Will The Food Industry Ever Swallow Transparency's Bitter Pill?
from the who's-next-for-openness? dept
A fascinating trend in recent years has been the gradual move from a presumption of secrecy to one of openness, transparency and sharing. This began with free software/open source, and has progressively spread to include areas such as open content, open access, open data, open science and open government.
Here's the latest field where people are advocating a more open approach:
Food costs are on the rise, as are obesity and diabetes. Food recalls, environmental pollution, and food insecurity are all far too common. The system clearly needs to be re-engineered to better serve the needs of everyone involved.
Providing detailed information about the entire food chain � from production through distribution to sales � would allow all kinds of interesting data mash-ups to be created: showing how far your food must travel to your table, how long it takes, even things like your cumulative daily pesticide intake.
But before thinking about redesign, we need to really understand how the current system works. Doing so requires the ability to examine the different pieces of the system and supply chain, something currently impossible given the proprietary nature of the food and agriculture industries.
Herein lies the major roadblock and opportunity- hacking the food system requires creating incentives to move from closed, proprietary approaches to open ones.
There would be clear benefits for the companies involved in production and consumption: it would allow foodstuffs to be tracked more precisely, trends analyzed, techniques optimized and savings identified. But it would also make it much easier to expose facts that the food industry would probably rather you didn't know - about what's in the food you eat, how it was produced and who owns the companies involved. Which means, of course, that it is likely to fight this move to openness with every means known to lobbyists.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: food, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Many people look at the info on a product and only see the percentages. For example, my friend buys various types of granola bars, which often come packaged in pairs. He looks at the label and sees that it only has 12% fat per serving. He fails to notice that a "serving" is only a single bar, and that you need to double all the numbers if you're going to eat both.
The example of the 20oz can of fruit was taken from a can of pineapple chunks I currently have in the cabinet. The can claims that there are 4.5 servings per can, but yet I usually eat half the can at a time. It's really not that much, just a small bowl full. So to figure out the numbers, I have to multiply all of then by 4.5, then divide the result in half.
Or spaghetti sauce; Does anyone actually measure how much sauce they put in the pot? I typically just dump the entire 24oz container into a pot, heat it up, put what looks like a good amount on my spaghetti and eat it. It might be 3/4 of a cup, it might be a whole cup, it might be more, considering I usually have two helpings. Then I refrigerate whatever is leftover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One thing about food production is really obvious - feed lots should not drain into crop fields. IIRC, this was found to be root cause of multiple instances of e.coli contamination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a Jungle in There!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rest assured, Trans Fat was not created for your benefit, neither was High Fructose Corn Syrup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why would you assume all studies on the subject are fraudulent? Have you found many instances of this or are you simply stating your bias?
Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
disclaimer: I did not investigate the debunkiness of this article ... however the contents support research found elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sucrose (Sugar) is simple Glucose and Fructose tied together with a weak bond. So essentially, Sugar is HFCS-50. People who tell you there is some big difference are wrong.
Fructose is generally more harmful/fattening than Glucose, and most studies that find some kind of problem with HFCS are testing ones with more Fructose than Glucose.
Here's the problem. Both HFCS and sugar are bad for you. But in the past, people had a sugar bowl and they would put sugar on a few things and in their coffee. Now, HFCS is in everything (mainly to deal with the fact that the "fat free" fad has made food taste crappy). So now we can't avoid it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And once upon a time, there is a brand of "vegetable butter" that's made of hydrogenated vegetable oil claim to be more healthy because it's made with vegetable oil, and it should be better choice for our heart. (Of course we all now know that it contains full of trans-fat, which is not good for our heart's health.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open government? Transparency?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
Techdirt itself does reside in sunny California y'know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
Mine is this...
One of Obama's campaign promises was specifically "transparency" and "open government" which was not fulfilled. It's been quite the opposite as Mike has made clear many times. Other Presidents of the past NEVER promised this but you think it doesn't matter in this case just because it's the norm? I think politicians should be held accountable when they promise one thing to get elected and deliver another thing after they get elected.
