Food politics

Question

This piglix contains articles or sub-piglix about Food politics

Answer 1

Sorby Research Institute

The Sorby Research Institute was a research facility that operated in the UK during and immediately after the Second World War in Sheffield, England. The Institute mostly investigated questions of nutrition. This was an important consideration in wartime Britain, where food was in short supply. The experiments into deficiency of vitamin A and vitamin C were particularly notable. However, other kinds of medical research was also undertaken, such as research into the transmission of scabies.

The leading figures in the institute were Kenneth Mellanby and Hans Adolf Krebs. The volunteers were mainly conscientious objectors to military service. Some of the experiments were unpleasant, or even dangerous. The Institute closed in 1946, soon after the end of the war.

Early in 1941 twelve volunteers, pacifist conscientious objectors, recruited via the Sheffield Pacifist Service Unit, were established in a large house in a residential area of Sheffield for research that would "benefit humanity". Various medical experiments were conducted on the volunteers. No work that had a direct military application was undertaken since this would not have been acceptable to many conscientious objectors. This establishment became known as the Sorby Research Institute, so named because the leading researcher, Kenneth Mellanby, was a Sorby Research Fellow of the Royal Society at Sheffield University. The fellowship is itself named after Henry Clifton Sorby, a notable Sheffield scientist. Hans Adolf Krebs took over the management of the volunteers in 1943 when Mellanby left to work for the army.

The establishment was founded on the personal initiative of Mellanby and at first he was free to carry out whatever investigations he chose. Mellanby's status as a scientist meant that he was in a reserved occupation and forbidden from joining the armed forces. Although he wished to do something for the war effort, the military of the time had no use for biologists. Consequently, Mellanby initiated what he considered useful work himself.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 2

Soviet grain procurement crisis of 1928

The Soviet grain procurement crisis of 1928, sometimes referred to as "the crisis of NEP," was a pivotal economic event which took place in the Soviet Union beginning in January 1928 during which the quantities of wheat, rye, and other cereal crops made available for purchase by the state fell to levels regarded by planners as inadequate to support the needs of the country's urban population. Failure of the state to make successful use of the price system to generate sufficient grain sales was met with a regimen of increasingly harsh administrative sanctions against the Soviet peasantry. The state of national emergency which followed lead to the termination of the New Economic Policy and spurred a move towards the collectivization of agriculture in 1929.

The Russian Revolution of November 1917 ushered in a period of civil war and economic dislocation, in which the ruling All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) (VKP) made use of forced grain requisitions (Russian: prodrazvyorstka), trading to the peasantry a mix of virtually worthless paper currency and an altogether insufficient quantity of consumer goods in exchange for each household's marketable surplus — effectively a seizure. Viewed by most Soviet contemporaries as a temporary wartime expedient, this system of "War Communism" was extremely unpopular with Russia's grain-producing peasanty and the cause of a massive wave of unrest and revolts that threatened to fatally destabilize the government.

This force-based system of War Communism was abandoned in the spring of 1921 with the adoption of the so-called "New Economic Policy" (NEP), under which a stable, gold-based currency was restored and a return made to the market system. Instead of forced requisitions of all marketable surpluses, a food tax (Russian: prodnalog) was implemented which necessitated peasant households providing a limited portion of their production to the state, after which households would be free to sell its remaining surplus not needed for household survival on the open market. By 1924 this system of prodnalog had been replaced by a money tax, with Soviet state grain requisitions accomplished via buying and selling.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 3

Strategic grain reserve

A strategic grain reserve is a government stockpile of grain for the purpose of meeting future domestic or international needs. In the United States, such programs have included the Farmer-Owned Grain Reserve (1977–1996), Food Security Wheat Reserve (1980–1996), Food Security Commodity Reserve (1996–1998), and most recently the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (1998–).

...

Wikipedia

Answer 4

Subsistence crisis

A subsistence crisis is a crisis caused by economic factors (generally high food prices), which in turn may be caused by either natural or man-made factors, which threatens the food supplies and the survival prospects of large numbers of people (it is considered famine if it's extremely severe with large numbers of lives are lost). A subsistence crisis can be considered genuine if it is visible in demographic data.

