Paul Krugman: Bad Cow Disease

"Back in The Jungle":

Bad Cow Disease, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: "Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken."

That little ditty famously summarized the message of "The Jungle," Upton Sinclair’s 1906 exposé of conditions in America’s meat-packing industry. Sinclair’s muckraking helped Theodore Roosevelt pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act — and for most of the next century, Americans trusted government inspectors to keep their food safe.

Lately, however, there always seems to be at least one food-safety crisis in the headlines — tainted spinach, poisonous peanut butter and, currently, the attack of the killer tomatoes. The declining credibility of U.S. food regulation has even led to ... mass demonstrations in South Korea protesting the ... decision to allow imports of U.S. beef, banned after mad cow disease was detected in 2003.

How did America find itself back in The Jungle?

It started with ideology. Hard-core American conservatives have long ... wanted a restoration of the way America was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”

The late Milton Friedman ... call[ed] for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. It was unnecessary, he argued: private companies would avoid taking risks with public health to safeguard their reputations and to avoid damaging class-action lawsuits. (Friedman, unlike almost every other conservative I can think of, viewed lawyers as the guardians of free-market capitalism.)

Such hard-core opponents of regulation were once part of the political fringe, but with the rise of modern movement conservatism they moved into the corridors of power. They never had enough votes to abolish the F.D.A..., but they ... did ... deny... these agencies enough resources to do the job. For example,... the F.D.A. has ... a substantially smaller work force now than ... in 1994, the year Republicans took over Congress.

Perhaps even more important, however, was the systematic appointment of foxes to guard henhouses.

Thus, when mad cow disease was detected in the U.S. in 2003, the Department of Agriculture was headed by Ann M. Veneman, a former food-industry lobbyist. And the department’s response to the crisis —... downplaying the threat and rejecting calls for more extensive testing — seemed driven by the industry’s agenda.

One amazing decision came in 2004, when a Kansas producer asked for permission to test its own cows, so that it could resume exports to Japan. You might have expected the Bush administration to applaud this example of self-regulation. But permission was denied, because other beef producers feared consumer demands that they follow suit.

When push comes to shove, it seems, the imperatives of crony capitalism trump professed faith in free markets.

Eventually, the department did expand its testing, and ... most countries ... have allowed [US beef] back into their markets. But the South Koreans still don’t trust us...

The ironic thing is that the Agriculture Department’s deference to the beef industry actually ended up backfiring: because potential foreign buyers didn’t trust our safety measures, beef producers spent years excluded from their most important overseas markets. ...

The moral of this story is that failure to regulate effectively isn’t just bad for consumers, it’s bad for business.

And in the case of food, what we need to do now — for the sake of both our health and our export markets — is to go back to the way it was after Teddy Roosevelt, when the Socialists took over. It’s time to get back to the business of ensuring that American food is safe.

Comments

[Tim Worstall]

One problem with this argument is that it's actually necessary to show that the incidence of food poisoning has been rising as the desired monitoring has been falling.
No, I don't know whether it has either, but that is the important question, isn't it?

Anyone know the answer? Has food poisoning been rising in recent years?

[save_the_rustbelt]

I think the statistical incidence of food poisoning has been extremely low and continues to be extremely low.

More importantly, Krugman misses a bigger issue, risks inherent in increased trade.

The biggest scandal of late has been the import of adulterated Heparin from China. A vast swath of our pharma supply chain now is centered in China and other Asian countries, and none of the "free traders" want to discuss the massive increase in risk (and the Bush administration is clueless as usual).

And of course there are problems with Chinese fish raised in sludge water and etc.

None of the traders want adequate controls on imports, because it would slow down the globalization express.

[John Bunting]

Import detentions at:

http://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_ref.html

GAO has examined the issue of imports and found that most items detained enter the system.

Food is essentially self regulated. The proposed merging of FDA and USDA food oversight into one agency is no solution either.

John Bunting

[Philos]

The major difference between the Milton Friedman camp and the socalists (including me) is the amount of collerateral damage we're willing to accept on the way to long-run equilibrium nirvana.

[hari]

EU doesn't have a FDA equivalent agency yet - but we've established food regulations which demand specification on the label so one can easily identify/source the origin of the beef or lamb or any meat product.

Take example of chemicals used for flavouring/coloring food and sauces and whatnots. I've dealt with it and must report transparency is now the rule inside EU-27 - although a lot still goes thru without control, I'd guess.

Yesterday WP published an interesting comparative analysis based on recent EU industrial regulations on Chemicals and their caciogenic properties and so on. I think you guys should take a good look at it (if Anne can source it).

Paul knows what he's aiming at - type of NTB used traditonally in distorting foreign trade - FDA stuff is very interesting because during +7yrs now their hands have also been tied behind their backs, I guess, by WH staff.

There are some good people in FDA. However they can't do much without Congressional authority.

[Larry]

Conservatives think that business will work very hard to prevent situations like mad cow, in which they lost an enormous amount of business due to closed export markets. And regulation often fails to prevent the harms that motivated it.

I do wonder why SK reacted so much more strongly than other countries. Those demonstrations were massive.

[ken melvin]

The republican form of democracy: If you don't like the laws and regs, don't enforce them.

[Bob]

>> The late Milton Friedman ... call[ed] for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.

Few men have been as destructive as Friedman.

How many can say they destroyed the economy of a whole continent (South America) and essentially handed the running of the remains to socialists out of sheer incompetence.

Just like in the Great Republican Depression of the 30's the right wingers make a giant mess and the left cleans it up.

And what do you think of the Weasel Wall Street Urinal and the way they praised the insane Friedman house of cards set up down there.

Then when it all fell apart they had nothing to say. All their BS about "responsibility" and "character" was just that. They behaved like the worst welfare mom they had demonized.

Real impressive.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/world/asia/12seoul.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

June 12, 2008

An Anger in Korea Over More Than Beef
By CHOE SANG-HUN

SEOUL, South Korea — When tens of thousands of South Koreans spilled into central Seoul on Tuesday in the country's largest antigovernment protest in 20 years, the police built a barricade with shipping containers. They coated them with oil and filled them with sandbags so protesters could not climb or topple them to march on President Lee Myung-bak's office a couple of blocks away.

Faced with the wall, people pasted numerous identical leaflets on it, their message dramatically summarizing Mr. Lee's image and alienation from many of his people: "This is a new border for our country. From here starts the U.S. state of South Korea."

In the background, a female voice from a battery of loudspeakers led the crowd to chant: "Lee Myung-bak is Lee Wan-yong!"

Lee Wan-yong is an infamous name every South Korean child knows. A royal court minister at the turn of the last century who helped Imperial Japan annex Korea as a colony, he is Korea's No. 1 national traitor.

The protests illuminate the shift in President Lee's political fortunes. When he was elected last December, South Koreans hailed him as a long-awaited leader who could salvage their country's alliance with the United States, which was strained under Mr. Lee's left-leaning predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun.

Only six months later, Mr. Lee finds Koreans vilifying him as something Mr. Roh famously said he would never become: "a Korean leader kowtowing to the Americans."

"While championing a pragmatic leadership, Mr. Lee overlooked Koreans' nationalistic pride," said Choi Jin, director of the Institute of Presidential Leadership in Seoul. "If what troubled Roh's presidency was too much nationalism, Lee's problem is a lack of it."

The chants showed that the demonstration was not merely about the president's unpopular decision to lift an import ban on American beef. It also tapped into Korean pride.

This is a small country in a strategic location with a deep sense of grievance about being manipulated by the great powers around it. Chinese emperors demanded tribute from Korea; Japanese occupiers forbade Koreans to speak their own language; American, Chinese and Russian cold war rivalries divided Korea in two. While mostly approving of their alliance with the United States, South Koreans remain acutely sensitive to any suggestion that they must do America's bidding.

Mr. Lee's slumping popularity was sown in his first glorious moment as president.

On April 19, he became the first South Korean leader to be invited to the United States presidential retreat of Camp David, Md. Days before the visit, his aides billed the meeting with President Bush as a momentous event — one that never would have been granted to leaders like Mr. Roh, who was often accused of being too nationalistic and anti-American.

South Koreans who had fought alongside the Americans during the Korean War in the early 1950s took to the streets in joy. They trusted Mr. Lee to save the country from what they called "leftist, anti-U.S. and pro-North Korean elements," such as Mr. Roh.

On the eve of the summit meeting, Seoul agreed to lift a five-year-old ban on American beef imports, first imposed in 2003 after a case of mad cow disease was confirmed in the United States. By traveling with a political gift for Mr. Bush, Mr. Lee demonstrated how eager he was to rebuild ties with Washington.

Little did he apparently imagine the reaction at home, among young South Koreans who had been watching with a cold eye.

"What he did was little different from an old Korean king offering tribute to a Chinese emperor," said Kim Sook-yi, a 35-year-old homemaker who joined the protest on Tuesday with her two children. "This time, we give a tribute to Washington? It's humiliating, bad for education for Korean children." ...

[Real Person from the Real World]

The CHEAP mentality. Basically, advertise your lower costs keep prices cheap so buyers get more affordable quality, but in reality, the money really goes into your (the seller's) pockets. Meanwhile, industrialized farming creates toxins that seep into the ground water, and work their way up into plants. I know a whole foods store elitist who thought by being a vegetarian, she could avoid all the problems, then a story came out about tainted lettuce or spinach. Cheap wages, cheap imports, cheap industrialized farms, no benefits jobs on one hand, on the other, speed traps, contract jobs with vendors making the real money, mortgage scams, credit card usery. Cheap is not cheap.

says...

A good example of problematic food imports for the US is honey. The FDA has issued repeated import alerts relating to honey imported through Canada, Mexico and many Asian countries and originating in China. Chinese honey is routinely contaminated with lead-based paint chips, metal flakes and chemical residues that are not fit for human consumption. According to one FDA report issued this year, over 80% of honey samples tested that were imported through Canada were contaminated with chloramphenicol, an antibiotic not approved for use in food-producing animals.

In addition to contaminants, nearly 100% of imported Chinese honey is adulterated with some form of sweetener such as cane or corn syrup. According to the FDA, honey from China rarely contains more than 50% actual honey. The FDA estimates that for 2007 nearly 14 million pounds of Chinese “honey” were imported that contained more than 50% adulterated sweeteners. FDA reports label this behavior as a “massive economic deception and defrauding of US consumers.”

South Koreans take to the streets over US beef that is likely not contaminated with anything. Americans continue to purchase Chinese honey. I just don’t get it.

In any event, if you enjoy honey, make sure you purchase honey from a local supplier. Even in some larger groceries, local honey is available in the health food section. Avoid store-branded and relabeled honey as it is most likely from China and is actually more properly labeled a sweetener, not real honey.

The above facts are published in the May 2008 issue of American Bee Journal.

[Mark]

Tim asks, Has food poisoning been rising in recent years?

Depends on what you’re measuring. During the 1960s-80s, concern centered on chemicals in foods (e.g., pesticide and veterinary drug residues). It seems most likely that foodborne disease from chemicals is declining, but due to the chronic and multifactorial nature of cancer, neurological diseases, etc., there’s considerable uncertainty.

In November 1992, during the transition between Bush I and Clinton, the Jack-in-the-Box outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in hamburgers focused attention on microbial pathogens in food. Subsequently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented national surveillance for illnesses associated with foodborne pathogens. The most recent report is available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5714a2.htm. It paints a mixed picture. Some progress, much year-to-year variability.

Although outbreaks focus attention, most foodborne illness is sporadic cases. At least two factors contribute to the apparent increase in outbreaks. One, the industry is becoming more concentrated and distribution (nationally and internationally) more widespread. Even if big batches and small batches have the same chance of becoming contaminated, a contaminated big batch can expose more people to the bugs, which unlike chemicals, have the nasty habit of multiplying. Second, along with increased surveillance, advances in molecular techniques now permit investigators in different states to match the “DNA fingerprint” of bugs isolated from far flung patients and foods. Prior to this technology, many outbreaks went undetected as there was no way of connecting the dots.

[hari]

Instead of Mad Cow disease... talk about quality honey makes a lot of sense because of demographics in EU today.

I know a farm in Burgenland (Austria) boardering Hungary where not only honey *drops* are made for human treatment...but they're trying to replicate ageold medical use of honey and its cure for oldage and related problems. I've witnessed the medical benefits from such cure and apparently German (demographic) tourism expanding into the site of this farm for cure....

Recall this is the same landscape (*lander*) where ex-Chancellor of Germany/Kohl used take his long summer holidays!

[Mark]

The salience of mad cow stems from outrage--that policymakers covered up facts and muzzled scientists--and dread--the chance of dying is exquisitely small, but what a horrifying fate to die in that manner.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Good post....

"Verifiable credibility......" The record speaks for itself....

The current administration seems to have established a "pattern of misunderstandings" with American People. We the People may be insane, but we're not stupid.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[me]

Self regulation? The FDA now says we will probably never know the source of the salmonella in tomatoes, that my wife and I in GA both suffered from. I read it is coming from central Florida or Mexico. Yes that Mexico where the green onions killed several.

All the grocers in Atlanta pulled tomatoes but not Publix. They are in central Florida and it is prime season for the central Florida tomato growers so they are selling them. Millions of dollars are more important than public health.

In the local paper it was amusing to hear the democrat talk about public safety and the republican talk about the cost to growers and industry.

[Alex Tolley]

It is very difficult to track food poisoning because very few cases are actually reported. If you get sick after a meal, do you actually report the incidence and the details of what might be the cause? Do you even know how? No, of course not.

In addition to traditional poisoning, we are now subject to adulteration. The aforementioned case of imported heparin and the melamine adulterated pet food were news because of deaths. Adulteration and contamination that is not acutely toxic is not likely to be reported.

Hari is correct that food labeling needs to be much more transparent to allow consumers to make informed choices. As we know, the business friendly attitude of our regulatory agencies has resulted in very dubious labeling practices in the US, making it very hard to determine where and how food is grown. (BTW, did anyone else notice that Whole Foods was selling non-organic strawberries in the Bay Area this week?)

It is also important to understand that the general downgrading of environmental testing has consequences. The spinach contamination last year was due to contaminated irrigation water (not un-hygenic immigrant laborers as the hate pundits intimated early on), but why did this happen and where was the monitoring? We don't eat striped bass from teh Sacramento river due to heavy metals, yet we use the same water to irrigate the rice fields. Are we concentrating heavy metals in those soils and even getting it into the rice crop?

I find it extraordinary that in an age of cheap computers and biosensors, talking about real time data collection on so many things, that environmental monitoring is so fragementary and the results so poorly available.

[reason]

Tim - why did you pick on food poisoning when PK was talking about mad cow disease? Food poisoning is more likely to be avoided by firms because the effects are more easily associated with the cause. There are more pernicious sorts of contamination.

[im1dc]

I'm happy to agree with Professor Krugman's editorial today: America needs to fund the agencies responsible for regulating the safety of our food and consumer products, including greatly stepped up scrutiny of imports.

Prevention costs money.

FYI, since 'prevention' was the excuse used by this Administration and its supporters to invade IRAQ, imo they have no legitimate excuse today to continue to under-fund the Federal agencies responsible for the safety of our food supplies and consumer products.

[Bruce Wilder]

PK: "It started with ideology."

I want to know what motivates economists like Friedman to make common cause with the worst elements of the business community. What inspires an academic economist to whip an ideology that opens the door to fraud, predation and food poisoning? Because it doesn't really "start with ideology". It starts with human greed -- the eagerness to make a buck at someoneelse's expense, whether by polluting the environment, or defrauding a customer, exposing an employee to the risk of injury or death, or exposing a consumer to poisons.

The human inclination to lie, cheat and steal is a human failing, not a market failure per se, but I don't see what intellectual basis there is, in economic theory, for asserting that unregulated markets do anything to address the lying, the cheating or the stealing.

Efficient policing and control of human misbehavior is necessary, but only a tangential support to the functioning of markets as schemes for allocating resources. If economists are going to talk about policing and control at all, why focus on ginning up a cover story for the political advocacy of fraud and predation?

Is there money in it? Or is it symptomatic of a perversity of mind?

[Bruce Wilder]

Crooked Timber reads Redstate:

Vote Republican: We’re not THE Party of Corruption, Just A Party of Corruption

[save_the_rustbelt]

JOhn B:

I read through an entire month of the import seizures, and it can't amount to more than a tiny fraction of 1% of monthly pharma volume.

By sending the beginning of the supply chain overseas to lesser developed countries we dramatically increased risk, and should have taken countermeasures (both the company and the government).

[anne]

There is little reason to believe that fear of American beef has been the motive in the Korean protests, while there is every reason to believe the problem is an unwillingness of many Koreans to feel as though America was dictating trade conditions to them. Reading international news that is little covered in our press, there has been a distinct current of unrest about trade agreements with America in country on country and no matter the arguments about general benefits made by economists there are many people who feel the agreements will come at a personal loss.

Trade agreements have been extended in Latin America, but at a cost of disaffection that economists too easily dismiss. Well, in Korea the costs are being emphasized.

[anne]

Paul Krugman is failing to look at the protests in Korea from a Korean perspective or from the perspective of autonomy. When however were we sensitive to trade concerns through Central America, where opposition to agreement was evident but less influential? The problem is widening trade while making agreements seem in keeping with different national interest groups beyond the most dominant. This is a difficult problem. Koreans are not worried about American beef, rather many worry about Korean autonomy.

[Julio]

The article says:

"How did America find itself back in The Jungle?"

Is this an unusual bit of yellow journalism from Krugman? As earlier posts point out, nowhere does he make the case that the situation has deteriorated.

"Friedman, unlike almost every other conservative I can think of, viewed lawyers as the guardians of free-market capitalism."

This is interesting and at least intellectually consistent; I never understood how the conservative rants against trial lawyers hung together with their idea of business self-regulation.

Globalization tends to put the culprits out of reach of the lawyers though.
But more importantly, when dealing with things like the food supply where thousands of lives are at stake, a corporation is not a sufficient target for the law. You need a sentient being (with a neck that fits in a noose) to pay the price.

Bruce Wilder says:

"What inspires an academic economist to whip an ideology that opens the door to fraud, predation and food poisoning?
...
The human inclination to lie, cheat and steal is a human failing, not a market failure per se..."

It is a human failing, but not a corporate failing. Rather, like the tale of the scorpion and the frog, it is the corporation's nature.
Once you abstract the moneymaking machine from the humans feeding the machine, then the supporting ideology can similarly ignore human values (other than moneymaking).

[Mark]

anne says, Koreans are not worried about American beef, rather many worry about Korean autonomy.

Perhaps, and certaintly beef has become a rallying point. But I find it difficult to pin down a singular motivation for an individual, much less a heterogeneous population. If autonomy were the only issue, then what explains Korea's decision to ban beef from the U.S. immediately after the first BSE case was reported in the U.S.? Was it autonomy that caused the U.S. and Canada to ban beef from the EU? I would argue that there are a variety of motivations and trade presents numerous opportunities for Baptist-Bootlegger coalitions to form.

[anne]

By concern for autonomy, I simply mean concern that domestic interests be considered or simply the exercise of influence by domestic blocs.

[Mark]

anne says...
By concern for autonomy, I simply mean concern that domestic interests be considered ...

So "domestic interests" could encompass those who are concerned about producers in countries known to be affected by a transmissible disease practicing the "shoot, shovel, and shut up" approach to health surveillance.

anne says...
Koreans are not worried about American beef...

Many dismiss public reactions to "small" risks. However, even though a risk of loss may be very small, a rational decisionmaker won't tolerate one being imposed without compensation. In the case of the human variant of mad cow, the average risk in the population is vanishingly small, but for the afflicted individual, the certain outcome is a death you wouldn't wish on anyone. So the distributional effects are stark. More generally, the question is why would any consumer tolerate any increased risk to their welfare if they do not believe that they will be a net beneficiary of expanded trade? Wouldn't that be irrational?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/world/asia/12seoul.html?ref=world

June 12, 2008

An Anger in Korea Over More Than Beef
By CHOE SANG-HUN

SEOUL, South Korea — Foreign bloggers watching the brouhaha ask: Why would thousands of South Koreans join protests about mad cow disease but not ask why Americans are not protesting American beef? Would South Koreans demonstrate with the same intensity if the beef comes from Australia or New Zealand? What about Korean-Americans who eat American beef?

To many South Koreans, however, the beef dispute was not entirely about health concern or science. It was not entirely about the economy, either — beef from the United States is half the price of homegrown meat. To them, it is also the latest symbolic test of whether their leader can resist pressure from superpowers, even if there is good reason for the pressure, as is the case in the beef dispute. South Korea had promised to lift the ban once the World Organization for Animal Health ruled American beef fit for consumption, as it did last September.

South Korea has built the world's 13th largest economy largely through exports. Nonetheless, historical resentments linger.

South Koreans in their 40s remember a popular childhood song handed down from their fathers and grandfathers: "Don't be cheated by the Soviets. Don't trust the Americans. Or the Japanese will rise again." Koreans still chafe at the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union divided Korea after liberating it from Japanese colonial rule at the end of World War II.

Whether a South Korean leader can navigate this current of nationalistic sentiment can make or break his career.

When two South Korean teenage girls were killed by an American military armored vehicle six years ago, it first appeared to be nothing more than a tragic traffic accident. But many young Koreans who had grown to regard the American military presence with humiliation rallied in protest.

Mr. Roh, a relative political neophyte, quickly rode the wave into election victory.

But South Koreans soon grew tired of Mr. Roh's ideological pronouncements, which often strained the alliance with the United States. They gave a landslide victory to Mr. Lee, who promised to bring pragmatism into the presidency.

"Lee was overconfident," said Kang Won-taek, a professor of political science at Soongsil University. "He thought since people rejected Roh, he could go just the opposite."

Many experts in Seoul draw a careful line between nationalism and anti-Americanism among Koreans. They say the recent series of demonstrations were more an expression of the first than the latter. But the divide gets thin sometimes.

Alexander Vershbow, the United States ambassador in South Korea, got a taste of the simmering anti-American sentiment when he emphasized the safety of American beef last week. "We hope that Koreans will begin to understand more about the science and about the facts of American beef," he said.

The next day, politicians and protesters called the comment an "insult to all Korean citizens."

Jeon Sang-il, a sociologist at Sogang University, said the men seemed to have shot themselves in the foot.

"These days, Koreans say there are only two anti-Americans in South Korea," Mr. Jeon said. "One is Lee Myung-bak and the other Vershbow. They stoked anti-American sentiments with what they did and what they said."

[anne]

The point is that South Koreans as the French know how to be active, and know when there is need to be active to show that they have interests or sensibilities that must be considered. The protesters are aware people, who were deserving of respect in dissent but found too little.

[Chris]

I suspect much of the Korean hostility to our beef is disguised hostility to the still existing US military presence in Korea and the sense that the US has undue influence over government policies. I would guess the Koreans would like us OUT, totally, so that they can see themselves as a completely soverign nation.

[JRossi]

Lousy editorial. Krugman implies that the infinitesimal numuber of cases of mad cow disease in the US are in some way linked to regulatory failure. No way. Too few cases to make that link. As for the Korean dust-up, other posters correctly identify the likely culprits as anti-Americanism, nationalism, and a poor grasp of probability. And is the incidence of food-borne disease increasing in the US? I have seen no good evidence of that in the medical literature. Krugman asks how America found itself back in the jungle. Nonsense. Out of the realm of reality and into the realm of creative writing. Who believes that 1906 food was as safe as our 2008 food?

[anne]

JRossi:

"And is the incidence of food-borne disease increasing in the US? I have seen no good evidence of that in the medical literature."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/world/asia/12seoul.html?ref=world

By traveling with a political gift for Mr. Bush, Mr. Lee demonstrated how eager he was to rebuild ties with Washington.

Little did he apparently imagine the reaction at home, among young South Koreans who had been watching with a cold eye.

"What he did was little different from an old Korean king offering tribute to a Chinese emperor," said Kim Sook-yi, a 35-year-old homemaker who joined the protest on Tuesday with her two children....

Many experts in Seoul draw a careful line between nationalism and anti-Americanism among Koreans. They say the recent series of demonstrations were more an expression of the first than the latter. But the divide gets thin sometimes.

Alexander Vershbow, the United States ambassador in South Korea, got a taste of the simmering anti-American sentiment when he emphasized the safety of American beef last week. "We hope that Koreans will begin to understand more about the science and about the facts of American beef," he said.

The next day, politicians and protesters called the comment an "insult to all Korean citizens."

Jeon Sang-il, a sociologist at Sogang University, said the men seemed to have shot themselves in the foot.

"These days, Koreans say there are only two anti-Americans in South Korea," Mr. Jeon said. "One is Lee Myung-bak and the other Vershbow. They stoked anti-American sentiments with what they did and what they said."

[Robinia]

Excellent post and comments-- although this is something I have read quite a bit about, there was a lot to learn posted here.

Mark-- as I understand it, the difference in the risk of contamination between small-batch processing and large-batch processing is significant, but the truly enormous leap in the risk of spreading a food-borne pathogen far and wide comes from continuous-process food processing lines. This from no less a source than a Dept. of Homeland Security-funded training on how to respond to the threat of "Agroterrorism." Which, I guess means somebody poisoning your food supply for religious reasons, not just because they are greedy.

