I thought I’d share a somewhat editied selection of my posts and others.

I wrote: The American food industry is so productive and efficient both that it produced far more calories per capita than we should be eating. But we eat them anyway.

Of course we shouldn’t, but it is a more complex issue than is generally presented. If we ate the DRA, than I think that might be as few as 40% of what we produce. What will happen to the rest of the food? Should we not grow it or produce it?

We can’t simply export all food for lots of reasons, so are we willing to sacrifice jobs for our waistlines?

A response: over eating is a large part of the problem but lack of exercise is also to blame. we did not evolve as a species to sit behind a computer screen or in front of a tv.

My followup: Yes of course, but we didn’t evolve as a nation to simply toss out or limit an industry because it became *too* efficient at what it does.

Notice that when our food industry produced something on the order of the amount of food we should eat, instead of 2-3 times as much, we were skinnier.

I am not aware of any evidence that shows that, for especially urban or suburban, in say, the era from 1945-1960, that people exercised more than they do now.

OTOH, I do know that President Kennedy instituted a national exercise effort because kids were soft compared to their scary Soviet counterparts. So already by then, there is evidence that kids (and presumably their families) were not exercising enough although they were eating just fine.

I don’t know how old you are, but I am old enough to have been in college in the late 70s early 80s, and I am amazed almost every day at the difference in portion sizes in every restaurant and the expectations about what constitutes a meal since I was in college.

That changed not because people suddenly demanded more food, but because the food industry was producing so much, they needed to do something with it to sell it. Unused capacity is anathema in our economy, and so is throwing out what you made. In fact, both can be illegal in some circumstances. And I am sure people would scream bloody moral murder if we start dumping food.

So the only alternative s to sell what you produce, and to make it attractive enough that people will buy and eat it against their individual best interests, for the vague economic collective value of keeping the machine humming.

It seems really weird to me, even as a entrepreneur who is all about disruptive business models, that the solution to overcapacity in the food industry is to create leaner consumers (real live human beings!) who are simply better able to devour the excess output of the food production industry.

Suggesting that we improve our diet industry, our exercise industry, and other related matters simply to match what the food industry has done, on the backs of the individual people in our society is simply bizarre. It is a suggestion to profit a second time – to stick a hand in the other pocket in the pants that the food industry has claimed the first pocket.

Let’s not pretend either hand is interested in the individual, or that the individual has responsibility to fix this broader problem.

And I say this sitting squarely in the middle of the most productive farmland in the entire world.

Response from the same guy: it is not an issue i have followed closely but ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility. portion control, diet and exercise are on the individual. the excess farm capacity part is an interesting angle i have not thought about. makes one wonder even more about the utility of farm subsidies.

And my followup to that:I think there is some evidence that when societies are rich enough, and when they have sufficiently unhealthy food, they will eat it to excess. Slim evidence on my part for now, but weren’t there those in Elizabethan England in the Royal cl…ass who suffered from gout due to over-consumption of rich foods? Or was that France? Or both? And more?

It is probably only in our lifetime that a wide swath of society has had the means and opportunity to do this. Maybe humans never evolved a defense to this, because there was never any selective pressure to do so.

So I ask, is there a broad philosophical underpinning to your claim? Or is the sin of gluttony special somehow, free from industrial responsibility?

I ask because if I live in a house where the drywall was made from Chinese shit and people are getting sick, no one will say it is my fault.

No one will say that because people are collectively getting sick from air pollution or water pollution or other Industrial Disease (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWuc5kar3Y) that it is their fault. We collectively look to redirect industry’s efforts when they are affecting the health of people in predictable ways.

We don’t blame a girl for getting raped.

Why is this case different?

Not picking on you, but I would like to explore this, kind of brain storm it. I hinted at a possible answer some might give – it is a sin to be gluttonous. But I wonder, is the public health arena the place for religion, especially a religion not everyone believes in and to which industry has no allegiance at all?

© barry for Porterville Nerd, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Farmers have no monopoly on honesty, because that character trait is rooted in the country’s founding principles. But those roots have grown strong and deep in agriculture. Farmers are wondering why honesty doesn’t have a higher priority among political representatives.

If Marxism is a politician’s ultimate destination, he or she ought to be forthright enough to say so. Don’t count on it; saying and doing what is expedient instead makes them more electable.

Many politicians are taking large numbers of people with them to their secret collectivist destinations. Very few farmers want to go there.

via Don Curlee: Blind leadership frustrates farmers | visaliatimesdelta.com | Visalia Times-Delta and Tulare Advance-Register.

Geez “marxism”, “communism”, “socialism” – is red-baiting in the red states and counties going to be the rule of the day for a while? I am sure that is a great tactic to get your own people elected and listened to.

If farmers are such great capitalists and free marketeers, how about they look at the industry structure that they have wrought over the last 100 or so years since this land was settled? If they are so transparent, how about they share what they have learned?

The problem is that farmers have dug themselves a hole at the bottom of a heap of a distribution channel, and a complex supply chain, and as such they have no (or limited) economic leverage.

Take a look at the recent raisin price it was announced that farmers will get for their crop this year – divide the dollars by ton to get a price per ounce, then go to your favorite retailer to see what the retail price per ounce is. The difference is what the market perceives as the value added in all of the steps of the supply chain beyond the farmer. It is a lot – what is the farmer doing to capture that value for himself or herself?

The same is true of any crop.

Similarly, take a look at the risk of the capital the farmer invests in his or her crop. Are the returns earned a fair return for the risk? Has the risk changed? Most likely they have.

But the same local red-baiters are also the anti-scientists who refuse to acknowledge climactic shifts. Now are upset at political shifts too, they are not likely to find a solution in economics, science, or business and finance. They are quick to see and seek the hand of God in all their local political endeavors, when there is an opportunity to restrict someone else’s rights. It is more than a little bit surprising that they don’t see the Hand of Providence in their own fate.

However despite the prevalent “know-nothing” political approach prevailing in the Valley,  there are in fact various techniques available to them to restructure the capitalization of their industry, so that the farmers receive what they perceive as the true value they provide from the end user (if in fact they don’t already get it).

These techniques DO NOT include calling people Marxists or Communists when they are representing their own interests in a free market. Quite the opposite – doing so merely tags those who those claims as fools not capable of understanding their own situation,  let alone innovating their way out of it.

They DO  involve a careful and honest assessment of the situation and how it came to be.  In the past,  the Valley has been represented successfully from a farmer’s point of view with regards to water – they were given everything they asked for: Witness former Senator Sheridan Downey’s book of character assassination documenting his plan for the water projects that now run low and dry called “They Would Rule The Valley”.

Yes, this is the most productive farming area in the country, perhaps even the world.  But it does not live in economic isolation – there are limits to the resources available to make things grow, and increased efficiency can’t go on forever , in this or any other field of human endeavor.

It may very well be that without innovation in industry structure and capitalization, that growth and efficiency have peaked, and that water is not really the limiting issue at all.

So when I see folks calling “commie” or “marxist” as is increasingly frequent locally and in the media, I expect a recognition that these are economic terms being tossed around. If the speaker does not want to be ridiculed for using words as epithets without even knowing what they mean, then I would expect a serious analysis of the industry structure to follow.

Yet somehow it never does.

But why would that be a surprise from  anyone in a region that, according to a recent Congressional Report, compares unfavorably in just about every regard  with our other poorest region of the country, Appalachia?

© barry for Porterville Nerd, 2009. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: