Anyone who knows me will not be surprised to know that I am a huge proponent of GMOs. These new strains of modified foodstuffs are a marvel of modern technology, and provide an opportunity to curb worldwide food problems in a very elegant way. While the public consensus is one of healthy skepticism, and perhaps some fear of the unknown, the science is incredibly delicate, and all GMOs considered for the market are solely to the advantage of both consumer and producer. And as our understanding of genetic modification grows ever more nuanced, the list of scientifically "fixed" foods starts to get awfully impressive.
Everyone is undoubtedly familiar with GMO crops, made to be resistant to weed-killing herbicides, or GMO tomatoes, modified with jellyfish DNA to confer cold resistance. These foods have been on the market for some time, and are all but a staple of modern agriculture. Now, scientists are branching out to more ambitious projects. Proteins, like beef and pork, are a new target; salmon has already been modified to grow more quickly in confinement, and other farm animals are getting rewritten to speed up their own production. More exciting, however, are the plant based projects. Diseases tearing apart tropical banana farms could be eliminated by a single gene insertion, and new strains of cash crops will need new resistances as weeds and pests evolve to combat market pesticides. Some labs have even taken on the lofty task of coding an entirely independent nitrogen cycle - a process that generally requires symbiotic soil-bound bacteria - within certain crops, alleviating the need for environmentally damaging nitrogen fertilizers. The future of food is GMOs, and the future of food is fascinating. If you're a skeptic, then take it from your local Polish scientist; leave it up to the scientists, and you won't be disappointed.
10/31/18: Climate Change, Worldwide Change
Climate change is quite the hot topic and a point of controversy in recent years. The effects are scientifically confirmed, and the consequences are becoming evident regardless of where you stand on the issue. Most people understand these consequences as rising sea levels, naked polar bears, weather maps covered in all shades of reds, etc. - but most people aren't aware of some of the more nuanced consequences of climate change.
In an effort to encourage worldwide development and international relations, the UN provides analyses of the agricultural output of countries all around the world. With climate change becoming an ever prevalent issue, these reports are becoming more focused on how a changing world is affecting international food production. The numbers aren't looking good; while temperate countries, such as the US or Russia, are going to experience a boost in agricultural output in the face of warmer temperatures, warmer countries are going to be pushed over the edge, so to speak. Countries like Brazil and India, which already farm in characteristically warm climates, will grow increasingly drier as worldwide temperatures rise. Developing countries throughout Africa will also be subject to reduced agricultural output, destroying years of progress made by programs dedicated to establishing food security in more remote locations. In response to these changes, the UN is encouraging an expansion of trade routes, so that the countries hit the hardest will have resources available to them in their time of need. However, the more reliable international trade routes are already full. These "chokepoints" provide an interesting challenge moving forward, as they essentially define international trade while bearing little capacity for increased traffic.
10/24/18: A World of Convenience
Modern culture is focused heavily around the concept of getting what you want, as quickly as you can, for as little as possible. Streaming services offer immediate access to hours of shows on demand. Uber and Lyft make it easy to get a taxi that will pick you up directly and drive you wherever you want to go. Amazon is dominating the international markets, having grown from an online catalogue to one of the most profitable businesses of the modern era. Washing machines, elevators, music libraries - anything that reduces workload is within the influence of convenience culture. Whether or not you are consciously aware of this shift towards convenience, chances are it plays a significant role in your life. Let's consider the prime example of this culture: McDonald's. If you're reading this online, in an excerpt, maybe hearing it from a friend, you recognize McDonald's. The nigh ubiquitous fast food chain was founded in 1955, and has become an integral part of American culture that invades every corner of the globe. It's success has led businesses of all doctrines to adopt the McDonald's model; they've become McDonaldized. Emphasis is placed on simplicity, efficiency, and predictability. Consumers are given a consistent outlet that they can sink money into for the sake of personal convenience. This strategy is disgustingly effective, and its becoming commonplace in the most unsettling places.