Continuous-process industrial lines are a real step toward efficiency in the production of many products. But, a processing line that is not often stopped for cleaning is maybe not such a swell idea for food. A little salmonella in the works can go a very long way, as those tomatoes show. And, the massive increase in Lysteria contamination, which seems to breed in the drains of the wash-and-drain components of the continuous food processing line, from where it becomes airborne and lands again on the washed food.

Those of you who believe that the safety of our food supply has not decreased: naive, not paying attention. I know, we should just eat our soylent green and shut up....

[James Killus]

I find it very interesting how a PK essay on the problems with regulatory oversight in the U.S. got turned into a "let's bash foreign trade," conversation.

But, for the record, the Mad Cow problem was U.S. industry shooting itself in the foot, as it were, and discovering that Friedman was exactly right except for the part about thinking that U.S. producers would not do something that was bad for business in the long run. The managerial class is not very bright, and at the upper levels, it cycles so quickly that lessons learned as little as 10 years ago are forgotten by this years crop. So most decisions at the top are made on the basis of faith and gut instinct, which is to say superstition and prejudice.

In the melamine scare of a while back, most of the stories noted that sources in China were spiking their produce with melamine because it registers at protein in food testing. There were also a (very) few stories about several U.S. companies that had been adding melamine to their animal feed as a "binding agent." I read very carefully and I have yet to find a story that suggests that the "reads as protein" might have played a part in the U.S. manufacturers actions as well.

If we had a decent regulatory system in the U.S., it would catch both foreign and U.S. violators. Since the latter have a near veto power (at present) over the regulatory system, we stand unprotected. That opens the door for more China bashing. It's all part and parcel of a country (the U.S.) determinedly turning itself into a third world nation.

[Patricia Shannon]

JRossi says...

Lousy editorial. Krugman implies that the infinitesimal numuber of cases of mad cow disease in the US are in some way linked to regulatory failure. No way. Too few cases to make that link.

How do we know?

[Mark]

J Rossi says, Krugman implies that the infinitesimal numuber of cases of mad cow disease in the US are in some way linked to regulatory failure. No way....

In some respects you are correct, the small number of mad cow cases reported in the US (3 to date) results from the practice of "recycling" rendered bovine protein as a feed supplement for cattle. Despite the belief among some environmentalists that recycling is inherently good, that's not necessarily the case. (Rendering inactivates normal bacteria and viruses, but not the agent that causes mad cow disease.) However, once the link between mad cow disease (BSE) and the human variant (vCJD) was publicly acknowledged by UK officials (their scientists were being muzzled), the US banned the practice of feeding ruminant protein to rumminants. High on the YUK factor.

On the other hand, the number of cases detected and reported understates the true number of cases in the population for a variety of reasons. For example, there is no live animal test (e.g. you can't tell from a blood sample), the incubation period for BSE is several years, and detection is unlikely until shortly before the onset of symptomatic disease (so most cattle are slaughtered before they would ever test positive). Also, the U.S. did not report its first indigenous case until the USDA Inspector General seized suspect laboratory samples and sent them off for independent testing. This does not engender trust among trading partners.

[Mark]

Robinia says... as I understand it, the difference in the risk of contamination between small-batch processing and large-batch processing is significant, but the truly enormous leap in the risk of spreading a food-borne pathogen far and wide comes from continuous-process food processing lines.

I'm not sure about the rank order, but the longer your operate any manufacturing process between cleaning/recalibrating, the larger the quantity of product (batch or lot) that can be contaminated/defective from a common source/event. Assuming a simple binomial process with a fixed prevalence of contamination/defect, the more units that feed into a common pool (a batch, lot, or production run between cleanups), the more likely that at least one of them is contaminated/defective: p(x>0) = 1-(1-p)^n. The difference between bugs and defective widgets is that bugs multiply.

[wjd123]

Yesterday WP published an interesting comparative analysis based on recent EU industrial regulations on Chemicals and their caciogenic properties and so on. I think you guys should take a good look at it (if Anne can source it).--Hari

Hari,

I'm going to beat anne to the punch. And I'm glad to be of service, because I also found this to be an important article.

Yesterday I made this comment on Dani Rodrik's blog:

Here is an article form the Washington Post entitled "Chemical Law Has Global Impact."

This is exactly the kind of give and take I would expect if we are to have our rights expanded by free trade regulations. Even if business values are getting a free ride with their lock on the ear of our legislatures, they can be challenged by consumer values in the EU. In this case business values are not only being challenged by consumer values in the EU but by those in our own states.

This is an example of a greater balance of power that can lead to expanded freedoms and rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103569.html

In the absence of strong federal regulations in the United States, a patchwork system is emerging. Individual states are banning specific chemicals, and half a dozen lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced bills aimed at shutting down production of various chemicals.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced a measure last month that would overhaul U.S. chemical regulation along the lines of the new European approach. It would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to use biomonitoring studies to identify industrial chemicals present in umbilical cord blood and decide whether those chemicals should be restricted or banned. A study by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found an average of 200 industrial chemicals in the cord blood of newborns.

Said Denison: "We still have quite a ways to go in convincing the U.S. Congress this is a problem that needs fixing." But new policies in Europe and in Canada push the United States closer to change, he said. "They show it's feasible, it's being done elsewhere, and we're behind.--Washington Post

[Lafayette]

Political troglodytes

Article: When push comes to shove, it seems, the imperatives of crony capitalism trump professed faith in free markets.

I like that, Crony Capitalism.

It has become the hallmark of an America led by political troglodytes. One must be abroad to fully understand the demise of foreign appreciation for an America that once was a beacon for justice and fairness.

Oh well, it was nice as role-model -- while it lasted ...

[Lafayette]

The next time we are proposed Compassionate Conservatism, can we have first a long and serious discussion about it?

