Global Hunger

GLOBAL HUNGER- AN ONGOING PROBLEM Global hunger is an international struggle that involves the malnutrition and lack of food access between people, primarily due to lack of money. According to the USDA, 870 million hungry people do not have sufficient access to safe and healthy food. Not only does global hunger affect a nation’s stomach, it also tarnishes a country’s economy and overall longevity. By aiding these countries into becoming more food secure, their agricultural market, income, and population growth will gradually increase. CALORIE AVAILABILITY VS FOOD SHARE Many countries have an unbalanced ratio between how much money their spend on food, versus the amount of calories they consume. This leads to an inefficiency within the agricultural market. The United States is a wealthy country, and spends less than 10% of their food shares on food bought from grocery stores. Despite this, the U.S per capita consumes a substantial 3,639 calories per day. The opposite is true for poorer countries like Kenya, where they spend about 50% of their food shares, but they only digest 2,206 calories. CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUNGER IN THE U.S 1) LACK OF INCOME Although the United States is considered a rich country, a fair amount of people still suffer from starvation. Almost half of the counties in the Northeast have poverty rates greater than or equal to the national average. EFSNE (Enhancing Food Security in the Northeast) is a research project aimed to increase food access to the Northeast area of the United States by increasing the region’s reliance to create food.The entire operation is a collaboration between researchers and community leaders in an effort to raise the region’s income. In theory, having a deeper relationship with locally grown food will decrease the dependency on imported goods and raise more internal revenue for the state. 2)LOW FOOD ACCESS Low food access is when a household does not have a consistent and convenient supply of food. The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) determines the level of food access by the distance between households and local food markets. For urban regions, “low food access” is defined as a person living greater than a mile away from grocery stores, while the interval for rural areas is when that distance exceeds ten miles. 4% of the population in the Northeast qualifies as “low food access” and poses a problem for low-income consumers who have a finite amount of resources to travel to a supermarket. 3)FOOD INSECURITY The ERS has also also asked a survey of questions to households in order to measure their level of food insecurity. “Low food security” is a label given to families when they have three or more insecure food conditions, like lack of healthy food or consistent scarcity of food supply. “Very low food security” exists if in a household has “low food security” , while also having at least one member having lower nutritional intake due to limited money. The rate of food insecurity in the Northeast is greater than national levels in nine of the twelve states within the region. Therefore, food insecurity in the Northeast and the United States as a whole is increasing over time. 4) SCHOOL LUNCHES IN THE U.S A program that helps low-income families is the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) a federal program that aids schools in serving healthy, delicious, and affordable food to students. According to the program, 38% of US students were able to receive free lunches due to their family earning below 130 percent of the poverty level. Despite these efforts, the United States still struggles with feeding school children a nutritious meal. One problem is regulating salt content. If a school inputs too little, then children will not eat it. However, if they input too much and students exceed their daily amount of sodium. School cafeterias would rather serve overly salty foods that children will eat, then have them starve. Another problem lies in home cooked meals, in which Americans are making less food at home. As a result, children and their family have a shallower relationship with their food and are not open to try new and healthier options. SCHOOL LUNCHES IN FRANCE The French school lunch system is more refined than in the United States. One difference is that many French schools hire certified dieticians to create menus that take into account sugar and sodium intake. These people also ensure a healthy balance of vegetables, protein, fruits, and complex carbohydrates. The food is also made fresh at the schools with staff personally serving children at their tables, unlike the cafeteria lines in the United States. Below is a website that compares school lunches from the U.S and France, along with a video that shows how school lunches operate in Lyon:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/01/what-french-kids-eat-for-school-lunch-puts-american-lunches-to-shame/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nth_j2jhsM WIC AND SNAP Food stores that have benefits such as: Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), make shopping for food less costly and are predominantly in regions with high poverty rates (see Table 2) Between 2008 and 2011, most of the Northeast region has steadily increased the amount of WIC and SNAP stores. However, five states in the Northeast, along with the U.S as a whole, decreased the number of stores that accept WIC benefits by 8%. This trend may be due to declining birth rates, along with the cost stores undergo by upgrading their technology to accept EBT cards from WIC supporters. SOURCES https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=food-security https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/ http://agsci.psu.edu/research/food-security/about/project-narratives/efsne-food-security-narrative-pdf http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/01/what-french-kids-eat-for-school-lunch-puts-american-lunches-to-shame/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nth_j2jhsM http://www.cfare.org/events/c-fare-events/2013/seminar-to-elucidate-the-value-of-usda-data https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/05/the-slow-death-of-the-home-cooked-meal/?utm_term=.9cbe9f85e8f4

Animal Welfare

 

Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare

Is there a difference? More importantly, do we, as a nation understand what that difference is?

Definitions



Animal welfare, according to the American Veterinary Medical association refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal recieves is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. Protecting an animal's welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs. There are many different definitions and opinions behind the definition of Animal Rights but essentially it is this: The belief that animals belong to live free from use in medial research, hunting, and any other servies to humans.

Numbers to know 

If you are reading this, and are wondering why the definitions hold such signifance then hopefully the graph provided below will help.

The population is over 7 billion (~7.1 billion as of December 2013). This number is rapidly incresing and the world population is heading for just over 9 billion by 2050 (~9.3 billion). Some estimates put the world population at over 10 billion by 2100. Those are a lot of hungry bellies to feed. Hopefully one can see now why the differences and definitions of Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare should be thought about. How are we going to feed all of these new people on the same amount of land?

The Issue

The biggest issue when it comes to animal welfare is that most Americans live in urban or suburban communities, where they have little contact with wildlife or farms, and therefore often rely on what they see on television, in newspapers, and on the Internet for their information about Animal Rights and Animal Welfare Issues. Without direct interaction with animals, it is easy to develop misguided attitudes because, with the exception of our pets, we lack firsthand experience. That has created a divide between human beings which resulted in Animal Rights and Animal Welfare Activists.

Google, friend or foe?

If you were to google "Factory Farming" you will find a wide range of graphic photos. Some of which I have included below.

 

 

Now lets take a look at google images for "Family Farming"

The internet can be a tool but is can also misinform and misguide the population. Another major factor when it comes to Animal Welfare is that we as humans have warped conceptions of pain and suffering. Many people will look at a pig in a pen and conclude that because it doesn't have room to roam freely, it must be suffering, because after all, a human would not want to be held in a small cage. This argument assumes that pigs think and feel in the same way that human beings do. Researchers at the Center for Food and Animal Productivity and Well-being at Purdue Univeristy have suggested that sows may be perfectly content in a small, confinded space while they are nursing their piglets and that there is no convincing evidence that such quarters cause the pigs any psychological distress.

Food for thought

Something else to keep in mind when thinking about Animal Agriculture in the United States is that 97 percent of the 2.1 million farms are family-owned operations.

There is also discussion about how slaughter is inhumane to the animal. The argument is also invalid seeing that housing, care and slaughter of animals for meat MUST be done humanely for various reasons. Not only is this the farmers income but stressed or brusied animals can be deemed unfit for market. For example, stress in pigs reults in PSE - pale, soft, exudative pork that is not fit for human consumption. Mishandled cattle can result in DFD - dark, firm, dry meat.

 
 

 The Heart or The Mind?

There is a lot of science that goes into what has been the best housing system to have, the proper ventilation and to have the proper disposal of waste and the proper sanitation requirments for each of these animals. When you and I look at these animals we can't just simply apply our human feelinig and say "Oh, I don't know if I'd like to live like that". Well, you know, many of these animals prefer to live in groups, and live in flocks. Having more space is not necessarily good, and thats where it's important that we look at what the science is... We have to apply science and not emotion.

Animal Welfare in Europe

With the support and close co-operation of the Member States, the European Commission has been promoting animal welfare for over 40 years gradually improving the lives of farm animals.  An important step in 1998 was Council Directive on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes which gave general rules for the protection of animals of all species kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes, including fish, reptiles or amphibians. These rules are based on the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes and they reflect the so-called 'Five Freedoms':

Freedom from hunger and thirst
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to express normal behaviour
Freedom from fear and distress

International Issues

In today’s globalised food marketplace, European farmers and food producers face competition from many countries, some of which have lower animal welfare standards than those applied in the EU. This places EU farmers and producers at a commercial disadvantage, because they must invest more money in their businesses to meet the EU’s stricter rules.
To help establish a level playing field and fairness for European companies and exporters, the EU includes animal welfare issues in trade agreements and organises major international events to promote its view on animal welfare.

