaccine stockpile for poor countries
By Tom Johnston on 4/9/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Following calls from developing nations to more fairly distribute avian influenza vaccines, the World Health Organization said it will establish a global stockpile of vaccines for poor countries.

WHO director general Margaret Chan, who recently visited Indonesia, said the vaccine reserve would be critical for helping developing countries battle bird flu, the Jakarta Post reported.

Chan met with Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recently to discuss worldwide vaccine production, some of which depends on virus sample supply from Indonesia.

"We will look at how to develop global stockpiles of vaccines, particularly for developing countries," Chan said, noting that WHO would gather resources from affluent countries, donors and large pharmaceutical companies.

Chan also noted that developing nations will have to fully cooperate in the world's fight against avian influenza. "The sharing of information on the virus is a requirement for all countries under an international health regulation which will come into effect June 15," she said.

I didn't know we had a good vaccine developed yet, but if we do . . . of course, they should be distributed to where they'll be the most efficacious -- wherever the disease occurs! Why not, if we're doing a centralized production, do a centralized distribution based on actual risk analyses? Oh, right, that would be using science to make decisions. We generally prefer economics or politics, which leads me to the second issue:

WHO presses China for human AI samples
By Alicia Karapetian on 4/18/2007 for Meatingplace.com

China has not shared human samples of highly pathogenic avian influenza in a year, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.

WHO officials contend that the lack of access to samples could hinder efforts to combat the disease, the Associated Press reported.

"Since [samples were last shared] there have been five H5N1 cases in China, plus a Beijing 2003 case reported in 2006," WHO Spokesman Joanna Brent told AP.

WHO hopes to receive two samples from the five recent victims in addition to the 2003 case.

They share that there are 5 cases, plus an old one they didn't mention, but they refuse to share the samples. Who actually believes there were only 5 cases? And that the samples of any or all of the cases will be shared just by asking? Sometimes, though, I think China obfuscates for the sake of having a secret. They don't lose anything by sharing samples except their scientists having sole access to a set of samples that probably aren't special enough to give them an edge in publishing etc. By sharing those samples, they would get the free benefit of the WHO's expertise. Not even free -- they've already paid for it by supporting the WHO as a member nation!

You probably haven't read anything in the news about H5N1 in a while. It's not gone. It's just not going anywhere.

I've been away a while . . .

2007-05-21T07:54:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've been just a bit busy with my thesis. I'll try to catch up; many news stories I've meant to share and discuss.

Hunger: the end

2007-04-06T19:05:00.000-07:00

What does one write on Good Friday, when one has spent the last 40 days writing about hunger? When one has gone grocery shopping this afternoon, buying luxuries against the end of the Lenten discipline? When one has never truly felt hunger, despite that discipline, and despite knowing those who have?

I don't know what to write. I am blessed, as, I imagine, are you, to have eaten my fill many times, to have education and opportunities, to speak and write and read on issues that interest me. The tragedy of hunger is that it walks hand in hand with the lack of all those things. Hunger travels with ignorance, with oppression, because it feeds from them. Hunger lives with those who were not given a chance far more often than those who were.

The truth is, I can't really add anything to what I've written before. I've exp lai ned my take on the hunger sit uat ion and some poss ible so lut io ns. If you want to learn more, I've sug ges ted some res our ces. For now, I'll just ask: please, do something.

Hunger: malnutrition in the midst of plenty

2007-04-05T14:22:00.000-07:00

This may not seem like an issue to attack in a post on hunger, but I think it is vital for domestic issues of hunger: the poor are not just going hungry, they're being malnourished.

Undernourished and malnourished are different things. Undernourished is a lack of calories. Malnourished is the wrong calories, or the wrong balance of nutrients.

Our children in poor communities are being malnourished, in part, because healthy food isn't available. If you aren't in a suburb with a car to get to the big supermarket, your access to fresh produce and non-packaged food is limited. In the country, of course, you can grow your own. In the city, many people are left with just the corner convenience store. How healthy can it be to eat every meal out of convenience store choices? Not to mention expensive . . .

Add to this the ubiquitous cheap fast food with low nutritional value to match the low price, and the poor choices available in many school cafeterias, and the parents who don't know how to cook from basic ingredients . . . you get poverty leading to malnourishment, with or without undernourishment. NYC is doing something about this. It might be a good idea for other cities to consider similar actions.

Until then, let's push for farmer's markets and neighborhood grocery stores, for healthy school lunches and nutritional training as part of development strategies. That may help end one of the less visible hunger effects of poverty.

Hunger: breaking out of apathy

2007-04-04T15:49:00.000-07:00

Well, I could use a little of this for my work right now, but maybe we'll tackle the problem of world-hunger-apathy.

Why does it exist? Maybe I'm feeling a little pessimistic, but I think it has to do with our basic selfishness. If we personally are not hungry, why would we care about hunger? That's the idea of the hunger banquets and educational/short-term mission trips: letting people actually experience the feeling. That can help break apathetic cycles.

Maybe the distance is also related; most of us don't live near the hungry, so it seems less important than the things we see every day. There, again, the short trips to areas that experience hunger can help close the distance. Also, volunteering with organizations that work directly with the hungry could help increase your feelings for local hunger issues.

Mostly, though, we have to make the decision to care. I guess that's my theme this week: the choice is individual and personal. Then we can start trying to shock ourselves into doing something.

Hunger: Stewardship

2007-04-03T17:07:00.000-07:00

I've written in the past about accountability, but a meeting/speaker I went to tonight got me interested in writing about stewardship. They're similar things, but while accountability means reporting to an outside agency, stewardship means reporting to yourself and God.

If we were perfect stewards, would there be hunger in the world? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I feel that perfect stewardship would entail us giving the extra that we don't need to someone who could use it to its full potential (on a personal or national or international level, same concept). Then again, unless perfect stewardship from us was matched by perfect stewardship by everyone else, some people would waste what they had and people would go hungry by result, whether the waste happened in someone's excessive possessions or someone else's minimal possessions. In other words, we can't end hunger by perfecting the use of our own resources.

We could end hunger if we got the entire world to steward their resources perfectly. That's the idea behind socialism, right? Everyone has a certain amount of things to which they are entitled, and those that have extra will have to give it up to those who have not enough. Socialist governments take this principle and mandate it, but I'm not sure that works right (unless the nation in question has a Scandinavian work ethic, so people work even though they will get the same financial benefits from laziness). I think, in the end, that people have to choose stewardship for themselves.

That leaves us with only one acting point: convincing people to be good stewards. I guess that's what I've been trying to do here, these 40 days, by showing how and why. You have to make the decision, though.

Please?

Hunger: why?

2007-04-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

I admit, I'm out of ideas. This has happened on occasion in the last 35 days, but inspiration generally struck. Today -- nothing.

So maybe I'll talk about why hunger exists. Except, of course, that I don't really know. I can spout off arguments: distribution problems, inequity, greed, misunderstanding, drought, disease, the list goes on. But none of these are core reasons.