Panera bread is a cafe style eatery that gained popularity in the early 2000s. They feature bagels made in-house and a collection of seemingly healthy options in and amongst some guilty pleasures. The atmosphere has been classically relaxed, featuring bookstore-cafe style decor and a crowd to match. Recent years have brought upon quite the shift in the Panera model; stores are becoming more widespread and less decorative, drive throughs have weaseled their way into a sit-down style venue, and locations are putting more and more emphasis on catering and delivery. The most recent Panera promotion was for a new style of Mac n' Cheese (a personal Panera favorite), which would only be available when ordering out. The tempting new bacon-laden alternative was created to increase online sales, and to show regular customers the benefit of ordering from their homes. With the prevalence of food delivery in modern culture (i.e. the rising popularity of the delivery everyman, Grubhub), it's no surprise that Panera is trying to take advantage by expanding their market to a demographic in search of even greater convenience. In a vacuum, this seems like a benign marketing ploy; it's fun at best and mildly disheartening at worst. But in the context of an ever growing convenience culture, it's indicative of just how far companies are willing to push their products in the name of the convenience model - the McDonald's model.
10/8/18: Poverty and Food, California Drought
Over the last 5 years or so, from 2012 to 2017, California experienced one of the most devastating droughts ever recorded on the western seaboard. All throughout, news outlets covered stories from the populace, recounting the effects of the water shortage to everyone fortunate enough not to have a story of their own. Unfortunately, news outlets don't always have the time to tell the whole story; there are perspectives yet untouched by so many Americans who live too far away from California to really get into it. So, why California? Why now? Well, poverty and food is the flavor of the week in our college course, and we're learning an awful lot about how low income families deal with their diets - and since I'm Maryland born and Michigan living, I'm no stranger to hearing about low income farming communities. I wanted to learn something completely new, so I turned my attention to the unfamiliar agricultural scene in sunny California.
Now, California is no stranger to agriculture. The large state is home to some of the most productive produce operations in the entire country. It's probably no surprise that, as the drought began ramping in severity, farms began to take priority over domestic systems. Even with the specific use of water in agriculture, production took a huge cut in almost all departments, with very few exceptions. If you have time for any part of this article, it should be a quick glance at the graphs that show just how damaged California's production numbers became throughout those earlier years. With supply down, prices shot up, and many companies laid off their undocumented migrant workers to make up for lost profits. Ripples could be felt throughout the entire community. With many farms facing barren fields, even more successful farmers were forced to reduce the number of available jobs that many migrants and low-income locals depend on. This, alongside the sudden spike in prices and lack of available produce, doomed workers into further poverty, making grocery shopping even more impossible. The disappearance of clean water didn't help either; as water-bound arsenic levels began to rise, families were at a loss when it came to food prep. This all culminates in what is called food insecurity, which is the unavailability of access to nutritious food. California's rural sectors were almost defined by low income communities and migrant workers, who were suffering food insecurity for years on end. While I would love to detail the effects of food insecurity in low-income communities, it's a topic for another time. Hopefully, with the monumental 5 year drought coming to a close, workers should be reclaiming jobs, and an healthy equilibrium can once again be established. However, the long lasting, and in some cases irrecoverable, consequences of the 2012 drought should be closely monitored. With families struggling to catch their footing after years of difficulties, California's impoverished community is going to be more poignant than ever - and it's the perfect opportunity to being investigation into poverty stricken families that'll help define assistance programs for years to come.
9/27/18: Migrant Farming
Immigration has become quite the political buzzword in the modern era; international powers across the globe are starting to restructure their immigration policies, and not always for the best reasons. Migrant workers are chastised by the public for "taking jobs," with the assumption persists that migrant workers benefit from the economy while giving little back. With Mexican immigration playing the metaphorical straw man to the newly stringent U.S. political climate, it needs to be asked: just how true are these assumptions?