 

 

Sources

 



Hile, Kevin. Animal Rights. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2004. Print.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/index_en.htm

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/activists-accuse-walmart-of-condoning-torture-of-pigs-by-pork-suppliers/?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%232&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry357%23%2Fanimal%2Bwelfare%2Bmeat%2Fsince1851%2Fallresults%2F3%2Fallauthors%2Fnewest%2F

 

 

 

 





 



 

 

 

 

Food Labeling

What Is Food Labeling?

When thinking about food labeling what comes to mind? A sticker on a food product that has some sort of nutritional value printed on it, right? Well you would be correct. The definition of a food label is “a panel on a food package which contains a variety of information about the food item.” (Business Dictionary) These labels include calories, serving sizes, fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. The food label is the first thing some consumers look at when grocery shopping, hoping that said food item meets their dietary requirements. The food label is not only broke down into sections but

those sections also tell you how much of something you should or shouldn’t have.

This food label is an example from a box of Macaroni & Cheese. Paying attention to serving size is important, because many times we eat more than what is allotted. The number of servings you consume of said item equates to the amount of calories you have eaten. This can be found in “section” two of the food label. The “sections” labeled three and four describe the items in the food product you should try to stay away from, and those you should try to eat more of.

Food Labeling in the United States

As we know all food labels are on the back of food products. That is a standard with food products. The distributor and product name goes on the front of the package. The FDA wants labels to be clearly visible and easy to read. There are fourteen kinds of food that require some kind of labeling. Here a few; foods manufactured by small businesses, dietary supplements, certain brands of eggs (egg cartons), and game meats. All must meet requirements put in place by the FDA and explain their nutritional facts. One controversial topic that comes up is the idea of labeling Genetically Modified Foods (GMO’s). Currently Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut require all GMO’s to be labeled. The Vermont Law lets consumers know what is in their food, but critics believe the information could confuse people as well as cost a lot to make. (Huffington Post) “The WHO says GM Foods currently available … have passed assessments and have no health risks” (Huffington Post) The American Medical Association says that these labels do not meet guidelines for FDA “science-based” labeling. Groups feel the cost of adding these labels will raise prices of foods, affecting the consumer.  Although others advocate that they would prefer to know where their food comes from, and is okay with the price hikes. Kevin Folta an independent GMO expert says that adding the labels will still not give consumers enough information about their foods. Therefore the controversy carries on, the question asked today is will the labels be added or will people accept the non-labeled products.

Food Labeling in France

Labeling in France was made official by a law in 2002 stating that labels not only be in French but in other languages that seem fit. All labels used should be legible and be a correct representation of the product, in all languages. Just like in the United States they should be easily seen on packaging and not abbreviated. French food labels have “product definition, shelf life, use by date, sell by date, and storage requirements. (eFrance) They also make sure that all additives and preservatives are added on their packaging. The EU has three main categories; authorization, labeling, and trace-ability. A well-known slogan is from “the seed to the fork”.  Overall the European Commission must decide what foods get labeled. France has six different types of labels when it comes to food, all meeting a different set of requirements. France must also include allergens on labels. In 2013 a commission was granted by the European Parliament to oversee labeling and mandatory regulation of production of products. France as well as the EU seem to have a handle on their food labeling and what their consumers what / need. 

Website Links / Sources:

1.       http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/food-label.html

2.       http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm274593.htm

3.       http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064894.htm

4.       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/teen-vogue/why-the-new-gmo-foodlabel_b_9738698.html

5.       https://www.export.gov/article?id=France-Labeling-Marking-Requirements

6.       https://lacuisineparis.com/blog/understanding-french-food-labels

7.       http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/labelling_legislation_en

Ag Policy

A Closer Look at the National and International Impacts from Subsidized Farming

One of the more controversial uses of the US budget is subsidizing crops. Perhaps not as of a hot button issue in today's news, with the nation's public focused on immigration and other scandalous topics. Nonetheless, due to a couple changes within the last couple of years worldwide and within the US, it is definitely important to both understanding a nation's politics and economics. To understand why subsidies are so controversial, one first needs to understand what exactly a subsidy is, and how it relates to Ag Policy. A subsidy is a form government assistance to keep the price of a commodity low.

Price stays low, quantity stays high

A subsidy is supposed to be good for both the consumer and the producer, and some see them as necessary to guarantee that farmer's stay financially safe and productive. However, subsidies have not only impacted our country, but in the world market. 