[Macquechoux]

Anne, here is another view of the Korean anger over US beef:

"June 12, 2008: Opposition political parties in South Korea are seeking to force the newly elected conservative government out of power via massive street demonstrations. The leftist opposition parties are using popular opposition to free trade (which actually favors South Korea more than it hurts), especially the importation of cheaper U.S. beef (said to contain mad-cow disease, although no South Korean has ever suffered from this via American meat products.) The leftists have controlled the educational system for decades, and have created a mythical new history for post-World War II history, in which North Korea is an innocent victim of U.S. imperialism (and it gets worse…) North Korea encourages this myth, just as East Germany worked with leftist political parties in West Germany during the Cold War to do the same thing. When the two Germanys were united in the early 1990s, the truth came out. But that lesson was never accepted by South Korean leftists. Meanwhile, the United States, having its own economic problems, is not willing to cut the South Koreans any slack when it comes to selling beef to South Korean customers. Free trade works both ways, and Americans get angry when U.S. jobs are lost because trading partners refuse to allow American products. This has long been a problem with east Asian trading partners, which frequently plead "special conditions." But this gambit has been used for decades and not longer gains much sympathy in the U.S."

It is from yesterday's strategypage.com.

[Real Person from the Real World]

From Anne's post:
"To many South Koreans, however, the beef dispute was not entirely about health concern or science. It was not entirely about the economy, either — beef from the United States is half the price of homegrown meat....."
Why is it reasonable for a foreign gov't (often the beneficiaries of one-sided export trade to the US) to complain about the US forcing trade on it, while it is unreasonable for US workers to complain about Globalization and how that is gutting the US economy?

[Mark]

Real Person ... Why is it reasonable for a foreign gov't (often the beneficiaries of one-sided export trade to the US) to complain about the US forcing trade on it, while it is unreasonable for US workers to complain about Globalization and how that is gutting the US economy?

Indeed. This is just another reminder that free trade without compensation of the losers by the winners is not pareto efficient. I read Krugman's article as a sloppy attempt to remind the reader that regulatory arbitrage provides opportunities to privatize gain and socialize loss--the hallmark of crony capitalism.

[anne]

Macquechoux:

"The leftists have controlled the educational system for decades, and have created a mythical new history for post-World War II history, in which North Korea is an innocent victim of U.S. imperialism...."

Please further reference, if possible.

[anne]

Real Person:

"Why is it reasonable for a foreign gov't (often the beneficiaries of one-sided export trade to the US) to complain about the US forcing trade on it, while it is unreasonable for US workers to complain about Globalization and how that is gutting the US economy?"

But, this may not be true, both may benefit.

[Korean]

It is complicated and probably hard for Americans to understand fully. Let me try.

1. The biggest reason is simply misinformation. Some Korean kids cried, saying "I don't want to die." Majority of people, according to some surveys, believe that the US beef is dangerous. What caused this exaggerated, if not outright wrong, beliefs? Protesters' media strategy and operation have been the key. They used sensational contents on TV and the Internet, which carried the message that the government is sacrificing people's lives to get the FTA which will end up in big companies' profits anyway.

2. However powerful the communication has been, it is hard to believe that the people were misled only by that. I think a lot of people "wanted to believe" that the US beef is dangerous. Otherwise, it would not have been possible to sustain such a flawed view. Why?

Over the last 10 years, Korea was run by leftists. Though the right wing regained the presidency, cultural hegemony still lies in the hands of leftists. People who were college students in 80s, many of them being leftists, are now the most influential group at major broadcasting companies and school teachers. They also have popular movie directors, writers, political commentators, etc.

Unlike the right wing, their message is that the US is not a friend but a threat to Korean peninsula, the builders of Korean government and businesses are not good people, North Korea is not a such bad country and even a good country morally. Because the right wing have not been successful in growing young right-wingers, the leftists appear as cooler to younger people, which seems to make a vicious cycle for the right.

Making the situation worse, the new government's high officials were on average much richer than the average people or the counterparts at the former government. So, it was easy for the anti-government people to say "They only care about the rich."

3. The leftists have been quite smart in utilizing the current movement. They did not fully control the demonstration, to show that people were voluntary protesting not led by some anti-government leaders. Indeed people were quite active, singing in the crowd and giving speeches during the demonstration. Also, the demonstration has been labeled as peaceful and non anti-US. So, the leftists could call themselves just one of them.

They have been smart in positioning against the US. They sometimes say "We are not anti-US, but anti-US beef." and other times "The US is trying to sell what they don't eat or even give to dogs."

4. The media has played an important role throughout, and some believe that two main TV channels, KBS and MBC, are trying to prevent the government from privatizing them. For protestants, they (especially MBC) became heros and the enemy #1 for the right wing.

Hope this helps.

[anne]

Korean:

"The media has played an important role throughout, and some believe that two main TV channels, KBS and MBC, are trying to prevent the government from privatizing them. For protestants, they (especially MBC) became heros and the enemy #1 for the right wing."

Please continue.

[Mark]

Korean says, 1. The biggest reason is simply misinformation. Some Korean kids cried, saying "I don't want to die." Majority of people, according to some surveys, believe that the US beef is dangerous. What caused this exaggerated, if not outright wrong, beliefs?...

Many successful urban legends have some ring of truth to them. The vast majority of human "mad cow" (vCJD) cases diagnosed to date have occured in people with a specific genotype (methionine homozygote (MM) at codon 129 of the human prion gene). The vast majority of vCJD cases to day have been report in the UK, and approximately 40% of the UK population is MM homozygous (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;332/7551/1186). Apparently study that was widely reported via the internet in Korea indicated that 95% of the Korean population is MM homozygous. However, regardless of genetic susceptibility, exposure to the transmissible agent is necessary to initate infection. Also, there are concerns that the cases to date have occured in the MM homozygous genotype not because it is uniquely vulnerable to infection, but because the incubation period in this genotype is simply shorter and that we will observe an echo of cases with longer incubation periods.

[Korean]

anne,

It seems that the broadcasters don't like much of the new government agenda. They are broadening the issues from just beef to most of their policy plans.

The new government is basically a right wing, though they say they are moderate. They try to privatize some state-owned businesses, reduce trade barriers, encourage entrepreneurship, strengthen the authority of the law, reduce violent labor union disputes, and to pursuade the North Koreans to abandon the nuclear and open up like China. In terms of welfare policy, they say 'a job is the best welfare,'. Also, they plan to increase government spending in some areas like education, to reduce the inheritance of the poor. I would say that they try to give more freedom to the private sector, while strengthening the welfare for people who have been lost in the market competition.

Also, in some areas they try to play more active roles, the best example being the 'grand canal' plan which feels like Roosevelt's New Deal. This is another hot potatoe, and the president believes that Korean rivers are great resources that have been left alone. What makes this issue complicated is that some right wings protest against this as well as leftists. In my mind, it is a great subject in terms of the role of any government, apart from whether it will be a good thing or a disaster. It seems violating the small government philosophy of the right, but at the same time it is unclear whether the private sector can pursue this kind of national infrastructure projects.

