There was another episode of “Jimmy’s supermarket secrets” on TV last night It was an hour long programme called “crop to shop” and involved Jimmy darting around looking at how we manage to import fresh food from half way round the world.
I can’t decide what irritates me most about this guy, whether it is his sense of naïve wonder or just his uncritical childlike enthusiasm. Both of those were very evident last night especially as he travelled across the Egyptian dessert wondering how crops could be grown in such a dry and barren place.
Jimmy got his answer when he met up with a potato grower who explained that they needed to drill for water and could only find it by going down 350m. The fact that it takes 500ltrs of water to produce 1kg of potatoes and that Egypt exported 2.6m tonnes in 2007 did not register on the Jimmy radar. I would like to have asked how long the water will last. Then there was the question of fertiliser as sand is, well, sand. The answer was that it is added to the water. Simple.
The real killer was when Jimmy learned that the seed potatoes came from Scotland and the peat used for packing was imported to Egypt from Ireland. He did eventually ask whether all this transport was really necessary just to provide us with ‘fresh’ potatoes in the middle of winter.
Then on to Kenya to see how beans are grown and harvested. Once again the childlike wonder showed through when the grower explained that only straight beans were allowed to be sent to the UK because that is what the buyers (supermarkets) wanted. Jimmy was slightly shocked that bent beans were trashed.
The final visit was to a pineapple farm in another part of Africa. The focus here was the processing plant that packed pineapple pieces and air freighted them to the UK. But Jimmy said it was all OK because regular passenger flights were used.
The whole programme was a cross between a broadcast for schools and a PR piece from supermarkets. It felt like the aim was to provide a whole heap of justification for the sheer lunacy that is the food supply chain. Why we need to airfreight tiny bits of pineapple in neat little plastic trays or have fresh potatoes in January is beyond me. Is it just because the technology is there to make it possible? Or is it because exploiting people in poorer countries is so easy? Or, dare I say it; is it to turn a profit regardless of the environmental consequences?
To be fair Jimmy did say that 40% of lorry movements were associated with food but I guess that was secondary to the awe and wonder of such clever farming and technology. It was a shame he did not spell out more of the consequences of what he saw as he could have educated us to the real costs of cheap food i.e. the Earth.
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, has caused a stir by saying that we should spend more money on food than on holidays, according to The Telegraph. That is bound to be a headline grabber and bound to get a strong reaction but is he right?
Some years ago there was a statistic floating around which said that in the UK we spend 9% of income on food whereas in France it was nearer 19%. That says a lot about how food is valued. Some would argue that cheap food is almost a right but I would counter that by saying nutritious food is a right and not the useless pap that many companies sell as ‘food’.
How much we are willing to pay for meal also says a lot about what food means to us and generally we don’t value it all. In supermarkets food is sold on price and price alone, the cheapest being seen as the best. Low prices have to come from somewhere and it is the continual screwing down of farm gate prices which keeps the shop price artificially low. That benefits nobody in the long term as it leads to a precarious supply situation which easily creaks and breaks at the slightest problem.
Then there is organic food. For a long time organic has been branded by the opposition as a niche market and as high priced food for tuffs. The perception is that, at best organic is much more expensive and at worst a con which is no different to the chemical soaked alternative. Organisations like the NFU have vigorously defended conventionally produced food and have been quick to reinforce the niche market claims. What this has done if to create confusion and an air of suspicion in the minds of consumers.
The recent debates about food security have also jumped on the organic knocking bandwagon and made wild claims about links to starvation and organic farming. The argument is that we need even more intensive chemical farming combined with unproven technologies like GM. Government has joined that camp because it gives them an easy way out of a difficult and frightening problem.
What we really need is to increase food production in the UK and diversify the way food is grown. That does not mean super farms in the East of England supplying 98% of English carrots, cabbage or anything else. That is not resilient agriculture it is sheer lunacy. The prolonged drought in the East Anglia last year and the recent disruption to supplies during the cold spell have shown just how precarious our food supply really is.
Farmers need to be seen as a crucial part of society and valued for the work they do and not constantly knocked or seen as scapegoats for the bad practices of the retail sector. Agriculture and horticulture need to be sold to young people as worthwhile and engaging careers. There should be incentives for young people take on small holdings of land to grow food sustainably without chemicals. Land should be seen for what it is, an absolutely crucial part of keeping us alive and not as an investment opportunity.
What about organics? A large scale move to organic agriculture is not just desirable it is essential to produce a sustainable production system that is not totally reliant on oil. It is no use tinkering with the existing system in way that increase or perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels all that will do is delay the inevitable crisis. We must begin to move to a post oil agricultural system with more local production and distribution.
The days of cheap food have gone. We will have to pay more for food and I sincerely hope that we recover our respect for what we eat. A more nutritious diet could make a huge difference to public health of this country. The best thing is that people might even begin to enjoy good food again instead of scoffing plastic meals out of plastic trays while walking around our cities.
In the end it is not about whether organic food is just for rich toffs it is about the facing the realities of declining oil supplies, climate change and population growth. Food production has to become sustainable and just has to be less dependent on oil.
Shrimps are the most popular seafood in the US, and heavily consumered in Europe but shrimp farms have a huge environmental impact. The never ending appetite for shrimps might make it the number one in the US but most Americans do not know how their favourite is produced and neither do they have any idea of the quality of imports.
According to a report from OCA, Organic Consumers Association, shrimps imported from India are produced using an array of chemicals and when inspected were found to be contaminated with bacteria:
The shrimp pond preparation begins with urea, superphosphate, and diesel, then progresses to the use of piscicides (fish-killing chemicals like chlorine and rotenone), pesticides and antibiotics (including some that are banned in the U.S.), and ends by treating the shrimp with sodium tripolyphosphate (a suspected neurotoxicant), Borax, and occasionally caustic soda.
Upon arrival in the U.S., few if any, are inspected by the FDA, and when researchers have examined imported ready-to-eat shrimp, they found 162 separate species of bacteria with resistance to 10 different antibiotics…
This startling information comes from the book “Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood” by Taras Grescoeby.
Apart from the obvious public health concerns there is the environmental impact of shrimp farming.
…shrimp farming is credited with destroying 38 percent of the world’s mangroves, some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on earth. Mangroves sequester vast amounts of carbon and serve as valuable buffers against hurricanes and tsunamis.
This is yet another example of the problems caused by factory farming used to satisfy the demand for a single product. That such destructive practices are exported to developing countries serves to hide the worst effects and keeps consumers in the dark.
A recent article in The Observer covered the latest food scare involves a drug used to castrate pigs.
Meat from pigs that have been “chemically castrated” could soon be on sale in Britain, with no label to warn shoppers that it contains a controversial drug.
Evidently meat from mature male pigs becomes tainted which it is said in unpallaetable for consumers. Previously pigs were manually castrated but it is time consuing operation which many UK farmers stopped doing. Then along came a drug.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer developed the drug, Improvac, to allow farmers to grow pigs bigger before slaughter but without them releasing the hormones that cause boar taint, a taste many consumers dislike. In much of Europe, young males are physically castrated, but in the UK the practice is rarely carried out.
The drug has been reject by the Assured Food Standards (AFS) agency for its Red Tractor symbol which is used 90% of British pig producers but the RSPCA jave said it farmers could use the drug if they convinced them it reduced agression bewteen boars. Of course the drug company says everything is fine:
Pfizer says the treatment was approved only after “rigorous” testing to ensure it could not affect consumers through the pig meat or the environment.
And some farmers are not convinced:
Tim Waygood, whose farm in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, advertises “high-welfare, ecological” food, said he objected to pigs being injected so their “balls shrivel up”, and wanted more reassurance about safety for
Another chemical quick fix for the food industry which will not be labelled so consumers have no chance to make their own decision. Of course the agro chemical companies will make money and, it seems, that is what really matters.
Cuba has long been seen as an inspiration for anybody interested in changing the way we grow and distribute food. This film shows Monty Don (ex BBC gardening presenter) getting very enthusiastic about what he finds on a visit to some organic growers. Who wouldn’t be inspired!
He is right; we could do the same here. I know we don’t have the weather or the same urgent need to grow food to avoid strvation but please let some of Monty’s enthusiasm rub off on you. Great music!
Congratulations are due to Brighton and Hove council for allowing the use of council land to grow food.
The move is part of a campaign aimed at increasing the amount of local produce that is grown and eaten.
Cabinet chairwoman Mary Mears said: “I’m pleased to see progress on sustainability, particularly on growing local food on council land.
It is good to see at least one council taking food security seriously and responding to the demand from local, people to grow their mown food. Many other councils in the UK could do the same and release vacant land for allotments and community gardens.
Now that one prestigious council have shown the way what is stopping others from doing the same?
There seems to be a growing idea that zero input, zero carbon footprint food systems are possible. The latest incarnation is a revamp of old technology that raises fish in tanks and then circulates the nutrient rich water (fish poo) around containers used to grow fruit and veg. It is generally known as aquaponics.
The claimed advantages range from less use of water to a magical zero input food system input based on the premise that no fertilizers are needed. What is often ignored, or glossed over, is that fish need food and that the system needs a constant supply of energy.
Energy can come from renewable sources so that is not a huge problem for small systems but the capital investment and embedded energy used to create large renewable electricity generation plants for large scale aquaponics systems is often totally over looked by enthusiasts.
