Seasonal morsels: calendar, tables, lists, government support, assassinations

A small crop of recent seasonal morsels from @tracingpaper:

For the very latest morsels, follow The Tracing Paper’s twittered morsels of news, information and observation: on Twitter @tracingpaper, closer to home on The Tracing Paper’s homepage, sidebar and The Twittering Paper (subject to Twitter’s slightly erratic feed).

Posted in food in season, food morsels | Tagged | Leave a comment

Where pigs live(d): 1922 and 2005

The wonderfully named Gridded Livestock of the World (GLW) is an initiative of the FAO’s Animal Production and Health Division to map the distribution of the principal livestock species across the world.

The GLW map of global pig population densities makes an interesting comparison with the 1922 map of world hog production (noted in The Tracing Paper’s recent round-up of food maps):

FAO map of global pig population densities 2005

World Production of Hogs, United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook 1922

The distribution (production levels are another matter) is remarkably consistent: the most striking difference being India, which had virtually no pigs in 1922, but widespread moderate population density in 2005.

(Thanks to the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog for leading me to GLW via GLiPHA)


Posted in food production | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Morsels: assorted food maps

Food mapping morsels from @tracingpaper.

invisiblefoodfastfoodatlasoffoodFAOscrumpersurbantotemhogsCAFOs


For the very latest morsels, follow The Tracing Paper’s twittered morsels of news, information and observation: on Twitter @tracingpaper, closer to home on The Tracing Paper’s homepage, sidebar and The Twittering Paper (subject to Twitter’s slightly erratic feed).

Posted in food morsels | Tagged , | Leave a comment

We want a supermarket watchdog

Unlikely allies, the National Farmers’ Union and actionaid, have today joined forces to place a full-page ad in The Times, calling for a supermarket watchdog:

NFU and actionaid call for Supermarket watchdog

The Competition Commission has suggested a supermarket ombudsman / watchdog as a possible remedy to the problems identified in its lengthy investigation into the UK’s grocery market. The proposal has been welcomed by farmers and other supermarket suppliers, but starkly opposed by most of the large retailers.

The NFU-actionaid ad makes clear the breadth of support for tighter control of supermarket buying practices, from both domestic and global producers. The accompanying press release reports independent research by Professor Roger Clarke, Professor of Microeconomics at Cardiff University, that finds that an ombudsman would result in higher prices for consumers, as claimed by some supermarkets. Professor Clarke explains:

The remedies, if effectively enforced, are likely to lead to lower prices in some cases, like agricultural products.

Even very small price reductions and other benefits are likely to result in consumer benefits that far outweigh the modest cost of an ombudsman. A supermarket watchdog would not only benefit consumers but also be, arguably, in the interests of the supermarkets themselves.

The text of the ad is worth quoting in full:

Fairer deal for farmers, workers and consumers

Wherever this asparagus is grown the problem is the same. The abuse of market power by retailers means that farmers and growers in the developing and developed world are subject to unreasonable demands. This means they are less able to invest and innovate for the future, which results in consumers losing out as choice is reduced.

The 11 largest UK supermarkets have just 48 hours left to sign up to the new Ombudsman proposed by the Competition Commission. A strong supermarket code of practice policed by an Ombudsman is in consumers’ best interest. A recent Yougov poll showed that 8 out of 10 shoppers back an Ombudsman.

To date only Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and Aldi have said they do not oppose further regulation. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Asda, Iceland, Somerfield and Lidl are refusing to support the Ombudsman, while the Co-op remains undecided.

ActionAid and the NFU are calling on all supermarkets to sign up in the next 48 hours.

Responsible retailers have nothing to fear from an Ombudsman. So, who will be first to sign?

So, well done Waitrose, M&S, Aldi! Shame on the rest of you if you can’t bring yourselves to accept policing of your business practices.

Posted in food advertising, food in the shops, food matters | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Food in books: mapping the world’s food

The Atlas of Food: Who Eats What, Where and Why
by Erik Millstone and Tim Lang
Published by Earthscan (Earthscan Atlas Series)
Second edition (19 Sep 2008) / 128 pages / rrp £12.99
Available from amazon.co.uk / amazon.com / Borders UK / local UK book shops

Every day, the world’s food system has 6.5 billion mouths to feed. It’s humanity’s single biggest undertaking: 1.3 billion farm-workers work 4.9 billion Ha with 26.2 million tractors, applying $30.2 billion worth of pesticides, to produce 356 kg of grain each year for every person alive.