The privatization of broadcasters themselves has to do with their own jobs, but I don't think that is the main reason that they criticize the government and ignited this US beef issue. The broadcasters are filled with people who don't like the right wing philosophy. So, even without their privatization, they would be criticizing anyway.

Another hot issue is about Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (http://english.eduhope.net/). They do not consist the majority of teachers, yet they are a very influential group as they are very vocal and well organized. The right wing attrubute a key reason why there were so many teenagers (even elementary school students) among the protesters to KTU, another reason being attributed to their parents of the 386 generation, a term coined about 10 years ago to describe those who went to the college in the 80s, during which Marxist anti-government protests were the mainstream student movement. Though the student protests resulted in democratization of then military government, people who studied and believed leftist theories then kept the mentality that the capitalist society is problematic and South Korea does not have a proud history since its beginning in 1948. You may compare it to the critical views about the US history.

The leftists seem trying to make popular opinion against the government. The protestants criticize the government and the right wing saying people know the truth and people protest voluntarily. I think there are mixture in the protestants. Real protesters who don't like the new government direction, people who got scared by misinformation (attributed much to broadcasters and some leaders of the anti-government organizations), people who are enjoying the people power rather casually, people who just feel unhappy due to low income, etc.

Let me add that the right wing is scared of mass criticism. Maybe I am not courageous enough, but I feel hesitant writing this, too. When people agree with importing the US beef or support the government people get harshly criticized and insulted. Some people liken it to a witch-hunt. One famous comedian had to drop from all her TV and radio programs because she made comments that were a bit against the demonstration. On the other hand, an actress said "I would eat potassium cyanide than eat the US beef." And suddenly she was praised as courageous and conscious entertainer. Another

It is something that is hard to understand, as there are not much information written in English. When I see NY Times articles and opinions like Paul Krugman's article, I see they lack deep understanding. It is much more complicated than that.

I feel like I am giving you an overview of Korean politics and society. Next time, please ask me specific questions so that I can avoid more long writings.

[Mark]

Korean,

Fascinating. Thank you.

[anne]

Korean:

"It is something that is hard to understand, as there are not much information written in English. When I see NY Times articles and opinions like Paul Krugman's article, I see they lack deep understanding. It is much more complicated than that.

"I feel like I am giving you an overview of Korean politics and society. Next time, please ask me specific questions so that I can avoid more long writings."

No; write long, write long for you're a gem. You're giving me a terrific overview of Korean politics and society.

[Korean]

Mark,

What you just said was one of the key examples that the protesters, including the braodcasters, cited against freeing the US beef import.

Since then, we probably became more knowledgeable than most US citizens about the US beef. Whether MM is the key factor or not are debated. But as I am not a scientist, I would not go into those details.

The only thing that seems clear to me is that there has been no Korean vCJD patient. Millions of Koreans live in and travel to the the US. And I think tens of thousands in the UK.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/world/asia/14korea.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

June 14, 2008

South Korean Truckers Strike to Protest Rising Fuel Costs
By CHOE SANG-HUN

SEOUL, South Korea — Thousands of South Korean truck drivers went on strike on Friday to protest rising fuel prices, threatening to paralyze the country's ports and challenging the already unpopular government of President Lee Myung-bak.

Across Asia, sharp increases in fuel prices continued to stoke public anger. In Malaysia and Thailand, consumers and truckers demanding bigger fuel subsidies from their governments threatened to strike, and Thai fishermen warned that they would burn their boats.

More than 5,000 truckers blocked entrances to ports and cargo terminals in South Korea, demanding that the government increase subsidies, authorize higher freight charges and introduce a minimum wage.

The government warned that it would punish drivers if they tried to block nonstriking truckers from picking up cargo. The Transport Ministry confirmed on Friday that it would immediately revoke striking truckers' annual fuel subsidy payments of about $14,500 to each trucker.

"The government intends to use whatever means to end this transportation crisis as soon as possible and minimize its impact on the national economy," Prime Minister Han Seung-soo said.

Tension escalated around major ports as the police planned to escort nonstriking drivers through the blockades.

"If the government arrests any of the striking truckers, our member unions will immediately launch nationwide strikes," said Lee Seok-haeng, leader of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which controls unions in auto, construction and other major industries.

A two-week truckers' strike in 2003 cost exporters 540 billion won, or $519 million at Friday's exchange rates, Prime Minister Han said, citing figures from the Korea International Trade Association. Mr. Han predicted that the current strike would cause 128 billion won in export losses a day, or about $123 million.

The government said it would use military vehicles and increase rail service to keep the country's factories running and ease the paralysis at the ports. But rail unions said on Friday that they would not cooperate.

With the country's traditional negotiating season starting, unions seized on Mr. Lee's unpopularity to improve their leverage. Mr. Lee's administration has been shaken by protests against a decision in April to resume the import of American beef....

[Korean]

Anne,

Thank you. Still, ask me questions if you want to know more, as that will make it easier for me.

[anne]

Mark:

"Many successful urban legends have some ring of truth to them. The vast majority of human "mad cow" (vCJD) cases diagnosed to date have occured in people with a specific genotype (methionine homozygote (MM) at codon 129 of the human prion gene)....

"However, regardless of genetic susceptibility, exposure to the transmissible agent is necessary to initate infection. Also, there are concerns that the cases to date have occured in the MM homozygous genotype not because it is uniquely vulnerable to infection, but because the incubation period in this genotype is simply shorter and that we will observe an echo of cases with longer incubation periods."

Got it.

[anne]

Korean,

I will think of tight questions.

[Korean]

Protesters say the new Korean government has lost the national pride, and say 'Abolish the negotiated document, and renegotiate as people demand you to do. Get the quarantine soverignty' This kind of statements have a strong emotional appeal to people. Intelligent discussions lost ground against emotional slogans.

Some angry right wings began fighting back recently. The ideological divide could become very serious.

[Lafayette]

s_t_r: None of the traders want adequate controls on imports, because it would slow down the globalization express.

After mad-cow disease afflicted France (from British imports) already tough restrictions were further tightened. After about four years of wandering in the desert, French beef is now finding its new feet in the market both in France and abroad. It is also interesting to note that premium French beef (called the Charolais variety) is actually of Texan origin.