I think all of this stems from living in a fallen world. I'm not going to get too deep into theology, but everyone should be able to agree that this world and the people in it are not inherently good in the sense that we think of good. The world is good, but not good, if you know what I mean. We think good means good-to-us, when it actually means good-for-us. Big difference.

People are not good, deep down, in any sense of the word. We all have feelings that we refer to as base, base instincts and base emotions. Ever wonder why we use that term in the connotation of bad? We sense that we are imperfect, flawed creatures at heart.

So hunger exists. Some people live in plenty while others suffer in need. Thus it was and ever shall be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it, just that we need to know that we can't ever completely fix it. I joke that my career goal is to end world hunger, but I have to admit that making a small dent is all I can reasonably hope for.

But that small dent is worth it.

Hunger: participation

2007-04-01T11:27:00.000-07:00

If you couldn't tell in my earlier posts, I consider participation to be crucial in any development plan. In particular, participation from the people who are going to benefit. It's good to have the local, regional, and national governments involved, it's nice to have the help of other agencies in the area and in the field, but it's absolutely crucial to have the input, agreement, and active participation of the people you're trying to help.

Otherwise, you do dumb things, spending lots of money on projects that everyone will ignore. Examples I've been told: irrigation projects with pipes that no one knows how to fix (it breaks, it's useless), training in modern surgery techniques (castration, in the case I heard of) when the supplies in the area are limited (a rope and a knife), providing improved chickens when people don't like the taste of birds with white feathers.

How do you get participation? Start at the beginning: do a needs assessment. The best way I've heard of to do that is the bean method. Draw up a list of projects your organization would be willing to work on. Have a big meeting in the community, with all the people who might possibly be involved there (you might think that would be difficult, but in my experience people will drop everything for a meeting, especially if the elders get to make speeches). Explain the different projects: who would be involved, what they would entail, what the benefits might be. Put a symbol on the ground to represent each project (i.e. a hammer for a building project). Give every person in attendance a number of dried beans (10 may be best). Tell them to put as many beans as they want in a pile in front of the projects they most like, with more going to the better projects and none to the worst. That way, the people vote, anonymously, with the understanding that people may want more than one of your options. The projects with the most beans in their piles win your support.

Once you've chosen a project, work with the community leaders. Make sure that people in the community support your project in action, not just words: find volunteers to help or hire locals to do some of the work. Teach people as you go the basics of repair, continuation, whatever is appropriate. Invite the elders to your meetings, at least before making any major decisions. You should spend as much time on teaching as on your 'official' job.

Above all, you are not an expert in their way of life. They are. Listen to them, learn from them, and make no assumptions about them.

Hunger: more alternative(s)

2007-03-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

No post yesterday: the nicer the hotels, the less is free. I wasn't going to pay 10 dollars to spend an hour of my sleeping time online, sorry.

What else can we do about hunger, besides giving food?

Education is the key, really, to improving lives in the long run. The old saw is that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him to fish, you feed him for life. Well, if you teach him aquaculture techniques, you feed his country for even longer.

Not just agricultural education, though. For many people in places where hunger strikes on a regular basis, their only capital is themselves. They have no savings, no valuables, little to no land: no real assets. But they have themselves. Most of the time, that means they have a body that is used to hard work, which they can rent to people. Wouldn't it be better to provide them with a strong mind, capable of higher-level, better-paying jobs, to accompany that body? With education, Bangalore has gone from low-income to IT center to the world. Despite an agricultural history, they have developed a way to feed their people through non-agricultural jobs.

Ag education does have its place in the grand education scheme. In countries currently relying on ag production, schools and universities should try to develop a strong extension and research service in each of their production zones or regions. This requires a good training program for scientists and extension specialists, preferably to return to their home regions and work in cooperation with the local farmers.

All of this requires a good primary and secondary school system feeding into upper-level training. I cannot stress enough the necessity of universal primary education. It may not put food in stomachs today, but it will do more in the long run than we ever can with free corn.

Hunger: alternatives

2007-03-28T15:01:00.000-07:00

Since I spent yesterday's post talking about not giving food away, what are our alternatives? I mentioned food for work programs, but there are other choices:

fund programs to improve genetics and techniques in local agriculture
improve transportation infrastructure from farms to hungry people
decrease post-harvest losses with improved storage facilities
increase local industry (this improves wages, which increases the amount people can spend on food)

There's something you might notice about these: they mostly involve giving money! As I've mentioned before, most governments would prefer to give food because it makes money for their farmers and agro-allied industries. The truth is, though, money is much more useful. I don't think people will pick this up and run with it. After all, it costs more, doesn't it?

Pregnancy and beef?

2007-03-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

This is ridiculous. How many possible sources of bias are there in this study? Looking at the diets of women when they were pregnant long enough ago that they are now grandmothers!?!? And assuming that the current levels of hormones in beef were present then. And that no other possible sources of anything that would affect development might have been present. And that the women even remember accurately how much beef they ate. Bad epi!

Study links beef-eating moms to sons with low sperm counts; AMI objects

By Ann Bagel Storck on 3/28/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Men whose mothers ate a lot of beef during pregnancy are more likely to have low sperm counts and fertility problems, according to a report in the journal Human Reproduction.

Dr. Shanna H. Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center, the report's author, identified anabolic steroids used to fatten cattle, pesticides and other environmental contaminants as possible causes of the problems.

Swan and her colleagues studied 387 partners of pregnant women in five U.S. cities. Each man provided a sperm sample, and his mother completed a questionnaire about what she ate during her pregnancy. On average, the mothers reported eating beef about 4.5 times weekly and other meats less frequently.

For women who ate beef at least seven times a week, the son's sperm averaged 24.3 percent below normal. Although those sons did produce a pregnancy, they were three times as likely to have consulted a fertility doctor.

AMI's criticism

The American Meat Institute advised that the study be viewed with "a giant dose of skepticism." Its most glaring fault, AMI said, was its "purely speculative conclusion" that chemical components in the beef were linked to the fertility problems.

"The study does not include any laboratory analysis of the compounds suggested to be contained in beef, much less the beef that may have been consumed by the mothers decades ago," said Randy Huffman, AMI Foundation vice president of scientific affairs.

AMI also criticized the validity of women "of advanced age" recalling what they ate decades ago. Swan conceded that women may have difficulty remembering their diets after such a passage of time, but added, "When you are pregnant, you are very aware of what you eat."

Swan also emphasized that the study needs to be confirmed, and it is too soon to recommend that pregnant women avoid eating beef.

Hunger: handouts

2007-03-27T17:29:00.000-07:00

At Roxann's suggestion (since I was out of ideas tonight):

Why is handing out food (usually) a bad idea?

Think about a local economy for a moment. Can you make a living from selling something that other people are giving away? Not unless you have higher quality that people are willing and able to pay for. That's the idea behind price wars, right? People pay the higher price when they'll get more for their money; otherwise, they pick the lowest price.

