NPR: "What Separates A Healthy And Unhealthy Diet? Just $1.50 Per Day"

NPR: "What Separates A Healthy And Unhealthy Diet? Just $1.50 Per Day"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/12/05/249072685/what-separates-a-healthy-and-unhealthy-diet-just-1-50-per-day

Hey everybody. Sorry this is so late, but I haven't contributed with an article and I think this one is extremely relevant.

This article explains a recent study demonstrating that a "healthy diet" is approximately $1.50 daily more expensive than an "unhealthy diet," which equates to approximately $550 a year. Considering our semester focus on the geography of food, I felt that the issue of "place" in regards to access to healthy food was missing, but absolutely necessary. Because access is largely, but not solely, dependent on price.

1. How would you put this article in dialogue with themes we have covered this semester? For example: food deserts, race, labor, whichever you feel is relevant.

2. The article mentions that education and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) help increase access to healthy foods but at the same time are under jeopardy because of the possibility of cut funding. What are other ways to increase healthy food access, and what steps can we take to prioritize policies that help, not hurt, with healthy food access?

Typhoon Revives Debate on U.S. Food Aid Methods

Hi Everybody,

I'm assuming I'll be one of the last ones to upload a blog post here. With the semester almost over, I thought it would be important to look back at the topics we covered during lectures and find an article/issue that talks about some of them.

Related to current events, the following article from the NY Times talks about the debate over (the delivery of) U.S. food aid  to foreign countries, in light of the recent typhoon Haiyan in Philippines. Much of the debate and what both sides are arguing about aren't novel ideas. The U.S. government, Congress, and aid workers/agencies, etc. have been  seriously debating about whether U.S. should change its means of delivering food aid abroad since the mid-1900s with the introduction of First Farm Bill. Specifically to Typhoon Haiyan and the Philippines, the question lies on whether U.S. should continue to purchase U.S. food and deliver there, or allow for greater purchase of locally grown food. There are pros and cons to both sides: One of the pros is that the aid will get to the disaster-stricken area much quicker (in this case 8 weeks vs. 12 weeks from U.S.). But opposition argues that this would mean decrease in U.S jobs and rise in unemployment rates, especially in the agricultural sector.

Maybe it's just me, but this article also reminded me of the Banana War debate we did at the very beginning of the semester, with Dollar bananas vs. Caribbean bananas.

What do you think the U.S. law makers should do? Should we allow for greater purchase of local products? Is there a middle ground for this debate?

Good luck with the rest of your finals!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/typhoon-reignites-debate-over-how-us-supplies-food-aid.html?_r=0

Predicted Food Scarcity

Article
      With some of our most powerful computer models predicting drought in our most trusted and dependable farming latitudes, there is much worry about the future state of world food security. This article discusses details gathered from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report regarding food scarcity. The article found that it was concluded that the previous prediction of high magnitude disruptions in the food cycle by 2050 may be occurring much sooner in the next 20-30 years. This short amount of time makes it seem that the urgency to secure a stable food system that can meet the demand for a growing population is quite urgent.
    1.  If there were such a disruption in food security (and the article already outlines evidence of the beginnings of such disruptions) with crop failure and subsequent price inflation, what will that mean for current trends in such places as Europe and the United States for smaller-scale "slow food" system?
   2.  There is predicted to be massive increases in Africa revolving around food scarcity for example. What might this mean for proposed GMO cropping systems to be put in place there? What if a specific drought resistant variety of GMO were developed?

Local Food Aid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hannah-lauferrottman/failing-to-address-the-co_b_4385083.html

This article refers to a plan which will change the current dynamic of food aid. Currently, surplus food (mostly starches and carbohydrate rich foods such as corn and wheat) is processes, packaged, and shipped to nations in need. It is extremely expensive and inefficient according to recent studies. The new system would provide cash to establish infrastructure in aid target areas which would allow for the production of locally sustainable produce and provide effective logistics systems for the distribution of said foods. It would eventually replace the old system and thus reduce demand for grain produced in the US, reduce US shipping, and change relationships between the US and aid target nations.

Some of my research explores local sourcing and procurement of food for food aid purposes as an economically viable alternative to shipping surplus goods overseas. Ideally this will squeeze the American domestic farmer (because of a reduced dumping market) and in the long term reduce production and subsidies on produce such as corn, beans, soy. It also provides for a much more nutrient rich food aid product, a culturally stimulating product and process, and economically stimulating processes. This article, however, considers that local sourcing may have negative externalities which could hamper progress and even reduce viability of local sourcing.

1.) What externalities do you perceive in a local (meaning geographically contiguous to aid target) food aid sourcing and procurement, negative or positive?

2.) What do you think could stand in the way of or act to induce locally sourced food aid projects? i.e, A.L.E.C, Farmers lobbies, economic interests, federal sequester.

Feeding the world: Can global crop production meet future demands?

http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/feedingtheworld/

     This interactive map was done by Esri (makers of ArcGIS software).  It shows a study done by the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment that focuses on how the world's crop production can double by the year 2050, so as to support the world's ever growing population. 

     3 solutions are offered based on various articles (I believe all of these solutions were discussed in class at one time or another):

     1) Closing Yield Gaps
     2) Increasing water use efficiency
     3) Changing crop use & diet

     Each solution can be quickly compared to Current Crop Yields by moving the vertical slider to the left and right.  It makes for a very visually stimulating look at possible solutions to global crop production going into the future.

"8 Things I've learned cooking without Gluten, Dairy, Nuts and Sugar" by Emily Ho

This was in interesting article that discussed a cook's recent removal of gluten, dairy, nuts and sugar via the "elimination diet" to see if her food choices were causing her health problems both mentally and physically.

1. Do you think that going "Gluten-free" is a food fad?

2. Do you think that people are just now discovering their gluten intolerance because of the way food is produced and prepared today (i.e- using GMO products or chemicals)?

3. If you are willing to share, has anyone fully eliminated dairy, gluten, nuts or sugar from their diet and noticed a significant difference in the way you felt or acted?

http://www.thekitchn.com/8-things-ive-learned-about-cooking-without-gluten-dairy-nuts-and-sugar-197775

"The word 'Natural' has no clear meaning"

The Wall Street Journal-Business
"Some Food Companies Ditch 'Natural' Label 
Amid Lawsuits Over the Claim, More Producers Drop the Word" By: Mike Esterl

This article was just recently published in The Wall Street Journal Business section and I thought it was interesting because we discussed a few weeks ago how much, for example organic, a product must be in order for the label to read "Organic," well in this case, certain companies are now taking the "natural" label of certain products due to recent lawsuits and the questioning of the word "natural." According to the FDA, there is no definition to the word "natural," but instead of following a definition, there is a policy that has been followed for a long time that helps to classify what is natural. What is your definition of "natural"? What criteria would do you think a product needs to meet to considered "natural"? How do you think consumers determine whether or not the products are really "natural"? Do you think consumers trust the label or avoid the products due to uncertainty of the production?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579163933732367084