Fast Food Beef: What Matters?

Posted on January 25, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

According to emoneydaily.com, McDonald’s is raising prices to reflect increases in the cost of beef:

McDonald’s (NYSE:MCD) Chief Financial Officer Pete Bensen said, “As commodity and other cost pressures become more pronounced as we move throughout the year, we will likely increase prices to offset some but not necessarily all of these cost increases….”

That’s bad for the restaurant chain’s customers’ wallets. But is it bad overall? Consider the alternatives. They could try to squeeze producers (in the way that Walmart is famous for, for example). Or they could use less beef. As an example of how that’s possible, note that Taco Bell is now facing a lawsuit over the relatively small amount of beef in its “beef:”

…it was found that Taco Bell’s “meat mixture”, which it dubs “seasoned beef” contained less than 35 % beef. If these figures are correct, the product would fail to meet minimum requirements, set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to be labeled as “beef”. The other 65% of the “meat” is made up of water, soy lecithin, maltodextrin, silicon dioxide, anti-dusting agent and modified corn starch….

It’s also worth noting that it’s not obvious which product (100% beef or Taco Bell’s weird mix) is healthier or greener. I have no idea. But anyone who thinks it’s bad, health-wise or environmentally, to eat a lot of beef, has to suspect that it’s at least not a terrible thing in principle for a beef filling to contain less than 100% beef.

Posted in ethics, fast food, labeling, meat, prices, values | 4 Comments

Global Food Crisis

Posted on January 16, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

While many of us in the wealthier parts of the world are busy arguing about just which sub-type of organic lettuce we’re using in our salads, or whether we ought to take an “animal rights” approach versus an “animal welfare” approach to reducing animal suffering in our factory farms, people in other parts of the world face a more fundamental question about food, namely whether they can afford some. And while that problem is faced most obviously by citizens of the world’s poorest nations, nations where starvation is an epidemic, it is also faced to varying degrees in many countries, and even by the poorer citizens of the world’s richest countries.

From Agustino Fontevecchia, writing for Forbes: On The Verge Of A Global Food Crisis.

The global food situation doesn’t look too promising, as floods in Australia and excessively hot weather in Latin America harm harvests, upward pressure is mounting on prices. According to the FAO, a basket tracking the wholesale cost of food commodities such as wheat, corn, rice, vegetable oils, and meats, has already topped 2008’s peak values, reaching 214.5 points (compared to 213.5 on June 2008). And, as the USDA cuts its global grain supply outlook, soybean, corn, and wheat prices have spiked, nearing or passing 30-month highs….

See also Steven Mufson, writing for the Washington Post:
Global effort to calm food prices

Faced with rising international food prices, governments around the world are cooking up measures to protect domestic supplies and keep a lid on prices at home….

Both articles focus primarily on moves by national governments to try to ensure access to food at reasonable prices for their citizens. Is there anything that we, as citizens, can do to help?

Posted in agriculture, international, public policy | 3 Comments

The Farmed Salmon Feed Controversy & Consumer Responsibility

Posted on January 13, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

Here’s an interesting video & writeup about the controversy over the production of fishmeal for the feeding of farmed salmon. From The Ecologist: farmed salmon feed controversy.

The video & accompanying text focus on Peru, and in particularly on the anchovy fishery there.

…Peru, the world’s leading exporter, supplying 28 per cent of the UK’s fishmeal, and documented a host of unreported environmental and social costs – including pollution and health problems, overfishing, and impacts on ecosystems and wildlife – all arising from the production of fishmeal and fish oil, principal ingredients in farmed salmon feed….

There’s evidence in the video (mostly anecdotal evidence) of a lack of adequate regulation. That is, it seems that the Peruvian government is either unwilling, or unable, to enforce the regulations that it apparently has in place. But there’s also a call to arms aimed at consumers.

In at least some cases, lax regulation is a choice. Governments may choose lax regulations in order to foster economic development (i.e., a better standard of living for their citizens). (Note that Peru is far from wealthy: the country ranks 83rd in the world in terms of per capita GDP.) But consumers of products of such nations do not, of course, have to endorse such prioritization. If the ecological (or social) costs being implicitly accepted by a particular country are really beyond the pale, then it makes perfect sense not to buy that country’s product. The operative question is just how bad things have to be before it makes sense to reject a country’s own priority-setting choices.