It was in France that the notion of a subsistence crisis was first formulated by Meuvret in 1946, and greatly popularised by Goubert in 1960 through his influential study of the Beauvaisis in Beauvais. The theory of subsistence crises, in its contemporary guise, was first formulated by Meuvret in 1946. As an economic historian and specialist in price history Meuvret was struck by the coincidence between high prices and the increase in the number of deaths in the region of Gien in 1709-10. He then posed the problem of the nature of demographic crises, very tentatively at first, since he thought it was a hopeless quest to try to distinguish statistically between phenomena that were so closely associated: namely, mortality through simple inanition; mortality caused by disease, though attributable to malnutrition; and mortality by contagion, which in turn was linked to the scarcity that helped both spawn diseases and spread them through the migration of poor beggars.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 5

Subtherapeutic antibiotic use in swine

Antibiotics are commonly used in commercial swine production in the United States and around the world. They are used for disease treatment, disease prevention and control, and growth promotion. When used for growth promoting purposes, antibiotics are given at low concentrations for long periods of time. Low concentration of antibiotics, also referred to as (STA), are given as feed and water additives which improve daily weight gain and feed efficiency through alterations in digestion and disease suppression. Additionally, the use of STA in swine results in healthier animals and reduces the “microbial load” on meat resulting in an assumed decrease in potential Foodborne illness risk. While the benefits of subtherapeutic antibiotic administration are well-documented, there is much concern and debate regarding the development of bacterial antibiotic resistance associated with their use.

This is a specific case of the more general practice of .

Currently, there appears to be a lack of reliable data associated with the amount of antibiotics used in livestock production. In 2001, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published that 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics are used annually for growth promotant purposes. This, they claimed, represented 70% of the antibiotics produced annually in the United States. However, groups such as the Animal Health Institute have taken issue with this figure, accusing the UCS of using questionable methods and assumptions. Listed in Table 1 are the specific types of antibiotics used in swine disease treatment, prevention and growth promotion and their importance in human medicine.

Table 1- Commonly used antibiotics in swine production and their relative importance in human medicine. With regard to human medicine importance, FDA ranks antibiotics as “critically important” (“critical” in the above table), “highly important” (“high” in the table), or “important.” The ranking is based on five criteria from the most important (it is used in treating pathogens that cause foodborne disease) to the least important (there is difficulty in transmitting resistance across genera and species).

Bacterial antibiotic resistance is a process that can occur when bacteria are exposed to STA administration. When a population of bacteria that resides in a hog are exposed to a particular antibiotic for growth promotant purposes, the bacteria that are susceptible to the drug die while the organisms that are resistant will not be affected and will continue to replicate, resulting in a higher proportion of resistant organisms. It has been shown that resistance to antibiotics develops in animals that are fed subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics for growth promoting purposes. Certain bacteria that have the potential to cause human illness, such as Salmonella, that naturally reside in the swine gastrointestinal tracts are constantly exposed to antibiotics. With time, these bacteria become resistant to that class of antibiotics. There is great concern regarding the probability of subtherapeutic antibiotic use in swine causing treatment failures in human medicine.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 6

The Trussell Trust

The Trussell Trust is a NGO and charity, based in Salisbury, UK, that co-ordinates the only nationwide network of food banks in the country.

The Trussell Trust was founded in 1997, by Paddy and Carol Henderson while working with street children in Bulgaria at Sofia Central Railway Station. Named for Carol's mother Betty Trussell from whom they had received a legacy, the couple's work spread to the United Kingdom after the couple were contacted by a British mother who was struggling to feed her children.

After researching the issue of short-term hunger in the area, Henderson founded the first of the trust's food banks in the garage and shed of his Salisbury home.