Still the system isn’t working: “2 billion people suffer from chronic under-nutrition and 18 million die each year from hunger-related diseases”. The 356 kg would be plenty to feed everyone if equally shared, but distribution is far from equal despite global trade flows of 774 millions tonnes of food a year. We’re producing enough food (for now) and moving it around the earth’s surface in vast quantities, but we’re still failing to adequately feed a third of the world’s population.

Meanwhile, agriculture faces increasing challenges: climate change, soil degradation (9% of the world’s agricultural land is suffering “strong, extreme” soil degradation and a further 43% “moderate”), water shortages (26 countries are forecast to be suffering water scarcity by 2050 and a further 12 water stress) and resource constraints. All this and a further 3 billion people to feed by 2050, with growing demand for resource-hungry meat and dairy products.

Understanding the world’s food system better is essential if we’re to face these challenges and move towards a more equitable and sustainable way of feeding ourselves. The burden of understanding and action weighs on each of us: we’re all participants in the global food system, whether as consumers, producers or both.

Tim Lang and Erik Millstone’s updated edition of The Atlas of Food in an invaluable guide to the complexities and scale of world food, presenting clear maps and charts of the many elements of our production, trade, marketing and consumption of food. The graphics illustrate the figures behind our food and highlight striking geographic variations; tucked away at the back of the book are detailed tables of the source data and references.

The authors’ mostly restrained commentary helps to elicit meaning from the figures and graphs. There’s an underlying polemic of sustainability (no surprises there), but the authors rely mostly on the force of the information to guide our thinking (though there are few easy answers to the issues faced by such a complex system):

  • The percentage of the US beef trade controlled by the top four companies grew from 72% to 81% between 1990 and 2000
  • It takes 930 kg of grain to feed a person for a year on a meat-based diet, just 180 kg on a grain-based diet
  • 75% of all EU agricultural land is used for growing animal feed
  • Denmark slaughters 3,986 pigs per 1,000 people per year; the world average is 194
  • Agricultural wages in Mexico are 15% of manufacturing wages
  • Namibia has lost 26% of its agricultural labour force to AIDS
  • 30% of Russia’s food is produced on suburban land
  • 14% of London households grow vegetables in the garden
  • 65% of fish stocks are fully exploited or over-exploited
  • Of 649 identified pig breeds, 151 are extinct, 58 critical and 106 endangered
  • 80% of farmers in developing countries do not need to change their methods to be certified organic
  • Australia exports over 5 million live sheep each year to the Middle East

These are just a handful of the indicators of the state of our food system provided by The Atlas of Food. Immerse yourself in the book’s facts, figures and charts, and draw your own conclusions.

(All quotes and figures – unless otherwise referenced – are taken from The Atlas of Food: Who Eats What, Where and Why (The Earthscan Atlas Series) – first edition.)

Posted in food in books, food matters, food on the move, food production | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

No added colours (don’t mention the flavourings, sugar, calcium carbonate, salt, glucose-fructose syrup…)

No added colours (but don't mention the flavourings, sugar, Calcium Carbonate, salt, glucose-fructose syrup...)

No added colours, the monkey says.

True, but what about the flavourings (unspecified), sugar, calcium carbonate, salt, glucose-fructose syrup… listed in the cereal’s ingredients? According to recent Going Against the Grain report from Which?, Coco Pops have one of the highest sugar levels of all breakfast cereals: they’re over one third sugar by weight (at 34g sugar per 100g).

The monkey’s misdirecting message only adds to a profusion of confusing messages about what’s in breakfast cereals. The Which? report highlighted the misleading health claims made about many breakfast cereals and the colourful cartoon characters used to market high-sugar cereals to children. Beware misleading monkeys!

Posted in food advertising, food ingredients | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Compulsory “place of farming” labelling for agricultural products? Too good to be true

I thought my dreams of transparency of provenance in the food systems had come true: ThePigsite.com carried a story, last Friday, suggesting that the EU agriculture directorate was proposing that all agricultural products be labelled with the “place of farming”:

With one fell swoop Brussels may be about to solve the labelling problems that have dogged the British pig industry. In the latest draft of its Agricultural Product Quality paper, the agriculture directorate says all European Union agricultural products should carry a compulsory “place of farming” label. [Emphasis added]

To me, “place of farming” means a farm. Could we really be on the verge of seeing details of the farm of origin on all agricultural products? A looser interpretation of “place of farming” might be the county, region or country of production. Even that would be a big step forward.