Besides, I cannot imagine what the beef is about (pun intended). Why is it so difficult to stop feeding animals offal (the entrails and internal organs of an animal used as food), which is supposedly cause of the transmission of prions to mankind). Cereals are not cheap enough, and were they not cheap, so what? Beef will cost a bit more, that's all.

The animals in question, since their breeding began eons ago to provide protein-based food, have never been predatory ; meaning eat the meat of other animals. They have been, for thousands of years, largely herbivore. So, they should be fed cereals.

Why is it Mission Impossible to require labeling that indicates what the animal was fed? Let customers make up their own mind, once they are informed of the relative risks.

There is a brainless controversy in France over genetically modified (GM) foods, to such an extent that though authorized, after scientific study, by the EU, the French state has suspended their product until further study. What further study?, one might ask. How the substitution of GM-crops for non-fertilized crops might stop nitrates from invading our water supply, or chemically dangerous herbicides?

GM foods are actually allowed on sale, but they must identify the fact that they are made from GM components. Meaning, let the customer decide.

Whilst the GM controversy prevails, customers should be allowed to chose what they want to eat, given sufficient information regarding its nature. (And, in this case, the information is not conclusively for or against GM-foods.)

[anne]

Korean:

"The ideological divide could become very serious."

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/bad-free-trade-arguments/

June 14, 2008

Bad free trade arguments
By Paul Krugman

Supporters of free trade do not help their case when they accuse * those who worry about trade impacts of forgetting about the good stuff, like exports and lower import prices. All they do is show that they don’t understand textbook international economics — the very textbook economics ** on which the standard case for free trade is based.

I’m not saying that the textbook is necessarily right. But you shouldn’t lecture critics of free trade for failing to understand basic economics without first being quite sure that you yourself, um, understand the relevant basic economics. Read Dani Rodrik, *** who tries to set the record straight.

* http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/06/14/the-economics-and-politics-of-trade

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolper-Samuelson_theorem

*** http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/04/does_free_trade.html

says...

Lafayette.

There is some fear that GM crops might be destroying the honey bee. You can Google the topic for many articles. Bees are disappearing around the world through colony-collapse disorder (CCD). There is a fear that the genetically modified insect-resistant plants could cause a residual build-up of toxins within the comb of the beehive. Bees reuse their wax comb each season and are thus susceptible to a gradual buildup of toxins even at extremely low levels.

The disappearance of honey bees is a major concern in regards to food production, where they are used extensively for crop pollination. The problem has become even more acute since feral honey bees have become almost entirely extinct. Scientists now estimate that less than 2% of the feral honey bee population of North America remains.

[anne]

"Scientists now estimate that less than 2% of the feral honey bee population of North America remains."

Wow, wow. Please do reference.

says...

Anne,

There are lots of references to collapsing feral bee populations, but few scientific studies. The most complete study I’ve come across is from the mid-90’s. Here is the relevant quote:

"It is estimated that, by the middle of 1996, 90% of the feral bee population had disappeared, and, even with medication, up to 50% of managed hives did not survive the winter of 1995."

Buchmann, S. L. and G.P. Nabhan, 1996. The Forgotten Pollinators. Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, DC.

The estimated number of feral population declines range from the 90-98%. You can find references to these numbers all over the web, but they rarely make citations. The very respected American Bee Journal and Apiculture News routinely refer to these numbers in references to feral bee populations.

The problem is a combination of issues. The destructive Varroa mite was introduced accidentally in the mid-80’s, this mite is believed to have caused much of the decline, as even managed hives have a hard time dealing with mite infestations. Increased widespread pesticide use has led to large losses of feral colonies. Finally, africanized bees are now seen as a severe danger to the remaining feral colonies.

The declining feral bee population is also evidenced by the fact that agricultural producers now find themselves hiring out hives to act as plant pollinators. Commercial pollination was rarely done prior to the 1980’s. It is now routine. The (over) commercialization of beekeeping has led to a number of other problems, including extreme overmedication of bees by commercial operators intent on maintaining colony populations for their commercial activities. As I noted in my first response, bees are very susceptible to gradual buildup of toxins within their wax comb. Overmedication can lead to just such a condition.

Scientists are desperately studying the conditions that have created what is now known as colony collapse disorder, which is a recent phenomenon whereby entire colonies of managed bees simply disappear from their hive. Losses have ranged from 10-70% of managed colonies in the past few years varying significantly by location and individual apiary.

As an aside, it is important to note that honey bees are not native to North America, but originated in Asia. Thus, there are alternative pollinators to honey bees, but they are in just as desperate a shape as the feral honey bee itself. Commercial growers have turned to honey bee pollination over the last few decades because they are the easiest pollinator to maintain and control for commercial purposes.

The overall decline of the pollinator population (both feral and non-feral) could possibly explain some of your earlier postings regarding the declining growth of crop production.

[anne]

"It is estimated that, by the middle of 1996, 90% of the feral bee population had disappeared, and, even with medication, up to 50% of managed hives did not survive the winter of 1995."

Buchmann, S. L. and G.P. Nabhan, 1996. The Forgotten Pollinators. Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, DC.

Wow.

[reason]

This year in Europe (Germany anyway) there is notably an extreme lack of honey bees. I haven't read anything about it in the press, but at least where I am it is much, much worse than the already reduced populations last year. (Fortunately, wasp populations are also down - only bumble bees seem to be thriving.)

says...

PBS's Nature ran a great show on Colony Collapse Sunday night. It was a good overview of how we've come to rely upon large commercial beekeeping operations to sustain our large commercial agricultural operations. Scientists pointed out that at the current rate of loss, the honey bee will become extinct in 2035. If honey bees were to disappear, the scientists also agreed that we could say goodbye to our fruit and vegetable crops.

The one disappointment in the show was not one mention of genetically-modified crops. This oversight was disappointing, but not surprising given that PBS takes major sponsorship money from big agribusiness. They did manage one brief criticism of tainted Chinese imports.

Overall the show was well worth viewing.

[Patricia Shannon]

With the continuous suppression of scientific information, and downright lies, by the Bush administration, in support of short-term business profits, and laws preventing testing more than a minuscule proportion of U.S. beef for mad cow disease, why should people trust our beef supply?

[Niki Buchen]

Constant food supply will be more and more important to the people because it is getting more difficult to accomplish this. But quantity is nothing without quality. The mass of food will not help if you get sick of it. And I don´t talk about poisoned food, it starts with unhealthy food. Greetings, Niki

[Chris]

To "Hari says" - is it possible to get some links for these Burgendland products? Gruss, Chris