Now think about a situation where money is not abundant. People have to be able to pay the higher price to get the better quality and keep you in business. If they can't afford that extra, even if it's a very small amount, they'll take the free product. They have to.

Now you can't sell your product. Do you keep producing? No, you find another job and get your product for free like everyone else. That's only sensible.

OK, put this in an agricultural setting: you produce food staples, but an outside agency is giving them away (or their equivalent, like rice instead of corn). You stop producing rice because you can get corn for free and no-one will buy your rice. Now no-one produces rice in your area, you look for other work. Of course, if you live in a typical rice-producing region, there isn't much other work to do. So you become unemployed, but you still get your free corn.

If you're the outside agency, you were giving away corn because there was a food shortage. Now, the food shortage has grown. Plus, all the people who used to produce food are sitting around with nothing to do and are slowly losing their sense of self-worth because of it. Does that sound like a dangerous situation to anyone else?

I said that handing out food is usually a bad idea, but of course, there are exceptions. Famines happen, and when they do it's important to provide food. There are ways of making it less damaging, however -- food for work is probably the best example. Your food donation isn't given to people who can work unless they do something to improve their communities. Win-win!

Dipsticks!

2007-03-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

I love this idea. And the name. What fun! Oh, and useful . . .

Researchers hope dipstick holds the key to food poisoning prevention

By Ann Bagel Storck on 3/26/2007 for Meatingplace.com
Researchers at the University of South Carolina have developed a disposable dipstick that can detect whether a food is safe to eat or whether it has spoiled to the extent that it could cause food poisoning.

The dipstick is made of polymers that change color in the presence of nonvolatile biogenic amines, which are generated during the bacterial decay of food proteins. In a paper presented at a national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Chicago, the researchers said the amines provide an indirect measurement of the extent of food spoilage.

The goal is to eventually market the dipstick as a test kit that consumers could use at home or in restaurants.

Hunger: a little reading

2007-03-27T06:19:00.000-07:00

Once again, I don't get to writing this until morning. Didn't want to turn my computer on when I got home last night, forgot I had a reason to.

Some suggestions of reading material on hunger that I have/do enjoy. There's a lot out there, but these are good suggestions:

World Hunger: Twelve Myths -- this is a basic overview of some of the major misconceptions about hunger and how to deal with it. Written for laymen, easy to read.

Food First -- Another basic overview, same author. I actually haven't finished reading this, but I like what I've seen. Also an easy read.

The World Food Problem -- this is a textbook. If you're looking for an easy read, this is not it. If you're looking for an in-depth explanation of, especially, the economics of hunger in the world, this is the book for you. Very good!

More With Less -- a cookbook with a message: if you want to live a little lighter, to conserve, to do more for yourself and have more to give, this is an essential cookbook. Also has good recipes, but the important sections here are the introduction, which talks about how important food is in the world at large, and the quotes throughout from various cultures on the value of food in the face of hunger.

World Ark -- a bimonthly magazine from Heifer International, there are a number of articles and blurbs each issue on hunger and useful tips on what you can do. You get a free subscription when you donate to Heifer, so give a donation already!

Hunger: how?

2007-03-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

My mother made a good comment on my last post, which has inspired this post. The question she's asking is basically how? How do we learn? How do we feel? How do we do? And how do we get other people to join us?

I understand that the information available to learn about hunger is overwhelming. There are many sites with many foci. There are many programs. There are reams of books (Amazon lists 53,515 in nonfiction). I don't know where to send you. Well, I lie -- I do know where to send you: Bread for the World and Heifer International are a good start. But you have to make your own way, sift through the information for yourself, and follow your interests; what I enjoy, you might not. If you want a good Bible study on hunger, especially for a group, I suggest The Society of St. Andrew's study The Fast that I Choose. Very good information tied to Biblical texts.

As for how do we feel for others, in the context of our daily lives, all I can do is suggest that we talk to people. Talk to people at a soup kitchen, or talk to people who have worked at one. Talk to people from low-income countries, or talk to people who have visited one. The personal relationships are the ones that touch our hearts.

How do we act, do something? This is the hardest of all. Should we live sustainably, below our income, so we can share what we have with others? Of course -- it is our duty to our world and the rest of mankind to live as lightly as possible. Maybe we don't give up toilet paper for a year, but we should try to make our impact small. Should we all go on short-term trips overseas to help out? Of course not -- only people who are called to do so should be spending the money to travel all that way. But we should help out in our own communities. Should we write letters to our representatives? Of course -- we may not drown out the lobbyists, but we can be heard and we should make our opinions known.

The biggest problem is the one my mother put her finger right on -- it's not easy. So, she asked, how do we make it easy?

We don't.

It's not easy. It never has been easy. It never will be easy. People who want easy don't change the world. And yes, I know, Americans are lazy and want things simplified, dumbed down, and made as easy as possible. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

The good news about the difficulty is that it provides greater satisfaction. I love hiking, and I love especially hiking hills and forests. In most of NY, the public parks trails are smooth, dirt or gravel, with hand rails and stairs in difficult sections and well-marked paths. I enjoy hiking on them. I spent a few weeks in Vermont a few summers ago and camped at Underhill State Park, on the slopes of Mt. Mansfield, so I could do some hiking. The trails on that side of the mountain were very lightly marked, rough, and had nothing resembling a hand rail or a stair. I truly loved those hikes, more than on the nice manicured trails in NY, because they gave me a sense of accomplishment. I had to fight to find my way, almost getting lost, scrambling through loose leaves and over rivulets, trying to get the dog I was sitting over the shoulder-high rocks. I worked to finish those hikes, and I loved it.

Work hard to fight hunger, and you will be glad you did. If you look for an easy way out, you may enjoy it, you may be somewhat productive, but you won't feel the accomplishment in the end. That feeling is worth the effort.

Hunger: how to sum it up

2007-03-23T18:21:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not ending my Lenten discipline 2 weeks early (although my food cravings really want me to). When I finish writing this, I need to put together a presentation for my church on global hunger issues, as part of a hunger dinner in support of the Asian Rural Institute. I get 10 minutes to explain global hunger and my work in Uganda. Suggestions?

In 10 minutes, what can I say? I can explain where hunger is, as I've done in the past couple of days. I can talk about why hunger is, as I've done in previous weeks. I think the most important thing, though, is to make people understand why they should care.

This goes back to the LFD method I mentioned last week (or meant to, maybe it didn't go up until this week). The middle step is crucial, feeling for the people who experience hunger. Too many times, I think, we ignore what we don't experience ourselves. There was a good quote in the preface to Killing the Wizards (I need to read the rest of that book sometime) about how we could deal with privations because we knew they would end some day, we could look forward to returning to civilization. Most hungry people can't. How well can we feel for them, these people who struggle daily to meet needs we forget? We can only try.