Posted in choice, consumerism, ethics, fisheries, regulation, values | 2 Comments

Horse Meat (again)

Posted on January 6, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

Two days ago I blogged about Horse Meat Ethics. I discussed the fact that eating horse is considered taboo (in many places), and that slaughtering horses is illegal in the U.S., despite the fact that a) horse is widely eaten in the rest of the world, and b) there seems to be no particularly good ethical reason for treating horses differently from, say, cows in this regard.

Here’s more on the same issue. From the Wall Street Journal:
Horse Slaughter Is Reconsidered

Less than four years after the last equine slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed down, an unlikely coalition of ranchers, horse owners and animal-welfare groups is trying to bring them back.

The group, gathering in Las Vegas this week for a conference called Summit of the Horse, aims to map out a strategy for reviving an industry that slaughtered as many as 100,000 horses a year in the U.S. before it was effectively shut down by congressional action in 2007.

Advocates say the slaughterhouses could bring an economic boost to rural areas and give owners who no longer have the means or inclination to care for the horses an economical and humane way to dispose of them.

“We believe that humane processing is absolutely a moral and an ethical choice,” said Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state lawmaker who organized the event….

One interesting tidbit revealed in the WSJ piece has to do with how it was that slaughtering horses for human consumption effectively became illegal. It’s not that anyone made slaughter itself illegal. Congress just cut off funds for slaughterhouse inspections:

Pressure from animal-rights groups and from undercover videos that circulated on the Internet and showed apparent cruelties in the horse-butchering process prompted Congress to shut off all funds for inspecting equine slaughterhouses in 2007. That dealt the industry a fatal blow, as federal inspections were required by law before the meat could be exported for human consumption….

—
Hat tip to the excellent Marginal Revolution.

Posted in activism, agriculture, animal rights, animal welfare, ethics, meat, values | 1 Comment

Horse Meat Ethics

Posted on January 4, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

In case you didn’t know, slaughtering horses for human consumption is legal in Canada (where I live), but illegal in the U.S. That’s not to say that eating horses is common in Canada. Far from it. But it is apparently legal, here, though some people would like to see that change.

See this story by Mark Schatzker, for the Globe & Mail: Why you should eat horsemeat: It’s delicious

Herewith, three facts about horses: 1) They’re cute. 2) They’re edible. 3) You probably haven’t eaten any lately because of fact No. 1.

If horsemeat is something you’re interested in trying, you may want to do it soon. Anti-horsemeat activists would like to put an end to it. Last October, activists descended on a Vancouver butcher shop, a Toronto restaurant and an Alberta abattoir demanding that the practice of killing horses and eating their meat be stopped. Since then, horsemeat has been disappearing from menus, and diners are becoming wary of this now-controversial meat. And a private member’s bill that would effectively shut down the slaughtering of horses for human consumption was tabled in Parliament in June….

The most likely explanation for the taboo (strong in the U.S., weaker in Canada, non-existent in many other parts of the world) against eating horse is that, well, horses are beautiful. But that’s a pretty weak reason, ethically speaking. And it’s weaker still as a reason to have a law against eating them. I don’t see any ethical difference between horses and cows. Although I appreciate horses aesthetically — I’ve owned and ridden them, and am generally fond of them — that doesn’t really count as a good reason for me to criticize other people for eating them.

FYI, here is the Wikipedia entry for horse meat.

Posted in agriculture, animal rights, animal welfare, ethics, law, meat | 9 Comments

Seafood Certification for Iceland

Posted on January 3, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

Fisheries are undeniably an important part of the global food supply. Whether they are, 20 years from now, a smaller or larger part of that supply depends chiefly on whether they are managed in a sustainable way. Doing so isn’t easy, given that most fisheries are “public goods”, not owned by anyone and hence subject to overuse by everyone. For such goods, we face the difficult challenge of finding mechanisms for reliable, voluntary, sustainable fishing. In that regard, here’s an interesting item from the Iceland Review Online: Icelandic Cod Fisheries Certified as Responsible

Icelandic cod fisheries received a Global Trust Certification, an international certification based on strict conditions which confirms responsible fishery control and sustainable use of the ocean’s resources, yesterday.

Managing director of Global Trust Certification Peter Marshall presented the certification to the representatives of the Icelandic fishing industry at a special ceremony in the Reykjavík Maritime Museum, a press release from the Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners states.

“This certification from a third party which meets the demands and ethics regulations of the FAO in fisheries shows that cod fishing in Iceland is well and responsibly managed. I’d like to congratulate the Icelandic fishing industry,” Marshall said, adding that Iceland could become a role model for other nations….