I know this topic is about the food industry and I know Glyn is from London, but when posting a story that includes "transparency" and "open government" on an American website, in an election year, did anyone really think this would be ignored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
Ok, I agree that other prez have not reneged on that particular campaign promise. I do, however, recall other campaign promises made by other prez that were not met.
Politicians promise much, deliver little ... welcome to the real world, enjoy your stay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
I recall many more myself, even by Obama. Hmmm... I seem to remember another Obama promise that he'd get the lobbyists off of Capital Hill, but (sigh) now we have SOPA.
Oh! and Gitmo was going to be closed too, but it's still there and now, thanks to the new NDAA it may become the new American outpost for our already overcrowded jails...
"Well, we need some jail space for all these new video streaming felons. Hey! He had a gun. Just charge him as a terrorist and send him to Gitmo so we have room!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Open government? Transparency?!?
In case you were unaware, pointing out the faults of others is a fools game, engaged in by everyone from time to time.
Protip: When one finds the urge irresistible, it is best to include a comparison to others in the same position and how they dealt with similar issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think this is going to happen.
"We thought it was a little boring, so we jazzed it up a little with a bit of crude oil."
"Pbbbthhbth! What?! Really?! It doesn't say that on the label!"
"Oh yeah, it does. It's right there, see? 'Natural flavors.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
I'm not actually against the proposal but neither do I think we have any particular moral high ground from which to demand it. Is anyone over beer buying age actually stupid enough to buy into the whole Everything Must Be Open line of bullshit?
Thanks just the same but I'd rather enjoy my sausage than know all the nasty things that go into making it. At the very least it gives me a much more resilient digestive tract than people who only eat organic vegetables that had Phish played to them while they were being grown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
As though that is the same thing.
And some how this gets passed off as better.
I mean, the whole drive for libertarianism was that it would result in better outcomes. But now the floor is gone. I mean, serious people think that 'you get what you pay for' should go to the point of making a choice to eat at the wrong fast food establishment could result in certain death.
Don't worry though. It should only take a few dozen deaths before that hot new burger chain suffers enough market loss to make it worth their while to quit skimping by using broken down refrigeration equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
Because inevitably when you talk about the food chain you end up at Monsanto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/health/pdf/beforeafterlabel.pdf
I know, link to a .pdf..... Anyhow even a change to this would be nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caloric data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transperency absolutely!
I support a national law, even at the constitutional level, that any food processing facility, from farm to grocery store, be open to inspection from any consumer, including photography, for the safety and welfare of all of us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One method of farming
Honestly the best way to get out of crap ways of farming/ranching is to make it worthwhile to use better methods. We did a good job I think but feedlots are common and more regulations just makes the job harder and more expensive. Monetize better methods and farmers can afford to use them. That way farming can become a proper job and not a full time hobby. Failure to realize that is forcing people into high intensive feedlot systems which are hard on the animals and result in toxic zones and waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Openness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Openness about food?
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/food-safety-and-raw-milk
There is our governments position on things. For those of you who want a summary here goes.
People created a petition asking for raw milk to be legal to buy. It is currently illegal in a lot of the US for you to buy raw milk to drink. These people understand what they are asking for and any risks they might take in having raw milk.
The governments response is basically "We know what is best for you. So sit down, shut up, and do as you are told."
Now please tell me why it is any business of the government what I choose to eat or drink? The only regulation of any type the government should be doing for food is regulating that is has to be clearly labeled as what it is. If I want raw milk that is my right. If I want to eat deer meat I should be able to go buy some. So long as the seller is honest about what the food is then I they should be allowed to sell it and me be allowed to buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you know
The problem then becomes one of cost. Your food would litereally be 2-3 times more expensive if it was produced in a manner that wouldn't creep most people out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ingredients
For example, up to 12% permeate fluid being added to so-called fresh milk.
And for those with allergies, complete declaration of additives. eg: Sulfites < 50ppm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]