I've been reading On Liberty lately (I enjoy nonfiction at the gym, it keeps me at the right level of distraction to get the best workouts). One of the biggest points Mill makes is that we need dissension in order to keep our beliefs from becoming rote actions. Maybe we need shocks to our understanding, to our comfortable lives, to keep our feelings from becoming shallow motions. Maybe I can provide some sort of shock to the people at the dinner Sunday.

In 10 minutes.

Or maybe I can show them some pretty pictures, satisfy their desire for liberal warm fuzzies, and send them on their way full and happy. The original plan for the hunger meal (not that I was involved at this stage) was to have what I've heard of other places: people are assigned nationalities and given some facts about what their life would be like. Food is portioned according to the socioeconomic status you have been assigned, from a spoonful of rice to a Happy Meal. Our head pastor vetoed that plan as unfair.

Umm . . . yes. Unfair. Uh huh.

Instead, we're having a lentil and rice dish with a dessert of cookies, but not enough per table to serve everyone. Not quite as strong. And we only have 30 minutes, which gives me 10, 10 to ARI, and 10 to discuss the cookie thing. Not much time to sum up global hunger.

In other words, I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do. Hopefully I'll come up with something.

The farm bill: we might actually agree on something

2007-03-23T18:18:00.000-07:00

I don't normally agree with this weekly column. They tend to be the equivalent answer to the hysterical anti-meat protesters, and I don't like either attitude. Here, though, they get it just about right.

THE VOCAL POINT: Reforming the farm bill likely to be industry's job No. 1

By Dan Murphy on 3/23/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Over the last five years that have elapsed since passage of the 2002 farm bill, one conclusion is inescapable: Our agricultural policy is broken.

Reform is not only desirable; in many respects, it's inevitable.

The pressure — and the political will — to control federal budget deficits is for real, and that alone makes it likely that the next five-year funding cycle for farm programs could be significantly reduced.

Additionally, with the massive federal commitment to diversion of corn from feed and food toward ethanol production, the funding available to prop up program crop prices cannot and will not remain static.

It's time that all constituencies impacted by our current system of ag subsidies recognize that the farm bill has evolved into a gigantic entitlement program, supporting a small, special-interest group to the exclusion of other broader, more beneficial outcomes that agricultural policy could and should support.

With farmers and ranchers themselves being the top beneficiaries.

Certainly, the political pressure to continue subsidizing commodity crops to enhance ag exports cannot be ignored — without the more than $60 billion in food and fiber we export, our balance of trade would be even more horrendous than it already is.

But the bottom line is that serious challenges lie ahead for both farmers and livestock producers in this country, and without a shift in the focus and funding priorities of federal farm programs, the outlook is bleak for continued growth of a healthy, sustainable agricultural sector.

Redirecting policy priorities

There are many, many options to slice apart the way our costly, antiquated farm programs damage both short-term viability and long-term sustainability of animal and plant food production. Let's limit ourselves to three key areas.

Biofuel production. USDA Secretary Mike Johanns just this week touted the department's provision of more than $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy R&D, specifically the development and production of so-called "cellulosic ethanol" made from switchgrass, wood chips and other biomass.

Stop me before I hurt myself laughing.

That funding ought to be 10 times the proposed amount if anyone in government seriously intends to make biofuel production something that helps, rather than hurts, the farm sector — meaning livestock producers looking at corn prices heading sky high. There are both huge opportunities to be pursued, and equally huge obstacles to be overcome, in diversifying biofuel production beyond ethanol — as well as serious challenges inherent in making corn-to-ethanol conversion efficient — and it all depends on ramping up the technologies currently available.

Make no mistake: The Bioenergy and Bioproducts Research Initiative proposed as part of USDA's biofuels program is a good start. But that initiative needs much more than the pitiful $50 million a year in funding currently on the table to ensure any real progress toward utilization of renewable fuel sources other than feed grains.

So where can larger levels of funding be found? There's only one logical source: Diversion of program crop support payments. Instead of propping up commodity prices, some of those billions need to go into vastly accelerated research efforts to expand biofuel production beyond the questionable conversion of corn from food to fuel.

Otherwise, we're just paying lip service to our (alleged) commitment to weaning the nation off imported oil.

Land use. This challenge here is simple yet profound: We cannot sustain continued population growth and the concurrent expansion of housing, transportation corridors and commercial development without seriously impacting the availability of arable acreage needed to maintain domestic food security.

Without a national initiative to preserve and protect our agricultural land base, everything else in the way of conservation efforts, resource management and environmental sustainability falls apart. Short-term, several states are working to stopgap the disappearance of prime farmland to development, but eventually, as it always does, those initiatives come down to funding.

As a nation, we either support food security by subsidizing the continued presence of hog farms, feedlots, dairy farms, orchards, vineyards, specialty farms and other non-commodity ag operations on the land base adjacent to our major population centers, or else we'd better be prepared to suffer the consequences inherent in a gradual but ultimately significant outsourcing of food production.

Can't happen here? In just a couple generations, Japan went from self sufficiency — indeed from food exporting — to one of the world's largest food importers, dependent on trading partners for more than 60 percent of its basic foodstuffs. That didn't happen by accident; it happened by default, and it's not inconceivable that a similar scenario could take place here unless dollars are devoted to making sure that farmland stays in production.

Sustainability. Overriding all of the macro-dynamics affecting farm policy is the one factor I consider most crucial: Maintaining the long-term viability of the resource base that supports food production.

If we look ahead 10 or 20 years, we have to ask: Will there be enough water to maintain beef production on the High Plains? Will watershed impacts curtail the growth of confinement pork production? Will there be sufficient rangeland to ramp up production of grassfed or natural beef, should those categories continue to expand? Will loss of soil fertility and ongoing erosion jeopardize current yield levels of critical food and feed crops?

Right now, I'm afraid the answer to all those questions is no.

How do we improve that prognosis? The obvious answer is public-private partnerships to create marketable programs that allow agriculture to be part of the solution to the threats listed above.

Why shouldn't farmers, ranchers and producers be deputized as leaders in programs to conserve water resources, maintain water quality, restore wetlands (anyone remember Hurricane Katrina?), enhance wildlife habitat and even reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Individually, those are all massive challenges. Collectively, they cannot be addressed solely by policymaking mandates — no matter what the level of funding — coming from Washington.

Not that such mandates are anywhere near any politician's agenda.

Bottom line, we need to not just sustain but increase our farm productivity. We will continue to depend on export markets to ensure the profitability of food, fiber and meat products. We can and must depend on the agricultural sector to play a key role in everything from national security to environmental protection to global warming to energy independence.

None of those priorities can be achieved by funneling multi-billions into maintenance of an outdated, crudely structured, long-ago obsolete structure of agricultural subsidies.

If we make the requisite changes, yes: The net result is that we'll end up paying more for our food.

The alternative is paying an even steeper price in terms of lost export opportunities, rural viability and preservation of the resource base on which our entire economy depends.

Dan Murphy, former editor of MMT magazine, is communications integrator + principal at Seattle-based Outsource Marketing and author of the forthcoming book, "Meat of the Matter."