Interestingly, the article actually says very little (roughly zero) about what in particular this implies. What counts as an “ethical” or “sustainable” fishery? I have no idea, based on this article. All I know is that Global Trust has certified that Icelandic fisheries are.

And what’s not entirely clear if you read the article quoted above too quickly is that Global Trust doesn’t actually set fishery standards: they just certify that an organization’s (or country’s) practices meet a stated standard set by someone else. In this case, it seems to be Iceland’s own standard, one based on standards set by the FAO:

The Icelandic Fisheries Association, the main interest association of the Icelandic fish industry, took the initiative in developing the certification system in Iceland, which is based on international standards: guidelines and ethics from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN….

Now in pointing this out, I’m not promoting skepticism. I’m just pointing out how interestingly complicated the certification and multi-tiered the process is.

(In case you’re interested in the details of what certification does and does not imply, here’s the Global Trust’s Seafood Trust Certification page.)

Posted in certifiction, fisheries, international | Comments Off on Seafood Certification for Iceland

Wildlife Farming in Vietnam

Posted on January 3, 2011 by Chris MacDonald

This is an interesting bit about value conflict. In particular, it’s about the dangers of focusing on “natural” foods, when those “natural” foods are either endangered or en route to being so.

Here’s the story, by Rachel Nuwer, for Science: Porcupines Expose Pitfalls of Wildlife Farming

It’s Friday night in Hanoi, the bustling capital of Vietnam. Businessmen crowd the city’s restaurants, eager to impress colleagues by sparing no expense on culinary delicacies. While their counterparts in the West indulge in vintage wine and sirloin steak, the Vietnamese elite enjoy the meat of wild animals like deer, cobras and bears. The rarer the animal, the more sought after by restaurant-goers, thus driving up the price of these species. But for conservationists working to save Vietnam’s dwindling animal populations, such extravagant dinners only serve up disaster….

Customers’ insistence on wild (free range?) animals is a problem.

“Most people in Vietnam believe that captive animals are of lower quality than wild-caught ones because they think that in the wild animals eat natural foods so they are very good for our health,” said Thai Van Nguyen, an officer at the non-profit Vietnam Carnivore and Pangolin Conservation Program. In order for wildlife farms to be a success, the underlying cultural drivers behind wildmeat consumption must be reformed, he said….

Posted in agriculture, ethics, health claims, marketing, meat, organic, public policy, values, wildlife | Comments Off on Wildlife Farming in Vietnam

PETA and Fur in Canada

Posted on December 17, 2010 by Chris MacDonald

Trudeau Family in FurThis one isn’t strictly about food, but the relevance is pretty clear.

The question: in a nation (i.e., Canada) built, once upon a time, on the fur trade, can a politician wrap his family in fur and win a public relations battle against a rabid animal rights organization?

Here’s the story, by Tralee Pearce for the Globe & Mail: Justin Trudeau’s Christmas card controversy

Greetings misfire: Instead of spreading holiday cheer with his annual family Christmas card, Justin Trudeau has drawn the ire of animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The junior MP and his family – wife Sophie, and two children, Xavier and Ella-Grace – appear in a photo wearing fur-trimmed parkas and huddling under a fur blanket….

(For my non-Canadian readers: Justin Trudeau is a Canadian Member of Parliament, and son of the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.)

Now, the folks at PETA are masters of media and of attention-getting more generally, so I hesitate to accuse them of gaffes. But if ever there was a cultural battle that PETA could lose, this may be it. The Trudeau family is essentially royalty, the closest thing that Canada has to the US’s Kennedy clan. And as I noted above, fur played a pretty important role in Canada’s history. It’s not all that surprising that the comments under the Globe story are pretty consistently pro-fur (or pro-Trudeau) and anti-PETA.

I get the sense that as the political mainstream in North America seems to become increasingly sympathetic to animal welfare considerations (and, e.g., insisting on stricter standards for factory farms), the strict animal rights position endorsed by PETA seems more and more out of touch. Of course, the question that remains is: is that PETA’s folly, or their genius?

—–
Thanks to the inimitable NW for showing me this story.

Posted in activism, animal rights, animal welfare, ethics | 1 Comment

Children, Food, and Indoctrination

Posted on December 14, 2010 by Chris MacDonald

A few weeks back, this video of a precocious kid talking about the ethics of food made the rounds. I wasn’t sure what to say about it. I guess it’s finally time. I don’t like to pick on kids, but child evangelists creep me out.

