THE GREAT MEAT DILEMMA-CONSUMER HEALTH VS FARMER HEALTH

Meat is very nutritious food besides providing unparalleled culinary pleasure to those liking them. It is no wonder that almost 90% of the world population eat meat given the opportunity and resources required to get access to them. Though there are sustained campaigns to convert people from carnivores to at least omnivores, if not herbivores, the argument being based on wasteful practices involved in commercial production of meat and similar animal products and the uncontrollable carbon emission causing global warming. However such scientific findings do not carry much conviction with those addicted to meat consumption. Feeble attempts to even marginally curtail meat consumption do not seem to have any chance of success as reflected by the recent aborted policy of American government to make one day in a week meatless day. Here is a report about this policy fiasco that may have far reaching implications.

"The USDA has retracted its support for an initiative to cut meat from Americans' Monday diets, caving in to pressure from livestock producers and complaints from a Kansas Senator. The original plug appeared in the USDA's internal "Greening Headquarters Update" on Monday, where three paragraphs on the third page mentioned Meatless Mondays, an initiative by Monday Campaigns, Inc.  The update called them a "simple way to reduce your environmental impact." The memo went on to say that animal agriculture — beef production in particular — wastes water, fertilizer, fossil fuels and other resources. It also contributes to global climate change, the memo said. "Because Meatless Monday involves only one day a week, it is a small change that could produce big results," the newsletter said. "Did you notice that our cafeterias have tasty meatless options?" Well, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association noticed. The association's president, J.D. Alexander, said the newsletter called into question the USDA's "commitment" to farmers and ranchers. He called the newsletter "awakening," and condemned the agency for failing to understand efforts made to produce food sustainably. He cited progress the industry has made over the last 30 years to produce more meat with fewer environmental costs. "This move by USDA should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet," Alexander said. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) noticed, too. Once he saw Twitter responses to the USDA's promotion of Meatless Mondays, he immediately printed out the USDA's newsletter and headed down to the Senate floor, his aide, Garrette Silverman told ABC News.com. Kansas is the third-largest beef producer in the country. "We are a beef-producing state and it is one of the items that improves our balance of trade as we export meat and beef around the world," Moran concluded his three-minute speech on the Senate floor. "And, yet, our own Department of Agriculture encourages people not to consume meat."

One of the illogical offshoots of the above flip-flop is the inconvenient question whether the US government is pro farmer or pro consumer or pro lobbyists1 It is an established fact that the American government is a prisoner of powerful farm and industrial lobbies which are supported by the political class of all hues unabashedly. In this particular policy reversal case it is the producers of meat products who exerted undue influence to abort the policy under the pretext that the highly subsidized industry would suffer grievously if meat consumption is reduced by even marginally. Same scenario is repeating itself whether it is use of HFCS in most products or improvement of cages for the poultry birds or genetically modified foods or branding of Pizza products as vegetables for school cafeterias with consumer interests totally sidelined! This is a travesty justice as promotion of meat is not a policy that can improve the health of the population as well as that of the planet. Such lop sided priorities are bound to cause long term damage to the citizens and it is nothing but shirking of responsibility by the government to wards building a healthy environment in the country  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

VEGETABLES FROM "HEAVEN"-EVER EXPANDING ROOF GARDENING

Urban agriculture is a hot topic in some countries because of the supposed advantages for vegetables from such endeavors in the form of lesser carbon emission, freedom from pesticides, relatively lesser from pathogens. Though it started in a very small way twenty years ago, recent developments in this sector is raising the possibility that urban gardens may play a critical role in meeting the requirements of vegetables for a significant segment of the city population without depending on arrival from far away places or from other continents. There is even a more friendly version of urban gardening where fresh produce retail shops are installing such gardens in the same building for the customers to pluck their need directly from the plants. It is amazing that a city like New York with a mega population and sky rocketing real estate prices is leading in establishing urban gardens on roof tops which is considered a far sighted development initiative. Here is a report on this interesting phenomenon.