Hunger: urban bias

2007-03-22T18:47:00.000-07:00

Almost forgot to post again -- I need to get the habit back.

I talk quite a bit about rural poor, rather than urban poor, and hunger. It's not just because I'm a vet, and therefore interested in (predominately rural) livestock. It's also because, globally, the rural populations have a higher incidence of hunger.

One of the main reasons is urban bias. This is the result of governments and organizations paying greater attention to the urban situation. There are perfectly good reasons for them to do so -- that's where they live, for one. Also, urban populations are more likely to be educated and politically active, so passing them over in favor of the uneducated and compliant rural population may be a recipe for governmental overthrow, or at least major protests. Plus, the infrastructure to get aid and development projects is more likely to be available in urban areas. If you want to start a school, isn't it easier to start it someplace that has 50 kids per square kilometer instead of 5? Hence the urban populace being more educated . . .

The importance of the rural/urban divide for hunger issues is that food is produced in rural areas, so development there is essential. It's a tragedy to leave a country's food producers to go hungry, but it often happens because the manufacturers and urban laborers are given priority.

No solution or action point here, just some food for thought.

Hunger: where the livestock are

2007-03-22T06:15:00.000-07:00

Oops, should have written this last night. Forgot.

There is a lot of hunger in rural poor livestock keepers. Where? The same places there are a lot of hungry children.

Why? After all, if people have livestock, they have a permanent source of food, right? Not really -- livestock keeping is not a stable career in most places. Drought robs them of fodder, disease robs them of animals and genetics, and poor infrastructure robs them of the ability to market their products.

To tell the truth, livestock keeping isn't a safety against hunger even in the high income countries. Livestock products are a luxury in most of the world, which means that any hit to the economy drives down demand for meat and dairy, driving down prices, forcing many who live on their animals to go hungry or live with food insecurity.

Hunger doesn't always hit those with nothing -- even a herd of animals is no protection.

A system in crisis? Try a crisis in the system

2007-03-20T18:03:00.001-07:00

We know that tuberculosis is a problem in sub-Saharan Africa. Multi-drug resistance is on the rise there. Books and movies, like The Constant Gardener, might want to blame us, but the problem stems from the health care system. If we are to blame, it is only for allowing that health care system to continue.

Extreme drug resistance, though, scares the most blase in the health community. This is untreatable TB, deadly, and apparently as virulent as any other strain. We don't know how far it has spread, since most hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa can't test for it. We don't know how many strains there are, since ditto. We don't know if it's waiting to explode in the population.

We do know that most cases have been in AIDS patients. This is a big risk for the immunocompromised. Everyone else? We don't know. We do know that the inability of low income health care systems to provide follow-up to TB patients is probably spurring the development of resistance. How do we fix that? We don't know.

Ignorance is the most frightening concept to any medical professional. We are trained to know before we do, to find the answers. We need to start asking the questions.

Hunger: the world situation

2007-03-20T17:44:00.000-07:00

Where are children going hungry? Globally, two places stand out: the Sahel and the Himalayas. Why these two? I would guess at a number of reasons, but mainly the insecurity of the agriculture systems in those areas. Water is not reliable. Weather cannot be trusted. Crops fail. Children starve.

But other areas of the world have similar problems, agriculturally. So why these areas? Look at their history -- how long have they been ignored by their governments and by others? Look at our prejudices -- how many countries do we want to deal with that speak little or no English, practice little or no Christianity, and follow few to none of the Western cultural norms.

I don't have exact answers, again, but I do have questions. Why? I'll be asking this all this week -- why is hunger where it is?

Hunger: and I'm not being as active as I should be

2007-03-19T17:45:00.000-07:00

I said, as part of my Lenten discipline, that I would write something about hunger here 6 days a week. But this weekend, I was out interviewing . . . and the hotel had a horribly, glacially slow wireless . . . and I was tired . . . and I didn't write anything. Yesterday, I had no excuse -- I got home mid-afternoon and spent a large amount of time reading, putzing around, and not being active -- but I didn't want to turn my computer on for fear that a problem with my thesis model might still be there. So this morning I came back, the problem was gone, and I got to work. You see, I realized yesterday that I have less than a month to write my thesis. Eek! And all these are horrible excuses for explaining my lack of discipline towards my Lenten discipline.

Which is ironic, because the theme of the next essay in my cycle was always going to be what individuals can do, and here I am, not doing.

So what can we, as individuals, do about hunger? I'm going to coin my own term: the LFD method. Here it is, laid out as I've been planning (and not doing) for several days.

Learn. Never, ever, in my opinion, should you jump into a complicated issue like hunger without some study. These may be the words of a perennial student, but you need to know where you stand before you can move. So, if you have an interest in hunger, study it. Learn the physiology if you must, but more importantly learn the sociology. Study the economics. At the very least, sit down and think your way through the consequences of the work you want to do or support. A lot of damage has been done in this world by well-meaning ignorance.
Feel. I never really struggle with #1 (see the perennial student comment), but #2 gives me problems. It is important to work with people viscerally as well as logically, to feel their situation as well as understand it. I like to wall off emotion when I work, to make everything tidy and organized, but hunger affects people and can't be compartmentalized like that. Never let yourself forget that these are real people you're trying to help, not just paper dolls or numbers on paper. Almost as much damage has been done by unfeeling arrogance.
Do. This last doesn't do much direct damage if ignored; after all, if you don't do anything you can't do anything wrong. It does, however, cause indirect damage to avoid taking action when action is called for. You can spend all your time studying, you can pity and cry for all the sob stories in the world, but none of it feeds a single person. Think of this as the faith vs. works argument (my Lutheran training showing it's presence): knowing about hunger and feeling for the hungry should naturally, organically, lead to doing something about it. Don't forget the last step.

There you have it: LFD. Learn, feel, and do. Don't leave a step out. The first two don't have to go in order, but the last should always be last. And repeat. Every time you act, learn what the response is, ask around about the human consequences, and act accordingly. If we all started there, hunger would become a thing of the past.

Hunger: community organizations

2007-03-15T18:10:00.000-07:00

Yes, there are a lot of community organizations that work on hunger issues, global and local.

What, you wanted more than that? Sorry, I'm busy this weekend with interviews.

Really, if you want to know how to get involved in your community, start asking questions. Someone will point you in the right direction. Every area is different. IF you can't find anything to join, start something and others will join you.

'Nuff said.

Hunger: the business solution

2007-03-15T04:03:00.000-07:00

Can regular businesses work on the hunger issue? They can try.

One thing we see happening around here is college students being preferentially hired (this being a college town). They have fewer complications (kids etc.), better transportation, more flexible schedules, and the look better. Plus, they only want part time with no benefits, so you don't have to feel bad giving it to them. In other towns, these jobs might go to high school students; same thing, really. Businesses that want to make a difference for the hungry should try hiring single moms and other groups that experience disproportionate amounts of poverty and hunger.