If you listen to the arguments that fly when migrant jobs are on the table, you probably know that migrant labor laws vary from those enforced for U.S. citizens. First, migrant workers get payed less. Where a professional would make $50 an hour on a landscaping job, an unskilled laborer can net about $15 - and they're more than happy to take it. Word goes around that some are paid below minimum wage, but this is a claim to address at a different time. Second, migrant workers are generally hired legally. The H-2B Visa program is a government regulated program that produces anywhere from 60,000 to 80,000 work visas annually, for the expressed intention of letting business owners recruit migrant workers. A large number of these visas are allocated to landscaping positions - but around 10,000 go to the food industry each year. While the program used to operate through straightforward request-by-the-numbers system, it's recently shifted towards a lottery system that has left many dependent American entrepreneurs out in the dark. Does this mean migrant workers are stealing these jobs from hard working Americans? Well, no. It's not uncommon for a business owner in migrant dominated fields to prioritize migrant workers; reduced labor costs mean more profit, which generally means lower market costs for consumers. Farmer Ronda Fox relies on seasonal workers from Mexico, now veterans on her property, to keep her business afloat while keeping produce prices reasonable. She's also not alone when it comes to having jobs ready for the taking. In order to apply for the H-2B program, you must provide evidence of unclaimed positions within your business. Fox's home state of Colorado boasts a jobless rate of about 2.5%, as well as distinct lack of interest in blue collar jobs that pay 15$ an hour. These jobs aren't being taken, per se, but merely filled by business owners trying to cut costs by supporting migrant workers. In a political atmosphere so malicious towards immigrants, it's important to understand who's responsible, and why. Business owners are just looking to stay alive in a troublesome economy, and migrant workers are just looking to take work that's given to them. Can a position be unjustly taken if demand for that position is so low? Can small blue-collar businesses afford to keep up with the wages demanded by U.S. citizens? As it turns out, the issue of working immigrants is more complicated than the current political atmosphere would lead you to believe.
9/17/18: Food in Industry
It's probably no surprise that, in this day and age, the concept of "industry in food" is one of hot debate. What's in the food we eat? What don't we know about the process? What are manufacturers hiding from their consumers? We look to modern news sources to find out.
We have more than enough calories, but what about other nutrients? “A new study is the first to quantitatively map the flow of energy, protein, fat, essential amino acids and micronutrients from 'field-to-fork' at a global level and identify hotspots where nutrients are lost. The study shows that while we produce far more nutrients than is required for the global population, inefficiencies in the supply chain leave many people nutrient deficient.”
A prevalent characteristic of modern American food culture is an ever growing concern with nutrition. Ever since the industrialization and mass production of food, the name brands lining the supermarket shelves have been under intense scrutiny. It’s no wonder that, in the face of an expanding scientific understanding of nutrition, the public has turned their attention towards the nutritional value of processed food. There’s a breadth of modern media dedicated to addressing this concern, such as popular book/movie Food Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.) and Melanie Warner’s compendium, titled Pandora’s Lunchbox (http://melanierwarner.com/pandoras-lunchbox/). Regardless of author or medium, the consensus seems to be the same: industrial food processing has left the American people nutrient deficient, and blissfully unaware of what they’re really eating. The above article briefly covers a study conducted by Hannah Ritchie, David S. Reay, and Peter Higgins, whose goal was to map the nutritional value of food from “field-to-fork.” This study comes after years of precedent, with well documented tests showing just how artificial and insufficient our nutritional intake can be; but never before has research been conducted on this scale, with measurements specifically contrived to put the results in a realistic context. This means forgoing the standards of kilograms and calories, and focusing instead of micronutrient uptake (i.e. vitamins and minerals) on a per-person, per-day basis. Unsurprisingly, the research found that caloric production is much higher than is needed to feed the entire country, at ~6000 calories per person, per day. What was much more surprising was that food production creates a surplus of nutrients as well, up to five times the daily amount required per person. Where surplus turns to malnutrition is in the wastefulness of the food industry, from scrapping viable produce to allocating resources to livestock propagation. With this novel understanding of nutrient loss at large, the researchers have produced a schematic system that can potentially fix a number of high level issues and restore nutritional value into the meals of Americans everywhere. Only time will tell if this plan is implemented; after all, this study was published just this year in Frontiers (https://www.frontiersin.org/). What this research does confirm, is that the push towards a more nutritional diet, and a more sustainable industry, is ever continuing.