"Today, she could have had both. New York City (the stores!) is suddenly a farming kind of town (the chores!). Almost a decade after the last family farm within the city's boundaries closed, basil and bok choy are growing in Brooklyn, and tomatoes, leeks and cucumbers in Queens. Commercial agriculture is bound for the South Bronx, where the city recently solicited proposals for what would be the largest rooftop farm in the United States, and possibly the world. Fed by the interest in locally grown produce, the new farm operations in New York are selling greens and other vegetables by the boxful to organically inclined residents, and by the bushel to supermarket chains like Whole Foods. The main difference between this century and previous ones is location: whether soil-based or hydroponic, in which vegetables are grown in water rather than soil, the new farms are spreading on rooftops, perhaps the last slice of untapped real estate in the city. "In terms of rooftop commercial agriculture, New York is definitely a leader at this moment," said Joe Nasr, co-author of "Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture" and a researcher at the Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson University in Toronto. "I expect it will continue to expand, and much more rapidly, in the near future." For city officials, the rise of commercial agriculture has ancillary benefits, as well. Rooftop farms have the potential to capture millions of gallons of storm water and divert it from the sewer system, which can overflow when it rains. And harvesting produce in the boroughs means fewer trucks on local roadways and lower greenhouse gas emissions, a goal of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration. Community gardeners and educators have tended plots and grown food for years. But they have only recently been joined by for-profit companies intent on getting back to the urban land. Gotham Greens began harvesting from its hydroponic greenhouse on a rooftop in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn last year; it plans to open three more next year in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The existing operation, with 20 employees, grows bok choy, basil and oak leaf lettuce, and sells to retailers like Whole Foods and FreshDirect. Brooklyn Grange, another farming operation, incorporated with the intention of finding a site in Brooklyn. But two years ago, a one-acre rooftop became available instead in Long Island City, Queens. The partners, led by Ben Flanner, the president and head farmer, spread out 1.2 million pounds of soil and started planting. This spring, Brooklyn Grange finally made good on its name, starting a second farm on a 65,000-square-foot roof at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where more than 100 rows feature pattypan squash, scallions and beefsteak tomatoes. Mr. Flanner pointed out two benefits to an agricultural aerie — plentiful sun and an absence of pests. "There are a number of parallels with regular agriculture," he said. "What we don't have are deer or foxes or rodents".

A garden friendly policy like that is in place in New York goes out of the way to help potential "gardeners" to establish such productive system and added to this the city itself is offering the roof tops of its own buildings for gardening at reasonable contract fees. The changing attitude of established and reputed retailers towards produce grown in urban gardens is encouraging many citizens to enter this area. These retailers are tying up with those growing salad vegetables for marketing locally and thus create a win-win situation for both. Though all urban structures are not suitable for raising roof top gardens, there are still millions of such apartments and building complexes which may eventually get into this loop. Probably future designs of urban dwellings may incorporate gardening features, suitable for raising small gardens either as a part of the individual units or as a collective roof top facilitiy.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE NEED TO REDUCE MEAT IN THE DIET-A SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE

Is there any relation between global warming and the foods consumed by human beings? It is known that agriculture and animal breeding contributes significantly to green house gas emission but hitherto food has been a "holy cow' not considered for any action that can ameliorate carbon emission to any significant extent. How ever a few concerned groups of activists want a drastic moderation of the diet in many western countries which are meat-centric so that emission reduction targets being committed by them can be met with minimum pain. Here is a take on this important issue.

"According to the Livewell report released by wildlife charity WWF and the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, red and white meat are "hotspots" for environmental impact. Latest figures showed the UK diet currently includes around 16% meat. The Livewell 2020 regime would also involve eating more fruit, vegetables and cereal, and less processed products to reduce the environmental impact of the food industry. Authors of the report said the low-carbon diet, which still allows for chocolate, crisps and chips, would cost £28.40 per person per week compared with an average spend of £32.12 per person in 2009. It said: "With increasing recognition of the environmental impact of food and drink, future food policy and dietary advice need to go beyond the traditional focus on nutrient recommendations for health to include wider issues of sustainability." As well as a small percentage of meat, the Livewell 2020 diet also includes 35% fruit and vegetables, 29% bread, pasta, rice and potatoes and 15% dairy products".

"A seven-day sample menu included a breakfast of high-fibre cereal with semi-skimmed milk, wholemeal sandwiches for lunch and dishes such as chicken curry and rice, macaroni cheese and chilli beef tortillas for dinner. The report also said it was possible to reach the 2050 target of 70% less greenhouse emissions through a more limited diet. Colin Butfield, WWF's head of campaigns, said: "If we want to protect the species and forests that are at the heart of WWF's work, then we have to fundamentally change our food system. "Today's report gives a picture of a way of eating that is good for the planet and good for your health too. For some, it might even be cheaper. "This is not a radical proposal – it's a diet that contains meat or fish every day and that includes everything from chicken curry to macaroni cheese. "The debate on the environmental impacts of food has often been polarised around meat-eating versus vegetarianism. This is unhelpful".