Other suggestions: sell fair trade goods (that helps hunger in other countries), sell local goods (supporting local farmers and craftsmen helps local hunger). Business offices can consider educating employees and offering matching donations to good NGOs. Businesses are in business to make money; they could try sharing some with those who can't.

This post is a little late. Oops. Packing and data-gathering don't mix.

Hunger: churches

2007-03-13T15:57:00.000-07:00

Can churches do anything to help the issue of hunger? Um, duh?

The truth is, the poor in the US are better off than the poor in most low-income countries specifically because the churches do so much. Philadelphia churches spend over $24 million on feeding the hungry every year, for one example.

What can churches do, then? Well, the first is obvious: feed the hungry. Churches are excellent centers for food aid distribution; they usually have kitchens, volunteers, and donors. They have dinners to which they can invite people (my church has a standing invitation to anyone who's hungry to our Wednesday dinner, and they come). They can run food pantries and/or soup kitchens. And they do, frequently.

But if you hadn't noticed yet, I'm more interested in development than aid. What can churches do there? Some may disagree with me, but I say churches should get active -- yes, I mean politically active. Christians should take issues they think are serious to their representatives at all levels of government (and any church that doesn't think poverty and hunger are serious should read the Bible a bit closer). Not as churches, per se, but as individuals. I want churches to encourage people to vote and advocate for issues of Biblical import, and hunger is one.

Maybe I'm asking a lot, but I think it's not too much to ask.

Corn and consequences

2007-03-12T18:31:00.000-07:00

It's coming. Until we find a) a non-corn-based ethanol system or b) a non-corn-based livestock system, we're going to see fuel and meat going head to head. Consequences are a bummer.

Ethanol's demand for corn raising meat prices

By Tom Johnston on 3/12/2007 for Meatingplace.com
USDA indicated in a report late last week that the ethanol industry's robust demand for corn is elevating the cost of livestock and will hike prices for beef, pork and chicken.

The agency says ethanol is consuming 20 percent of last year's corn crop and is expected to use 25 percent of this year's harvest, driving up the price of corn. The average price of corn is $3.20 a bushel, up from $2 last year.

Higher feed costs will reduce meat and poultry production. The National Chicken Council reported that the price of corn has forced a 40-percent increase in the cost of feeding chickens, and poultry will soon cost more at retail.

Deputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner said USDA is closely monitoring corn supply and demand, which is likely to force farmers to plant more acres of the crop.

"We do have confidence in the marketplace's ability to react," Conner said. "We believe producers are seeing the market saying, 'I need more corn, not only for ethanol, but for our feed needs in this country."

However, USDA announced that a mere 4.1 million acres will be withdrawn from the Conservation Reserve Program in the next four years, ruling out the possibility, as economists have suggested, that it be used for extra corn production. The CRP program pays landowners to take out of production land that is highly erodible or otherwise environmentally sensitive. Its holdings are often used as hunting preserves.

Meanwhile, USDA has formed an ethanol panel to address the effects of ethanol and other biofuels on animal agriculture, a move urged by NCC, the National Pork Producers Council, American Meat Institute, National Turkey Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and National Milk Producers Federation.

Hunger: local government

2007-03-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

What can a local government do to stop local hunger? (By local, I mean state and community levels).

There are a lot of answers to that, but first we must establish that local government should have a role in stopping hunger. To do that, we must admit that government has a moral responsibility to our well-being, not just a legislated responsibility for our behavior. And I'm not going into that argument -- just accept that I'm coming from that direction.

The first thing we think of when we think about local hunger issues is food and food prices, but that's not where government comes in, at least not mainly. The only real food pricing thing local government can do is to think about taxation of food. Sales tax on food is a regressive tax; it hits much harder if you're poor and spend 50% of your income on food than if you're middle class and spend 5% of your income on food. That's simple math.

There are other ways local government can help, mostly stemming from a desire to increase the amount of money available to spend on food. Affordable housing and health care are big; between them, they cover a good chunk of the outlay of the poor. Public transportation is huge in this country; we do so love our cars and our sprawl, so only big cities and progressive (mostly liberal) towns (usually with a college) will have public transport systems. If your town has no bus system and few sidewalks and the places you work, live, and shop are miles apart, you're forced to spend large amounts of money on gas and car payments. Bus and train systems are anti-hunger measures. Finally, the best way to fight hunger is to cause economic growth leading to available jobs paying a living wage. Easier said than done, I know, but it works better than anything else.

Hunger: community involvement

2007-03-11T19:28:00.000-07:00

It's time I start talking about solutions to the hunger problem that are applicable by people who might be reading this blog (I have no illusions about great and mighty political figures reading my little comments). This week I'll focus on community-level involvement in the hunger crusade; what can local governments do? Churches? Businesses? Social groups?

There really is a lot we can do if we act in concert. At the moment, though, what I need to do is sleep -- I'll get into concerted efforts with a bit more energy tomorrow.

Hunger: what to look for in an organization

2007-03-09T18:48:00.000-08:00

I've been throwing words and phrases around all week, talking about different hunger organizations, so maybe I should explain what I care about in any organization that purports to deal with hunger issues.

Accountability: there should be a way to judge how well a group is doing what they say they do. That could be (preferably) with metrics that show hunger levels decreasing, but it could be even with freely given anecdotes from the beneficiaries. The important thing is that the work of the organization be measured by the impact on hunger, not by how much they necessarily did.
Sustainability: the project should be moving towards self-sustaining, native-run maintenance. If an organization runs projects to build things, then has to raise money to maintain them, that's bad. If they don't even address maintenance, that's worse. The true job of any development professional should be to put him- or herself out of work; that means setting things up to run by themselves or with the help of the beneficiaries.
Participatory: you may see a theme here; I really think that development shouldn't happen without the beneficiaries being involved. They should help identify the needs, help guide the interventions, help implement the solutions, and help measure the results. Any good organization will strive towards local ownership.
Focused: if you get too distracted, you won't be as efficient. I really think organizations should pick one area in which they excel. If they see a crossover with another area, they should cooperate with whatever organization excels there.

There are other things that individual organizations should have in order to do their work, but these 4 are pretty much universal. If you find an organization that you're interested in supporting, first ask yourself where they stand on these. Any group that does well on all four probably will do good things with your time and money.

Hunger: Bread for the World

2007-03-08T15:24:00.000-08:00

Of faith-based organizations, none really does the job fighting hunger that Bread for the World does. These guys are so good, they were recommended by the very secular professor of my Econ and Hunger course -- that's got to mean something.

BftW works on a number of levels, local to international, primarily on food policy. What I really like about them is their focus on policy change at the national level. You can read here their policy statements on the different hunger-related issues the US government works on, both domestically and internationally. They work on lobbying legislators and organize letter writing campaigns, including letters to editors of various media outlets. Really, their goal is to educate and inform, in hopes that that will lead to change in our society. It's a worthy goal, and a good group.

You mean that resistance might just be in the population?