One of the latest ideas that is generating some publicity and getting support from those who see it as a quick techno fix is detailed in an article with the strap line “Why aquaponics may be the future of urban farming, and one solution to our local food problem.”
The idea looks relatively simple; raise fish in tanks, circulate the faces laden water around other tanks which are used to grow food. If only it were that simple. The experiences of fish farming are that confining fish to tanks and cages in sea water drastically increases problems from pests and diseases which leads to the reliance of pesticides. Are the aquaponic enthusiasts saying there are no such problems with their systems or do they just ignore the potential problems?
The authors are very enthusiastic and use eco speak to support their arguments.
According to Food & Water Watch, 80 percent of that energy is spent on “processing, packaging, selling, and storing food after it leaves the farm.” Some estimates “predict that 120 million tons of CO2 emissions are directly attributable to domestic food transport each year.” The U.S. food system is so inefficient that it “uses 10 nonrenewable fossil fuel calories to produce only one food calorie.”
There is no disputing any that and it shows just how dependent we have become on converting oil calories to food calories.
What bothers me is that there is a growing rush to find a techno fix for every problem we now face. Maybe it is because we do not want to give up our comfortable life styles. Maybe it is because we have become accustomed to leaving the tricky stuff to others. Maybe we rely on the centralised power of government and big companies too much. Who knows what drives people to find the seemingly easiest solution to everything without looking further than their dinner fork.
One thing is certain, we do need a change in the food is produced and distributed and I am equally sure that sustainable urban farms have a crucial part to play. To be really sustainable they need the absolute minimum of inputs and to make the maximum use of space, the overall design guidelines: should be keep it simple, use what we have, use the least possible amount of energy for creating and running the farm.
Maybe there is a hybrid media based growing system out there that uses manure or compost to produce plant food and uses a renewably sourced growing media. I would dearly love to hear about it as that really would be revolution. Until then lets make the best use of the biggest resource we have i.e. soil by growing intensively and organically.
This is an interesting bit of research. Diets high in salt have known to be a factor in heart disease for many years.
Reducing salt in the American diet by as little as one-half teaspoon (or three grams) per day could prevent nearly 100,000 heart attacks and 92,000 deaths each year, according to a new study. Such benefits are on par with the benefits from reductions in smoking…
The finger is often pointed at processed food, which can contain high levels of salt, but even staples like bread can be just too salty. Then there things likes crisps and salted nuts.
From my own experiences over the last 18 years anything that helps reduce the debilitating effect of heart disease are welcome. Reducing salt is such a small and easy thing to do.
At last the snow has gone and it is time to survey the damage. The three kinds of green manure were all thriving before the cold weather but only one has survived. Both the Phacelia and Winter Mix have been reduced to pulp but the Red Clover looks the same as it did before.
(Click on an image to enlarge, navigate using << or >> then click the image to close.)
In the greenhouse all of the lettuce have survived several nights of temperatures around -10C. The weeds also seemed to like the winter and have continued to grow.
In the rest of the garden the frosts finished off some late cauliflowers, broccoli and winter cabbage. There are still some sprouts, purple sprouting, parsnips and celeriac plus some Hispi cabbage in one of the solar pods.
The recent cold weather has proved two things: 1) at the first sign of food shortages people panic and clear supermarkets shelves. 2) The supermarket supply chain is so precarious it cannot cope with even a few days of bad weather.
A recent article in The Guardian detailed some of the problems faced by producers. Not only was it difficult to harvest vegetables it was hard to get them delivered. Growers used to harvest in the autumn and store things like carrots until they were needed. Now they leave them in the ground covered with straw and lift as demanded by the supermarkets and get them to a distribution centre.
About 80% of all supermarket supplies of carrots now come from just 10 major packers in East Anglia, Scotland and the north of England. At this time of year, more than half the carrots the UK eats have to make their way from north-east Scotland, where the fields over the past fortnight have been frozen, to centralised distribution depots and back out again to stores.
Milk collections from farms were also hit by the bad weather with some farmers having to dump milk while local supermarkets had run out or were rationing customers. Milk is particularly vulnerable as Huw Bowles, director of the organic co-operative OMSCO said
“Forty years ago milk was processed closer to where it was produced and delivered back to the same area.” The drive to make industry logistics as economically efficient as possible has also removed any slack. OMSCO has cut the cost of collection by 30% in recent years with these efficiencies but at the price of less resilience. “There are no spare vehicles any more. If the driving speeds are reduced by just 10mph on a nine-hour shift because of snow, they just can’t get round the whole collection; the whole route is affected…”
The total reliance on just in time, JIT, deliveries to stores from a few massive depots is bound to make the supply chain less resilient than it was. Even the smallest glitch in the delivery system will cause distribution problems and stores will quickly run out of supplies.
What does that tell us about supply chain resilience and food security in the UK?