The trust runs a network of food banks across the United Kingdom. In 2004 they ran only two food banks. With new banks opening every week, it was estimated in a May 2013 report published by Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty that over 500,000 people had used the trust's food banks. The number of people using food banks in the first half of the 2014-15 financial year was 38% higher than the same period the previous year. Reasons why people have difficulty getting enough to eat include redundancy, sickness, delays over receiving benefits, domestic violence, family breakdown, debt, additional fuel costs in winter. Some clients of foodbanks are in work but cannot afford everything they need due to low pay. In 2015, the trust released figures showing that there were over one million users of food banks during the 2014-2015 financial year.

The banks run on a 'front line' model rather than a 'warehouse' model. That is, food is taken in and distributed directly to those who need it. People are referred to the food banks by doctors, social services, CAB and police who assess need to ensure that it is genuine. Visitors are given vouchers for three days' worth of food, with each visitor eligible for no more than three vouchers. Visitors are also signposted to agencies that can help with longer-term difficulties.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 7

Taste Real

Taste Real

Taste Real from the Ground Up is a branding strategy that has been designed to promote locally grown food in the Guelph Wellington area in Canada. This new local food movement works closely with Guelph Tourism and six Economic Development Officers who represent the municipalities of Wellington County to create more opportunities for culinary tourism Taste Real combines the efforts of volunteer business stakeholders, the Guelph Wellington Local Food Team and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. This initiative is recognized by the Ontario Tourism Culinary Alliance.

Taste Real’s initiative consists of three principles:

In association with the Taste Real brand, the Taste Real field dinner serves as a fundraiser to support and preserve the development of Guelph Wellington Local Food. Partnered with Appetizingly Yours Events & Catering, the field dinner is described as an effort to “help raise funds to grow one of the most vibrant, local food economies and food tourism regions in Ontario.”

The premise of the dinner is a ‘back to roots’ or ‘field/farm to fork’ ambience, taking place at a local Wellington County farm where chefs prepare alfresco courses using local ingredients paired with local wines. Diners are free to peruse the site as chefs prepare assigned courses—once the dinner bell sounds, it signals that guests are to take their place at the long table stretched through the field. Until the bell rings however, there is time to socialize, grab a drink, listen to music, and check in on how the real time painting of the event is shaping up.

The inaugural Taste Real field dinner took place on September 12, 2010 at Deerfield Farms in Erin, Ontario. Chefs included Brian Schmeler, Jake Tyson, Sauna Edwards, Laura Marshall, Drew Renelt, and Chris Jess—as well as a slew of volunteers, service staff, and culinary assistants. Method’s for cooking involved charcoal barbecues and an open fire pit. The 2nd annual Taste Real field dinner takes place on Sunday, September 11 at Strom’s Farm in Guelph, Ontario.

Farmalicious is an event held by Taste Real where restaurants in Guelph and Elora participate in featuring locally grown food on their menus to celebrate the harvest season. This initiative allows guests to enjoy meals that are fresh and produced with products that are locally grown. In 2011, the event began each weekend starting on August 5, 2011 with Fat Duck Gastro Pub and will end on October 13, 2011 with Minto Township’s “Savour the Flavours.”

List of participating restaurants:

While Taste Real is reliant on membership, it does maintain a staff as well as a coordinating committee.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 8

United States beef imports in Japan

US beef imports in Japan were a contentious issue after BSE was detected among cattle in the US.

In late 2003, Japan suspended all imports of American beef due to a single BSE case in Washington. Japan had been the largest export market for US beef, valued at $1.2 billion in 2003. In December 2005, Japan agreed to remove the restriction on importing US beef. However, in January imports stopped again because inspectors found banned cattle parts in a veal shipment from the U.S.

Japan again halted all imports of US beef in January 2006—just six weeks after the Japanese government began to allow boneless beef from animals younger than 21 months into Japan after a two-year ban—because of bone material found in a shipment of veal from New York State. US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns conceded that the shipment had violated the Japanese regulations. Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore had quickly followed Japan's lead in relaxing the import restrictions. In 2003, Japan accounted for $1.4 billion of the $3.9 billion in global sales of American beef and meat products; there had been two cases of BSE in the United States and 21 cases in Japan at the time. On 27 July 2006, Japan lifted the ban on imports of beef from cattle 20 months of age and younger. In order to protect Japanese consumers from mad cow disease, only meat from cattle that is less than 21 months old is accepted; and spinal cords, vertebrae, brains and bone marrow must be removed.