2007-03-08T09:48:00.000-08:00

Granted, this is from a meat industry website, so they're not going to be too critical:

Study finds antibiotic resistance in poultry even when antibiotics were not used

By Alicia Karapetian on 3/8/2007 for Meatingplace.com
A surprising finding by a team of University of Georgia scientists suggests that curbing the use of antibiotics on poultry farms will do little, if anything, to reduce rates of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that have the potential to threaten human health.

Dr. Margie Lee, professor in the UGA College of Veterinary Medicine, and her colleagues have found that chickens raised on antibiotic-free farms, and even those raised under pristine laboratory conditions, have high levels of bacteria that are resistant to common antibiotics. Her findings, published in the March issue of the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology, suggest that poultry come to the farm harboring resistant bacteria, possibly acquired as they were developing in their eggs.

"The resistances don't necessarily come from antibiotic use in the birds that we eat," Lee said, "so banning antibiotic use on the farm isn't going to help. You have to put in some work before that."

Lee and her team sampled droppings from more than 140,000 birds under four different conditions:
1. commercial flocks that had been given antibiotics;
2. commercial flocks that had not been given antibiotics;
3. flocks raised in a lab that had been given antibiotics;
4. flocks raised in a lab that had not been given antibiotics.
The researchers examined levels of antibiotic resistance in normal intestinal bacteria that do not cause human illness and, in a companion study published in May in the same journal, also examined levels of drug-resistant campylobacter bacteria, a common foodborne cause of diarrhea, cramping and abdominal pain.

The meat industry is often blamed for all antibiotic resistance, but that really is rather unfair; it's possible that animals are picking up resistant strains from people who don't think it's necessary to finish their course of antibiotics when their infection clears up. But that's just my bias.

Hunger: USAID

2007-03-07T18:33:00.000-08:00

There are a lot of governmental agencies that deal with hunger issues (at least one for every high-income country), so I'll look at what my own government is doing; specifically, what USAID is doing, specifically in Africa.

The US government works domestically and internationally on hunger issues, but only USAID is dedicated specifically to development. (If you were wondering how to pronounce it, you're supposed to spell it out: U-S-A-I-D.) In Africa, USAID is working on a presidential initiative to end hunger, partnering with the African Union (AU) and individual countries, as well as with other development institutions.

First, USAID is encouraging US scientists, universities, and companies to provide technical expertise. While this has been known to be badly planned (large dams with no maintenance plans, anyone?), the premise is good; the important thing is to be sure that the "experts" are listening to the people they're helping. It's not a good idea to provide something that people don't want and expect them to care for it and pay for upkeep, especially people on the edge.

Second, USAID is trying to build the private sector in many countries, arguing that ending rural poverty will end much of the hunger problems in Africa. While it is true that these programs are much needed (roads and transport for agricultural goods are essential), my cynical side says the US will benefit from more markets being opened. Still, better infrastructure is a good thing.

Last, USAID talks of trying to break the poverty cycle that keeps people in food insecurity, throwing around words like "sustainable" and "integrated". Laudable goals, all, but I'd need to get into specifics to judge how well they're doing, and, frankly, I have enough research to do right now, between class and writing a thesis.

I'm sorry if this seems a little more judgemental than my previous organizational posts. I do tend to be harsher towards government programs because they so often have an agenda beyond ending hunger. Morality and politics don't really seem to intersect often enough for me to trust organizations that claim to marry them . . .

Subsidies, revisited

2007-03-07T15:09:00.000-08:00

Yes, they're still in the farm bill:

India, E.U. urge U.S. to cut farm subsidies for Doha Round success

By John Gregerson on 3/7/2007 for Meatingplace.com

India and the European Union want the United States to cut its farm subsidies to ensure success for the Doha Round of World Trade Organization talks, according to Indian news wires.

"I am a bit disappointed to see the new U.S. farm bill. There is no change in treatment of two important sectors, sugar and dairying," European Commissioner for Agriculture Mariann Fischer Boel told reporters. "These sectors need to be reformed."

Boel warned that the subsidies are stumbling blocks to the successful conclusion of the Doha round — meaning negotiations to hammer out a multilateral free-trade agreement among World Trade Organization member countries.

Boel, who is on an official visit to India, said, "The current draft of the new U.S. farm bill pushes in the right direction, but not far enough."

She added that the European Union is committed to the multilateral trade talks, but cuts in trade-distorting subsidies have to be reciprocal, indicating the European Union has proposed a cut of 70 percent in its ceiling on trade-distorting subsidies. She said it also has offered to phase out export refunds by 2013 and roughly halve the agricultural import tariff to 12 percent from 23 percent.

"The next 60 days are extremely critical for WTO negotiations," said G.K. Pillai, India's commerce secretary. "The situation requires extremely delicate handling."

Talk about cutting subsidies continues, but I'm being cynical today: I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. Doha has collapsed. (We're not the only ones to blame, but we should . . . consider our role.)

Hunger: FAO

2007-03-06T18:06:00.000-08:00

My favorite UN agency has to be the FAO. For a livestock veterinarian, it doesn't get any better than the Food and Agriculture Organization. And they do crops, too!

The FAO has as it's mandate

to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.

They aim to help people help themselves (sensing a theme in the organizations I like yet?), by providing technical advice in any area of agriculture. That means teaching new farming techniques, yes, but it also means teaching policy techniques to governments, setting up disease surveillance systems, and alerting the rest of the world to situations that need relief.

The FAO is not a funding agency, but a technical agency. It has limited funds to supply, but large amounts of expertise. That expertise is available to all, in every form from rural extension seminars to Internet databases. People working for the FAO may be in an office in Rome, doing basic research, or out in the bush, putting the research into practice.

Yes, I sound like a cheesy public service announcement. What can I say, I want to work for them!

There is even peacemaking potential at the FAO, as it provides neutral ground for dispute resolution. The directors aim to decentralize, bringing the resources closer to the people who need it, but the central office is still a meeting place for all agriculturalists who need to interact on a global scale.

The FAO is commited to the Millenium Development Goal of cutting hunger in half by 2015. At this point, frankly, it would take a miracle. Still, trying for a major miracle can cause minor miracles to happen.

Book Review: Contagion

2007-03-06T18:03:00.000-08:00

Contagion by Robin Cook (this review was written for my class on zoonoses)

Robin Cook’s novel, Contagion, is supposed to be a plausible example of domestic bioterrorism. Published in 1995, before the current fears and instability had a chance to take hold, many of the suggested possibilities may be a bit unrealistic for the modern health industry. Otherwise, the situation described is a fairly accurate portrait of the risks posed by modern health care.