In a country like the UK where average consumption of meat through the diet constitutes 16%, aspiring to bring it down to 4% may be too much to ask for. Nevertheless the very fact that food is recognized as a villain in carbon emission is a welcome development. Also praise worthy is the realization that food has connotations beyond nutrition and human health and the fact that the above group has been able to come out with an equally nutritious diet with just 4% meat speaks well about the awareness of the problem that confronts humanity to day. It may be recalled that some western critics had blamed developing countries with millions of smoke belching choolas (kitchen hearths) and heavily farting, methane emitting free roaming livestock animals for the global warming! "Sacrifice" is the answer for today's uncontrolled carbon emissions and sacrifice must be made equitably by every denizen in this world for a better tomorrow.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE-WHAT IS THAT?

Agriculture is receiving increased attention from climatologists because this sector has been found to be contributing substantially to green house gas emission which is responsible for significant warming up of the planet with its attendant adverse consequences to the world at large. Though every one agrees that there is an urgent need to cut down on emission, no unanimity seems to be emerging regarding the modus operandi to achieve the goal. While most of the developed nations do not want to sacrifice the comforts their citizens enjoy because of the liberal use of unsustainable fossil fuels, developing countries aspiring to catch up and achieve decent economic growth cannot be expected to commit to any drastic reduction in CO2 emission without condemning their people to a life of eternal misery. It is unlikely that there will be any agreement on this controversial but critical issue in the foreseeable future because of the wide divergence and perception amongst the countries as of now.

"An 80-nation conference on food security urged U.N. climate negotiators Friday to consider agriculture when drawing up strategies to fight climate change. The five-day meeting ended with a call to invest in new farming practices that will curb greenhouse gas emissions and will better use currently available land to feed a global population of 9 billion by 2050. About 30 percent of carbon emissions come from farming, livestock and forest destruction. Despite its huge share of global emissions, accounting for the use of land is one of the toughest issues under negotiation at U.N. climate talks, and the one which has made the least progress. The talks involve creating incentives for emission reductions by vast agricultural conglomerates and by farmers still using wooden plows on tiny plots. It also touches an industry that is heavily subsidized in many countries. Dutch Agriculture Minister Henk Bleker said funding for "climate smart" agriculture should be integrated into U.N.negotiations. Investment "in agricultural development has been declining in the last 10 years,"Bleker told reporters. "We want to change that." Negotiators reconvene in Cancun, Mexico, later this month, in the most important session since the summit last December in Copenhagen. That convention in Denmark fell short of any legally binding agreement to regulate the pollution blamed for global warming, concluding instead with a statement of principles. But the leaders in Copenhagen agreed to channel $10 billion a year to developing countries through 2012, and to raise $100 billion annually starting in 2020 to help poor countries curb their own emissions and to adapt to changing climate conditions. "Climate change negotiators are frequently not familiar with agriculture," said the World Bank's special envoy on climate change , Andrew Steer. "Nobody expects a global deal at Cancun, but there will surely be one before too long," and agriculture must be part of it, he told the conference earlier this week".

The recently concluded climate summit at Cancun, Mexico also ended up with lot of platitudes and sermons without any conclusions regarding who must do what! The commitment of $ 100 billion for helping the poor countries to achieve carbon reduction is at best a token though no one is clear as to the source of such a fund. It is amusing to hear that the wood fired hearth used by poor families in the third world are generating carbon particles which are responsible for destruction of ice cap and other climate changes! Next would probably the emaciated animals roaming around freely in countries like India generating Methane gas that is more potent than CO2 in global warming!. The moot question is whether the rich nations want the poor countries to remain poor till the end of the world? If so this planet will never be a peaceful place to live with a perpetual cycle of violence and unrest prevalent in many parts of the world..

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MEAT PRODUCTION-THE CARBON LOAD REALITY

Commercialization of meat production and growing demand for more and more meat products have changed the way the meat animals are raised through well designed stall feeding. There is wide spread criticism that the nutritional quality of meat from such commercial farms, fed on corn as the main input, is much inferior to those reared open feeding on grass. Of course it is accepted that milk produced by grass-fed cows is much superior to large dairy farms using formulated feeds in terms of some nutrients like essential fatty acids. Clamor for meat from grass-fed meat is quite natural. To add to this USP, many consumers believe that open grazing is more eco-friendly and therefore desirable.

"Pasture- or grass-fed meat also is growing in popularity, with the perception that it is more eco-friendly than conventionally produced beef. However, the time needed to grow an animal to slaughter weight is nearly double that of animals fed corn. This means that energy use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef are increased three-fold in grass-fed beef cattle. In total, finishing the current U.S. population of 9.8 million fed-cattle on pasture would require an extra 60 million acres of land. Again, the intuitively environmentally friendly option has a far higher resource and environmental cost".

It is like advocating converting all of to day's crop production to organic label which is neither economically feasible nor logistically possible. Only a holistic approach like the one above can bring out the true picture of what is practiced to day and provide a clue as to what changes need to be brought about in future. .

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com