According to Dr. Daniel Summers, the only winners within the US are those farmers who own subsidized crops, like cotton, and the consumer. The US economy has to pay for these subsidies, and no other farmers except the ones growing subsidized crops benefit. As for the rest of the world, impacts vary. Our competition cannot keep up with the low prices that our farmers can sell at, which excludes poorer countries from participating in the world market. However, the lower prices make our commodities more available to those in poverty. 

A common complaint: only big agri-businesses gain from subsidies

If we were to quit subsidizing our farmers in the US, Dr. Summers thinks that farmers in developing countries would probably benefit, at least the ones that are competing with our currently subsidized crops. This is especially true for cotton, which is a very suitable crop for Africa’s environment and therefore a very popular use of its arable land. However, with the US supporting national farmers through subsidies, US cotton prices stay low, while Africa’s prices stay higher. 

For the non-competitors, however, eliminating subsidies would have a negative impact. The US keeps their prices low, and third world countries (including the ones in Africa) can afford them. Dr. Summer deduces that the change in price for most subsidized commodities would not be significant, but also states that for those in poverty, these changes could be huge. While the US itself would probably not feel the difference, other countries certainly could.

On an International Level: The Common Agricultural Policy

Subsidies are not only a big topic in the US, but also worldwide. Just a couple years ago, the UN's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was reformed. The new CAP sought out to fix many of the issues within the agricultural sector, especially when it came to budgeting. Of the many changes made, there are a couple that are subsidy related. One is having a 300,000 euro cap for subsidies, another is subsidizing acreage rather than production. This hopefully will continue to lead to less intensive farming, as there won't be so much pressure to produce for extra money. There also would be redistribution of payments that would take money from larger operations and support smaller farms.

There are other problems that CAP is trying to end some with the subsidy programs, problems which have for a long time had negatively impacted the rest of the world. For instance, ending sugar protection quotas. By ending these quotas, competing farmers in poor countries would have a chance in the market, and also stops the flow of money from these quotas going towards dominating European agri-businesses. 

Not everyone was ecstatic about CAP 

Despite the many huge revisions that were made, there are still several who consider CAP heavily flawed, especially when it comes to how much they pay for subsidies, and where the money is actually going. Many say that most of the subsidies will still go to huge agri-business companies, rather than smaller local farms. Others completely want to downplay subsidies and spend more on agricultural research, rather than be like the US and Japan, which are known for giving large subsidies to their farmers. 

Ironically, despite the fact that many argue that the CAP makes the EU more similar to US and Japan, other argue that is the subsidies that are keeping them from being like us. Supporters fear that without the subsidies, Europe’s landscape will be dotted with US-style factory farms.

On A National Level: The Farm Bill

A couple months after CAPs reform, a new farm bill in the US was going through congress. This bill was to replace the one that had expired in 2012, two years earlier. The bill was to cost approximately $956 billion dollars, a startling number until you realize that the US was currently on tract to spend $972 billion, so the proposed bill would actually save the US around $16 billion over the next ten years. 

A brief overview of the budgeting in the new bill

There were many changes made to the budget, especially when it came to subsidies. For the past seventy years, minimum prices for milk, cheese, and butter have been set to insure the farmers financial safety. Now, farmers will be supported with insurance when the prices of their products, or the cost of their feed, drop.

Other changes being made to the bill included the (then) current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The result in being a $8 billion cut in spending over a decade. One of which is closing the heating “loophole”. About 850,000 households have qualified for food aid because of heating bills that, according to the government, have been assumed to be higher than they actually were.

This program also now excludes college students, lottery winner, and undocumented immigrants from its benefits. Those who still are able to be part of the program will also now receive pilot programs that are designed to encourage them to apply for jobs.

A pretty controversial part of the bill was the new crop insurance policy. Seven billion dollars was added to this portion of spending to be used as insurance deductibles. Before, farmers would be able to buy their own insurance, along with the subsidies in case their crops died or prices dropped. Now, with the cut of subsidies (as mentioned before with the dairy products), the government will be paying the farmers deductibles before their insurance covers the costs. This part is considered a little controversial, because the seven billion added onto the bill for deductibles is only a projection, and the government could end up spending a lot more than their allocated amount. 

For now, the world seems to be cutting out subsidies and promoting farmers in different ways. Hopefully, all countries will be given the same chance on the market as a result.