Cook opens the novel with a quote about the dangers of market-driven health care, and that appears to be his agenda for the plot. The protagonist, Jack Stapleton, was driven out of private ophthalmology practice and into a pathology residency by a large hospital administration company, Americare; because of the relocation, his wife and children are forced to take a commuter flight to visit him and are killed when it crashes. He develops an antipathy for all managed care, especially Americare. Taking a job as a medical examiner, he flirts with danger and avoids personal connections until forced into a relationship with an advertising executive, Terese, who is in charge of another managed care company’s advertising account. At the same time, he is investigating several succeeding cases of plague, tularemia, meningitis, and finally influenza at an Americare-run hospital, which is not happy to have him ‘poking his nose in’. Despite his bosses’ resistance, he persists in sneaking around to probe the outbreaks, convinced that no one else is taking it seriously. Over time, he is threatened by a gang, which eventually attempts to kill him and does kill a girl who helped him. He is saved by another gang from his neighborhood, only to be captured by the bioterrorists and transported into the Catskills for disposal. On the way, the influenza virus with which he had been infected in the course of his investigations infects the terrorists, who die without killing him. He escapes with the help of the friendly gang and lives through an effective quarantine that ends the influenza outbreak.

While the novel points out quite rightly that zoonotics can be extremely dangerous in hospital outbreaks, the route of infection portrayed (purposefully contaminated humidifiers) may make it seem as if they are not likely to happen to healthy people. In an obviously pre-9/11 book, the cause of bioterrorism is simply greed on behalf of an advertising executive and morbid curiosity by her brother, a lab tech. The samples were produced in a private lab simply for collecting purposes, so they were not weaponized in any way. History of contact with animals was only seen as a distraction in the search for the cause. In all, I find the premise quite unlikely in today’s society; hospital outbreaks of zoonotic disease, I believe, are more likely to be either purposeful to cause harm to people and society or completely accidental and due to ignorance on behalf of the medical community.

My biggest complaint about this book is the way certain classes of medical fields were associated with moral judgements. Of course, with the protagonist being a pathologist, pathology was seen to be generally good, medical examiners were simply hard-working public citizens doing their best to save the city from itself. In contrast, the city epidemiologist was portrayed as somewhat lazy, self-centered, ignorant, and obstructive to a proper investigation. Being an epidemiologist myself, I resent that portrayal. In my experience, the pathologists are less likely to be interested in outbreaks unless they provide good samples, while it is left to the epidemiologist to draw the necessary links and find the cause. Also, the CDC was mentioned briefly, but only in its role as a diagnostic lab and quarantining authority; in actuality, a medical situation like the one in this book would be controlled completely by the CDC as soon as they knew about it. Also of importance, in the case of zoonotic pathogens, veterinarians were only mentioned in passing, as a source of diagnostics for the pets of the infected; veterinarians were never consulted, the pets were never sampled, and the possibility of a zoonotic source was practically ignored.

Finally, while they make for good fiction, the actions of the various medical authorities in this book are utterly unrealistic. I cannot imagine an American hospital forcibly removing a medical examiner from their grounds during the course of an investigation into dangerous outbreaks on their property. I cannot imagine a medical examiner breaking and entering to find the source of these outbreaks. The role of law enforcement was relegated to deus ex machina, rather than a vital resource in an outbreak investigation.

In conclusion, this book may present a good thriller for those who enjoy the genre, but it is almost dangerously inaccurate as far as zoonotic risks and the proper way to investigate a nosocomial outbreak.

Buying gas by the cob

2007-03-05T18:52:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Heifer, I've been predicting this ever since they mentioned the possibility in their magazine:

USDA: ethanol could increase food prices

By Tom Johnston on 3/5/2007 for Meatingplace.com

USDA projects that ethanol production will consume 50 percent more corn this year, taking a big bite out of the food industry's share of the crop and possibly forcing food prices to rise.

Keith Collins, the department's chief economist, said farmers are expected to grow a record 12.2 billion bushels of corn in 2007, with 3.2 billion bushels going into ethanol production. In 2006, 2.15 billion bushels of corn were used to make the biofuel.

"Even with that increase, we think production will fall short of demand," Collins said during USDA's annual Agriculture Outlook Forum.

Cellular medicine?

2007-03-05T18:49:00.000-08:00

This is a great idea: using cell phones to report disease in Africa. Everyone (practically) has a cell phone, and text messages are free. Way to come up with a workaround!

Hunger: Heifer Project

2007-03-05T18:35:00.000-08:00

Of all the NGO's dealing with hunger issues, Heifer International is my favorite. The premise is helping people to help each other, which, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, few of us are talented enough to do.

Heifer works primarily by taking donations from rich people (us) and using them to buy animals for poor people. The animals are not simply given away; the receiving families must train to care for them, prepare a place and food for them, and promise to give the first offspring to another poor family in the program. Thus, we help them help them help them . . .

Some might class Heifer as a faith-based organization, and, indeed, it was begun as one. Now, however, it has moved away from its Christian roots. It is still a great organization doing powerful development work. In the field, however, its focus is becoming more and more development for the sake of warm fuzzies for liberals. Still, it has my firm endorsement for major NGO's ending hunger.

If you're looking for a gift for someone who has everything, buy them a llama. Or some bees. If nothing else, it's a conversation starter. You could tell somebody else about hunger issues! There are domestic as well as international programs, including a Katrina recovery program. There are programs to promote women, education, sustainable agriculture, even urban renewal. If you have time to explore issues in depth, there are camps in the US and international trips that look at what hunger is doing in the world and how Heifer (and you) can help.

In conclusion, Heifer is an example of an NGO that really works well to combat hunger. I advise checking out the website, requesting their magazine, and/or donating.

Hunger: organizing

2007-03-04T09:20:00.000-08:00

In the next week, I think I'll discuss some of the organizations that work on hunger issues. There are many, so I'll just mention the ones that I know and care about. Today, then, I'll give a little background on the types of organizations:

NGO -- non-governmental organization, existing in a wide variety of forms and purposes
UN agency -- a branch of the United Nations, funded by governmental members of the UN
Governmental aid programs -- run and funded by the individual governments
Faith-based organizations -- usually NGO's, not always associated with a particular church or denomination, but usually involved with a particular religion

This is a quick and dirty explanation, but I'm a little tired today. Tomorrow I'll get into specifics.

Hunger: Bill Clinton's Landon Lecture

2007-03-02T15:12:00.000-08:00

I was lucky enough to listen to (though not attend) Bill Clinton's Landon Lecture this afternoon, and he discussed the issues of hunger, so I'd like to share his main points with you.

The main questions he thinks everyone should have answers to (with a summary of his answers in parentheses):

What one word sums up the world today? (interconnectedness)
If the world is interconnected, is that a good thing or a bad thing? (both)
What needs to be done? (end inequality)
How would you do it? (focus on diplomatic, non-military solutions)
Who is responsible to do these things? (everyone)

Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? We are all responsible for ending inequality, primarily through development programs and public advocacy. We are all responsible because we are all interconnected, and the interconnectedness has benefitted many of us in the West while harming most of the rest of the world. Therefore, we can use our benefits to benefit those who need it most. Or, in the words of Christian Vet Missions, we are blessed to be a blessing.