Very early in the video, Birke says something pretty interesting about kids and their role in marketing. He says:

I’m really amazed at how easily kids lare led to believe all the marketing and advertising on TV, at public schools, and pretty much everywhere else you look. It seems to me like corporations are always trying to get kids, like me, to get their parents to buy stuff that really isn’t good for us or the planet. Little kids especially are attracted by colourful packaging and plastic toys. I must admit, I used to be one of them….

This is ironic, because it seems to me that this Birke himself has been very seriously indoctrinated: he’s a hard-core devotee of small-local-and-organic, a child soldier who knows the key speaking points by heart. The fact that Birke sees himself as part of “a movement” speaks volumes. If Kellogs or Tyson or Del Monte or Monsanto used an 11-year-old to deliver propaganda this way, they would rightly be criticized for it.

Now, don’t get me wrong. He seems like a very bright kid. And I’m sure a very nice kid. But a lot of what he says is either false or misleading. GM foods have been “proven to cause cancer”? That’s simply false. Joel Salatin is a considered a “lunatic farmer” by “the system”? Well, maybe — but “lunatic farmer” is actually a description Salatan has adopted for himself, and used in the title of his own book. The idea that small farms growing organic, free-range meat are a sustainable way to provide meat to the world? Highly, highly unlikely.

At least Birke’s opening argument against GM foods — the fact that they make him think “Yuck!” — is age-appropriate for an 11-year-old. But it’s hard not to get the feeling that that idea was put into his head by someone old enough to know better.

Posted in advertising, agriculture, children, consumerism, ethics, factory farms, farmers, genetic modification, health claims, industrial, kids, local, marketing, meat, organic, values | 4 Comments

Cloning and “Proportionate” Regulatory Response to Risk

Posted on December 4, 2010 by Chris MacDonald

Regulation, it perhaps goes without saying, is a tricky business. It necessarily involves a small number of politicians, bureaucrats, and technical advisors devising and implementing rules on a staggering range of activities and products and services.

The number of issues is nearly infinite, and the amount of human energy (and money) that can be expended on regulation is quite finite. Add to that the fact that regulation, while often necessary, always involves an intrusion into someone’s freedom, and we quickly see that some principles and rules of thumb are required if regulation is going to be both effective and fair. One of those guiding principles is that of “proportionality,” namely the idea that the degree of scrutiny and control needs to be justified based on the degree or scope of harm or risk, broadly speaking.

A recent example is the UK government’s response to the issue of cloning animals for human food.

Here’s the story, Andrew Hough, for the Daily Telegraph: Banning cloned meat and milk ‘disproportionate’, government signals

Banning cloned meat and milk would be an overreaction, the Government has indicated.
…
Ministers consider a ban, or temporary suspension, of cloned meat “disproportionate in terms of food safety and animal welfare” due to a lack of evidence.
The comments, contained in a Food Standards Agency board document, represents the clearest indication yet that the controversial farming practice could be accepted officially and pave the way for such milk and meat to be made available in British shops….

Agree or disagree with the British government’s decision, here. The thing that’s of interest to me in this story is the idea of a “proportionate” response to risk, and that utterly banning cloned animals from the food supply would be a disproportionate response the risk involved in such foods. Another way of seeing this is to say that the response should be similar in scale to the response to other, similarly-risky technologies.

To see this better, compare the risks of cloning to:

1) The huge amount of animal suffering implied by large-scale animal agriculture. (Cloning may contribute to that, but I suspect it will contribute about the way tossing a pebble into a lake raises the level of the water.)

2) The risks inherent in certain nanotechnologies, in particular nanomaterials. One of the very premises of nanotechnology is that nanoparticles of certain materials (such as titanium dioxide) behave very differently than larger particles of those same substances. Nano-scale particles can be highly potent, chemically, in ways that makes them potentially very useful but also potentially very dangerosu. So the use of nanotechnology in food immediately raises serious issues. (See more on nano-ethics here.)

3) The human-health risks involved in poorly-executed factory farming.

It seems to me that what the British government is saying is that, compared to issues like the ones just noted, cloning just doesn’t seem to involve harms and risks that are bad enough to warrant an extreme regulatory response such as a ban.

—–
p.s. I’ve blogged about the ethics of cloning before, here and here.

Posted in agriculture, cloning, ethics, health, meat, nanotechnology, public policy, regulation | Comments Off on Cloning and “Proportionate” Regulatory Response to Risk