I turned to the EU’s Agricultural Product Quality Green Paper for the detail of the proposal. It was all too good to be true: the EU isn’t proposing that we be told the farm, region or even country where our food has been produced. No, all they’re asking (the Green Paper is a consultation document) is whether agricultural products should carry a compulsory indication of whether it’s EU or non-EU:

Question 1: How could the requirements and standards met by farmers that go beyond product hygiene and safety be made better known?
What would be the advantages and disadvantages of [...] having an obligatory indication of the place of production of primary products (EU/non EU)? [Emphasis added]

I suppose it’s something, but it’s not much.

But it turns out it’s still too much to ask of most food processors. In the summary of responses to its consultation, the EU reports:

Processors opposed almost unanimously, citing the difficulties of traceability and costs. They also claimed the consumer was not interested in origin of raw materials for processed foods. [Emphasis added]

Ah well, it was a nice dream while it lasted.

Posted in food from where? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Morsels: eating breadfruit, incredible edible, food news, too easy, frozen food, food crisis, free-range risks, ethical companies

Catching up on some morsels first tweeted by @tracingpaper back in April:

The McWilliams free range pork and trichinosis debate


For the very latest morsels, follow The Tracing Paper’s twittered morsels of news, information and observation: on Twitter @tracingpaper, closer to home on The Tracing Paper’s homepage, sidebar and The Twittering Paper (subject to Twitter’s slightly erratic feed).

Posted in food morsels | Leave a comment

International organisations reassert safety of pork

As the outbreak of novel, swine-related (A)H1N1 influenza virus (note the carefully chosen terminology) continues to provoke confused messages as to the safety of pork, ProMED reports that the three leading international food, animal and public health organisations – the FAO, OIE, WHO – have reasserted the safety of properly cooked pork, while acknowledging that viruses may be present in raw meat:

To avoid any misunderstanding FAO, WHO and OIE would like to reissue their joint statement originally issued on 30 Apr 2009.

In the ongoing spread of influenza A(H1N1), concerns about the possibility of this virus being found in pigs and the safety of pork and pork products have been raised.

Influenza viruses are not known to be transmissible to people through eating processed pork or other food products derived from pigs.

Heat treatments commonly used in cooking meat (e.g. 70 C/160 F core temperature) will readily inactivate any viruses potentially present in raw meat products.

Pork and pork products, handled in accordance with good hygienic practices recommended by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the OIE, will not be a source of infection.

Authorities and consumers should ensure that meat from sick pigs or pigs found dead are not processed or used for human consumption under any circumstances.

This statement (reasserting an earlier joint statement made on 30th April) comes in the context of negative impacts on pork consumption in some countries (such as the US, though apparently not the UK), the desperate over-reaction of Egypt in ordering the slaughter of the country’s entire pig herd, and the equally misinformed but harmless reaction of Afghanistan in quarantining the country’s only pig.

ProMED provides further illuminating comment on the basis for the joint statement and the cause of some of the uncertainty:

One should keep in mind that the current outbreak of the novel, swine-related (A)H1N1 influenza virus — already officially reported from 24 countries in 4 continents (Africa remaining the only continent where no such information has yet become available) — is unprecedented. Since there are still serious gaps in the knowledge about the virus, its epidemiology and pathogenicity, communicating clear, unanimously accepted and scientifically-based information and advice to the public is complex. Experimental infection trials in animals and other research activities have already been initiated, and their anticipated results will, hopefully, ease the task of the public health, animal health and food safety authorities in their Risk Communication efforts.

Posted in food and disease | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Flu story: a history of swine influenza from 1918 to 2009

The FAO’s recent EMPRES briefing on swine influenza provides a useful history of swine influenza, from the paper Swine influenza: a zoonosis, by Paul Heinen, an excellent primer on the virus.

I’ve added some additional detail and comments to this history, largely informed by Bruce Janke’s 2008 presentation to the USDA’s APHIS.

Events in 1998, 2001, 2009 of particular relevance to the 2009 outbreak of swine-origin H1N1 influenza A in humans are emphasised.

(For emerging news, comment, science, argument and counter-argument on the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, see the Tracing Paper’s Novel H1N1 flu virus, pigs, farms and pork: an evolving round-up.)

A brief history of swine influenza, from 1918 to 2009

1918                   SI H1N1 described in north central USA, Hungary, and China. May have been cause of human pandemic, which resulted in 20-40 million human deaths.
(Or may have originated in birds before spreading to humans and pigs. Janke says SI “entered swine population in 1918″)

1930 Shope isolated influenza virus from pigs. The prototype classic SI H1N1 strain (A/Swine/Iowa/30) transmitted experimentally to pigs.