Michiko Kamiyama from Food Safety Citizen Watch and Yoko Tomiyama, Consumers Union of Japan, said about this: "The government has put priority on the political schedule between the two countries, not on food safety or human health.". In 2005, CUJ was highly critical of the resumption of imports to Japan of beef from the United States due to fears about BSE. "This conclusion was made politically and hastily in response to the American demand that we resume beef imports from the United States," said Yasuaki Yamaura to CBS News.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 9

United States beef imports in South Korea

U.S. beef imports in South Korea made up a $504 million industry for the American beef industry in 2010. The import of U.S. beef was banned in 2003 in South Korea and in other nations after a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy was discovered in the United States. At the time, South Korea was the third-largest purchaser of U.S. beef exports, with an estimated market value of $815 million. After a number of failed attempts at reopening the Korean market, imports finally resumed in July 2008 leading to the massive 2008 US beef protest in South Korea. In 2010, South Korea again became the world's third largest U.S. beef importer.

The Government of South Korea banned imports of U.S. beef in 2003 when a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease was discovered in a cow in Washington. By 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture would confirm a total of three cases of BSE-infected cattle, two raised domestically, and one imported from Canada. At the time, South Korea was the third-largest purchaser of US beef exports, with an estimated market value of $815 million. An early attempt to reopen the Korean market in the fall of 2006 failed when the Korean government discovered bone chips in the shipment. Sporadic attempts made in the following year also failed for similar reasons.

Throughout the ban, domestic beef farmers and local activists opposed re-opening of the market to U.S. claiming that American beef would cause mad cow disease. When the Lotte Department Store attempted to sell US beef in July 2007 during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, local activists stormed the meat counters and hurled cow dung at department store workers, abruptly terminating the resumption of sales. When President Lee Myung-bak assumed office in February 2008, it was widely expected that he would relax the ban on US beef as part of the process of ratification for the South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement concluded by his predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun. Lee Myung-bak's attempt to reopen the Korean market to US beef along with protests against the Free Trade Agreement led to the country's largest anti-government protests in 20 years.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 10

United States beef imports in Taiwan

The status of United States beef imports has been an issue in Taiwan–United States relations. Controversy has centered on cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE; commonly known as mad cow disease), and the use of ractopamine as an additive in feeds.

The conflict was sometimes called the "beef war" in the media, similar to the UK–EU Beef war over BSE.

The discovery of a case of BSE in the United States in December 2003 caused the Council of Agriculture in Taiwan to ban the import of beef and lamb products from the United States. The ban was lifted in April 2005, and reapplied to beef in June 2005 when a second case of BSE was discovered. This ban was conditionally lifted in January 2006, with imports limited to deboned beef from cattle under 30 months old.

In October 2006, ractopamine was banned in Taiwan along with other beta-adrenergic agonists. In August 2007, the Department of Health announced that it was setting a limit on the level of residual ractopamine in meat products, effectively replacing the ban. This proved controversial, spurring protests from pig farmers in Taiwan, and the ban was retained.

In February 2012, the Central News Agency reported that large quantities of beef imported from the US were being rejected every month due to residual ractopamine having been detected during inspection.

In November 2009, limitations were relaxed to allow beef with bones still attached to be imported. The new rules also permitted the import of ground beef and internal organs, but it was intentionally made difficult or impossible through technical regulations. The change sparked a backlash in public opinion, and a bill was passed in the Legislative Yuan in January 2010 reinstating the ban on ground beef and internal organs.

In March 2012, the Taiwanese government announced that it was moving toward conditionally unbanning ractopamine. While the drug would be granted a maximum residual level for beef, it would remain banned for pork, and the ban on the import of internal organs of cattle would remain in place.

...

Wikipedia