1941 SI recognised in Europe and disappeared.

1970 Transmission of human H3N2 virus to pigs.
Avian like H3N2 in pigs in Asia.

1976 Classical H1N1 reappears in European pigs.
Janke says “SIV remained unique (a few exceptions) to the US until 1976 when exported to Italy”

1977 Human H3N2 virus isolated from pigs in Colorado in 1977 (no disease). (Janke)

1979 Introduction of whole H1N1 virus from birds to pigs. Antigenically distinguishable from classical strains. Still circulating in 2002.

1984 Reassortment between human H3N2 and avian H1N1 in swine resulting in reassortant H3N2 virus with avian internal gene segments. H3N2 strains first associated with respiratory epizootics. Still circulating in 2002.

1986 Classical H1N1 reappears in UK, similar to classical H1N1 in continental Europe.

1987 Reassortant H3N2 associated with respiratory epizootics in UK. Related to A/Port Chalmers/73 (H3N2).

1989 Avian like SI H1N1 is dominant and widespread in Europe.

1992-1993 Avian like H1N1 strains widespread in UK.

1993 Infection of children with reassortant H3N2 virus from pigs.
Isolation of avian like swine H1N1 virus from a pneumonia patient in the Netherlands.

1994 H1N2 first isolated in pigs in UK, and later also in Belgium. Human avian reassortant virus.

1992-1998 H3N1 (H3 human, N1 swine) and H1N7 (H1 human, N7 equine) also occurred in swine in the UK but failed to spread.

1998 H9N2 in pigs and humans in Asia. Apparently an avian virus that has adapted to pigs.

1998 For first time, H3N2 viruses cause severe disease in N. America. Viruses are triple (avian / human / classical swine) reassortants, distinct from earlier strains and European strains.

Janke provides additional detail:
Aug 1998: H3N2 identified in North Carolina – H3, N2, PB1 from human 1995 H3N2; other genes from classical SI H1N1
Fall 1998: H3N2 identified in Midwest US (IA, TX, MN) – H3, N2, PB1 from human H3N2; NP, M, NS from classical SI H1N1; PA, PB2 from an avian virus

H1N2 identical to H3N2, but with H1HA from classical swine H1N1, also isolated.

1998-1999 Continued Introduction of Human H3N2 into Swine
• H3 & N2 from 1995 human virus (Cluster I – TX 98)
• H3 & N2 from 1997 human virus (Cluster II – CO 99)
• H3 & N2 from 1996 human virus (Cluster III – IL 99, OK 99)
(Janke)

from 1998 Reassortment of co-circulating H1N1 and H3N2 yielding 2nd generation reassortant H1N2, composed of:
- Classic swine: H1, NP, M, NS
- Human: N2, PB1
- Avian: PA, PB2
(Janke)

1999 Single case of isolation of avian H4N6 from pigs with pneumonia in Canada.

2001 Webby isolates 2nd generation reassortant (rH1N1):
• H1N1 isolates with classic SI H1 and N1 and internal genes of H3N2
- Classic swine: H1, N1, NP, M, NS
- Human: PB1
- Avian: PA, PB2
• rH1N1 retrospectively found to have displaced classical H1N1 almost immediately
(Janke)

2002 Situation in Europe: avian like H1N1, and reassortant human like H3N2 and H1N2.
In North America: classical swine H1N1, triple reassortant H3N2.

2004 2nd generation reassortant H3N1 identified in MN and IA. Late identification suggests this combination is not as stable and efficient (Janke)

2006 H2N3 SI isolated from US pigs with clinical respiratory disease. Triple reassortant virus similar to most current SIVs: H2, N3 avian origin; PA more recent avian origin. First report of H2 virus in mammals since H2N2 human pandemic virus in 1957. (Janke)

2008 Current US SI viruses: Classic swine H1N1, H3N2 (triple reassortant), H1N2 (2nd generation), H3N1 (2nd generation), Reassortant H1N1, Reassortant human H1N1, H1N2 (Janke)

2009 Reassortant H1N1 appears in humans in Mexico and US, transmissable between humans and spreading to other regions. Genetic composition:
- Swine (North America): H1, NP, NS
- Swine (Europe): N1
- Swine (Eurasia): M
- Avian (North America): PA, PB2
- Human (1993 H3N2 strain): PB1

(Source: Wikipedia 5/5/2009)

(Compare 2001 2nd generation reassortant (rH1N1)H1N1 isolate:
- Classic swine: H1, N1, NP, M, NS
- Human: PB1
- Avian: PA, PB2)


Posted in food and disease | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment