Like many of you, I've been using 'web 2.0' sites for some time now. My use of them seems to be increasing and expanding of late. They allow someone like myself, who spends alot of time stuck in front of a computer, to maintain some degree of social interaction, express my interests and thus hold my sanity at bay.
In fact, I've come to like these new online offerings so much, that I want to do more!! For instance, I've been playing around with the idea of keeping an online journal for some time now. Having chosen a service that I liked; 'Penzu' , I realised that after keeping entries for more than a week, I had no assurance as to the integrity and access to data in the event of this service ceasing. The site gave no assurance about data portability or policy with regard to cessation of service. Then, I came across this interesting article by Bill Thompson over at the BBC See article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7760528.stm
He rightly raised the issue of data portability concluding that web site developers should do more. (Data Portability concerns the ability for user data to be transferred to another service, or downloaded by the user.) However I think he failed to fully argue what should be done about this issue. For example, if your data and/or intellectual property resides on a free online site, and that service changes its offering; is it made transparent and simple if you decide to jump ship to another offering? If your data and/or intellectual property resides on an online website and that website goes bust, will your data be kept safe and retrievable?
We already have some national government policies in place concerning the protection, control and privacy of data to individuals. However, I feel it should also be up to government to protect citizens with regard to movement, ownership and integrity of user data. For instance, more needs to be done to ensure that website owners have a required responsibility from the outset; to provide data portability and maintain this ability even after termination of service. Perhaps, this would require that the government step in and provide servers to back up user data in the event of a company ceasing. This could be in tandem with services (new or old) being required to ensure data integrity in the case of termination of service etc. Issues like ownership of data also needs to be addressed.
It is often argued that government should not inhibit the market, but I argue that the government should steer the market, maximising the longterm interests of it's citizens. Thus, I don't see a problem with positive interference in the market. The role of government is afterall to balance the realms of life. This is in view of citizens becoming increasingly reliant on the market, and thus, on online commercial offerings to function and stay abreast of modern society. Of course the supra national nature of the web, will require the need for supranational cooperation on any kind of intervention. Political intervention may quicken the pace of progress on these issues, it could also ensure that data rights and opt-out facilities are apparent and transparent to citizens. Finally, certain government measures may benefit both users and service offerings in the long term, by instilling confidence. For instance, a service like Penzu would perhaps better thrive if minimum requirements were in place, granted the details of any technical standards is a messy and arduous business. This kind of confidence, that individuals have certain assurances; would in aggregate serve to speed up adoption of existing and emerging services. It would also assure vigilance, in the face of further encroachment of the market into everyday life.
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
See; Facebook retain right to user data after account deletion
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Analysis of discussion on reintroducing third level fees!
Are we unduly focusing on Government funded education without positioning it amongst wider budgetary constraints?
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. But has the debate gone wide enough? Are we unduly focusing in on third level education funding without orientating the debate amongst wider budgetary issues?
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. Over the weekend, Noel Whelan of the Irish Times writes;
'It was also argued then and can be argued even more justifiably now that free third-level education is socially regressive because it requires all taxpayers to subsidise a level of educational attainment which by its very nature will always be enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthier classes'
Colm argued that third level education is disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier classes but we must acknowledge too they disproportionately fund education. Similarly Mark Coleman from the Independent laments that the present system unfairly favours the middle and wealthier classes.
'But the main indictment of abolishing fees was that it never achieved what it was supposed to -- getting young people from low- income backgrounds into college. Ten years after abolition, the profile of third-level students remains strongly middle class.' (Coleman, 2008)
Essentially, back in 1993, restructuring of third level funding away from individual college goers and their families towards the general taxation system took place. Thus now, education is funded through the myriad of taxation mechanisms aimed at individuals and businesses. The 1993 move by the labour party was welcomed as 'visionary' by some, both in terms of lessening the financial burden and additionally in terms of removing the associated psychological barriers which particularly affect lower income categories. It has been deemed a success abeit arguably at the cost of underfunded universities and colleges. Though underfunding can arguably prompt lean, more efficient operations (particularly in terms of bureaucracy), it has been argued that research departments and the standards of undergraduate education have suffered in Irish colleges. There remains, it seems, much room for streamlining and efficiency of Irish educational institutions.
Given recent focus on third level fees, the overriding question remains; how do we ensure optimal equality and access to high quality third level education at the least possible cost? At present, college/university funding largely entails a mixture of 'registration fees', 'local authority grants', government funding on fees, 'inflated' foreign student fees, as well as university fund-raising and philanthropy. From a pragmatic stance we must ask; whether the present system is the most efficent and equitable means of funding third level education? or should we seriously consider a move to individualisation (individualisation being a somewhat hidden political agenda of the FF/PD partnership over the past 10 years, 'indirect taxes' or 'stealth taxes' etc.)? It has been suggested that such a move could draw more money from those on the upper-middle to high income bracket, thus improving university funding and the funding of those from lower income categories. Such a move may entail directly seeking fees from families at a certain income threshold, or implementing a student loan system. Two examples of which include the UK and the Australian systems.
Reflecting on the situation in the UK, it seems to me that there is the real danger (given a move to individualisation) of manifesting new invisible inequalities on certain members classed as middle income households. For example, those classed as upper-middle income, but who possess little discretionary income, may become unfairly burdened by the move. We must also reflect on how the 'idea' or 'notion' of 'free third level education' affects teenagers envisioning further education? In otherwards, there is the suspicion that abolition of fees has eased associated psychological barriers, primarily entailing the pressure to commit to a career path and the financial burden attached. Thus, there is for some, a psychological barrier to entering third-level education attached to the individualisation of university funding. Little to no research exists which attempts to quantify and understand how abolition of fees affects entry levels, such insights should be welcomed prior to a move to fees.
We must also question the real benefit and added costs involved in implementing 'reform'. Colm Harmon, UCD professor of economics and director of the UCD Geary Research Institute, calculates at best raising 100 million from high earners paying fees. A real danger too is that, being a political move; the annual 2bn euro education budget may seriously diminish as a result, with perhaps no transparency in its reallocation. The government currently pays third level fees to the tune of 250 million. Thus, what guarantees do we have with regard to how savings made from the abolition of government funded fees are reallocated? Should we expect increased funding for primary/secondary level? In otherwards, emphasising the long term, will this money remain ring-fensed in education? The reality is that government coffers are being heavily squeezed with ongoing pressure for cuts and savings in all government departments as a result of the well acknowledged economic downturn. O'Keefe (who in some ways instigated a rather brilliant but hard-ball political move) may be rightly focusing national attention on education funding, but we must acknowledge that many government departments currently face funding pressures and shortfalls.
In sum, the debate concerning education needs to be orientated around government finances overall. Thus, if we wish to draw money from wealthier individuals and households in view of financial pressures coming from various government departments (not just education), should we not debate increasing the higher 41% tax band? increasing corporation taxes? Or considering 'individualisation' measures in the form of 'stealth taxes'? Should focus and emphasis not lie instead on stimulating the economy and developing strategies to ensure sound long term fundamentals and a desirable revenue stream? (thus, lowering instead of increasing taxes might be the appropriate policy) Would such measures better benefit education funding and other government funding requirements in the long run? Overall, it seems pertinent to question what are the alternatives to reintroducing fees, which can serve to avoid the political unpleasantaries for all involved?
Importantly, by instigating this debate, discussion on related issues has followed; such that granting better third level access to lower income and disadvantaged groups requires increased emphasis and funding for primary and secondary level education. Scrutiny of the efficency and operations of third level institutions has also resulted from ongoing dialogue.
Finally, the issue is not just one of pragmatics (which some would wish you to believe ) in terms of quantifiable access levels to education and reducing inequality. It is also one of 'percieved' and 'real'; flexibility, choice and freedom in ones education. It is also about theunquantifiable benefits to Irish society as a whole. O'Keefe rightly instigated a debate. Lets just hope such a debate is thourough, insightful and fruitful!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. But has the debate gone wide enough? Are we unduly focusing in on third level education funding without orientating the debate amongst wider budgetary issues?
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. Over the weekend, Noel Whelan of the Irish Times writes;
'It was also argued then and can be argued even more justifiably now that free third-level education is socially regressive because it requires all taxpayers to subsidise a level of educational attainment which by its very nature will always be enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthier classes'
Colm argued that third level education is disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier classes but we must acknowledge too they disproportionately fund education. Similarly Mark Coleman from the Independent laments that the present system unfairly favours the middle and wealthier classes.
'But the main indictment of abolishing fees was that it never achieved what it was supposed to -- getting young people from low- income backgrounds into college. Ten years after abolition, the profile of third-level students remains strongly middle class.' (Coleman, 2008)
Essentially, back in 1993, restructuring of third level funding away from individual college goers and their families towards the general taxation system took place. Thus now, education is funded through the myriad of taxation mechanisms aimed at individuals and businesses. The 1993 move by the labour party was welcomed as 'visionary' by some, both in terms of lessening the financial burden and additionally in terms of removing the associated psychological barriers which particularly affect lower income categories. It has been deemed a success abeit arguably at the cost of underfunded universities and colleges. Though underfunding can arguably prompt lean, more efficient operations (particularly in terms of bureaucracy), it has been argued that research departments and the standards of undergraduate education have suffered in Irish colleges. There remains, it seems, much room for streamlining and efficiency of Irish educational institutions.
Given recent focus on third level fees, the overriding question remains; how do we ensure optimal equality and access to high quality third level education at the least possible cost? At present, college/university funding largely entails a mixture of 'registration fees', 'local authority grants', government funding on fees, 'inflated' foreign student fees, as well as university fund-raising and philanthropy. From a pragmatic stance we must ask; whether the present system is the most efficent and equitable means of funding third level education? or should we seriously consider a move to individualisation (individualisation being a somewhat hidden political agenda of the FF/PD partnership over the past 10 years, 'indirect taxes' or 'stealth taxes' etc.)? It has been suggested that such a move could draw more money from those on the upper-middle to high income bracket, thus improving university funding and the funding of those from lower income categories. Such a move may entail directly seeking fees from families at a certain income threshold, or implementing a student loan system. Two examples of which include the UK and the Australian systems.
Reflecting on the situation in the UK, it seems to me that there is the real danger (given a move to individualisation) of manifesting new invisible inequalities on certain members classed as middle income households. For example, those classed as upper-middle income, but who possess little discretionary income, may become unfairly burdened by the move. We must also reflect on how the 'idea' or 'notion' of 'free third level education' affects teenagers envisioning further education? In otherwards, there is the suspicion that abolition of fees has eased associated psychological barriers, primarily entailing the pressure to commit to a career path and the financial burden attached. Thus, there is for some, a psychological barrier to entering third-level education attached to the individualisation of university funding. Little to no research exists which attempts to quantify and understand how abolition of fees affects entry levels, such insights should be welcomed prior to a move to fees.
We must also question the real benefit and added costs involved in implementing 'reform'. Colm Harmon, UCD professor of economics and director of the UCD Geary Research Institute, calculates at best raising 100 million from high earners paying fees. A real danger too is that, being a political move; the annual 2bn euro education budget may seriously diminish as a result, with perhaps no transparency in its reallocation. The government currently pays third level fees to the tune of 250 million. Thus, what guarantees do we have with regard to how savings made from the abolition of government funded fees are reallocated? Should we expect increased funding for primary/secondary level? In otherwards, emphasising the long term, will this money remain ring-fensed in education? The reality is that government coffers are being heavily squeezed with ongoing pressure for cuts and savings in all government departments as a result of the well acknowledged economic downturn. O'Keefe (who in some ways instigated a rather brilliant but hard-ball political move) may be rightly focusing national attention on education funding, but we must acknowledge that many government departments currently face funding pressures and shortfalls.
In sum, the debate concerning education needs to be orientated around government finances overall. Thus, if we wish to draw money from wealthier individuals and households in view of financial pressures coming from various government departments (not just education), should we not debate increasing the higher 41% tax band? increasing corporation taxes? Or considering 'individualisation' measures in the form of 'stealth taxes'? Should focus and emphasis not lie instead on stimulating the economy and developing strategies to ensure sound long term fundamentals and a desirable revenue stream? (thus, lowering instead of increasing taxes might be the appropriate policy) Would such measures better benefit education funding and other government funding requirements in the long run? Overall, it seems pertinent to question what are the alternatives to reintroducing fees, which can serve to avoid the political unpleasantaries for all involved?
Importantly, by instigating this debate, discussion on related issues has followed; such that granting better third level access to lower income and disadvantaged groups requires increased emphasis and funding for primary and secondary level education. Scrutiny of the efficency and operations of third level institutions has also resulted from ongoing dialogue.
Finally, the issue is not just one of pragmatics (which some would wish you to believe ) in terms of quantifiable access levels to education and reducing inequality. It is also one of 'percieved' and 'real'; flexibility, choice and freedom in ones education. It is also about theunquantifiable benefits to Irish society as a whole. O'Keefe rightly instigated a debate. Lets just hope such a debate is thourough, insightful and fruitful!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Food supply, energy and policy
Peter Baker over at the BBC's 'green'room, makes the argument that the sheer 'complexity' of global supply chains conflated with political policies, means we lose sight of the real value of food, it's calorific 'energy' content, as opposed its total energy cost of production, transporting, warehousing, storage and retailing etc. This point (he emphasises), is particularly relevant to 'how informed', trade policies are towards developing nations.
Examples he cites are that it takes 4 times the energy to produce a tomato in the US compared to its energy value. Or that the US dollar paid per amount of Nicaraguan coffee; does not compensate the energy cost of production and processing. Thus nicaraguans are 'subsidising the coffee' for export.
He concluded by emphasising the merits of locally produced and consumed foods, while lamenting the lack of data and metrics which make apparent the situation at present:
''We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand. ' (Baker, 2008)
From my own research, I certainly agree with most of Peter's article, but his utilising of 'the second law of thermodynamics' unnecessarily confuses rather than crystallises his main points. The price consumers pay for food certainly reflects the added cost of production, storage, packaging, advertising, retailing etc (many of these entailing white collar 'informational' jobs). We can talk about the added energy all this brings, but is this fruitful? These are all jobs after all, eliminating the middle men has its consequences. Principly, let's not get overly distracted from the core issues; that of producers being given a 'fair' price for their goods, ensuring policies don't favour and subsidise mono-culture (and the associated 'chemical' and 'fertilising' industries), and ensuring bio-diversification by supporting small-scale farming industries and organic practices. Bakers emphasis on the true 'energy' costs of agriculture may well throw a negative light on monoculture, whilst raising awareness about the purity and nutritional value of food may favour organic. These are of course useful in informing policy though they may delay action. My point is that focusing on key policy principles may remedy many of the associated problems of 'energy' costs to which Baker refers. Getting bound up in the energy costs of food-supply can then be avoided.
The reality is that the value of food doesn't lie in its calories alone; it lies in the proportion of nutrients, minerals and compounds, its emotional value, its scarcity value, its shelf-life, its versatility, flexibility and utility in transport, storage, preparation and processing. Thus, the situation is unfathomably complex and it is doubtful that data or metrics could ever satisfactorily illuminate all that is involved (as Baker seems to suggest). Having more information about foods may not be better information. Instead, past experience, sound theory, principle and practice can aid in developing sound normative strategies for influencing the industry. Below I try to elucidate some of the contingencies absent from Bakers article:
The fact remains that current globalised agri-industry's (fertilisation and its synthesis, production, processing, warehousing, transport, retail etc) are inexobably bound up with fossil fuels. Understanding and decoupling this relationship is of key concern. Today, the cost per barrel currently hovers around $115. Projections on future price all point upwards(because of increased demand, peak oil etc.). Fossil fuels embody energy condensed over thousands of years and the price nowhere near reflects this embodied energy. Our way of life, our food supply, is being subsidised by 'ghost acreage' (past energy accumulations) which constantly diminish and become more cost prohibitive to extract (albeit rising prices have thus far opened up the viability of further extractions and alternative energy industries). We must acknowledge steps and adaptations to increasing energy prices: Options available for coping include; innovations and efficency gains in industry and associated relocalising and diversifying of food markets etc, switching to renewables as well as steps such as switching to organic farming practices. Realisically though, steps taken thus far fail to account for an ever rising global population and a concurrant appetite for western standards of living. Fossil fuels have allowed humanity to overshoot the planets carrying capacity and it remains unknown to what degree humanity can adapt.
With such pressures on global food supply, it is my view that we must throw caution and a critical eye to the prevalence and advocation of mono-culture (powered by a fossil fuel economy) and the push for genetically modified crops as a solution. Monoculture; the large scale 'rationalisation of food supply'; means farmers and consumers increasingly rely on key food stuffs and are thus sensitive (particularly in developing countries) to price fluctuations and shortages as a result of weather systems, commodity/future markets and energy prices etc. Monoculture quells biodiversity with associated ramifications. Monculture overly relies on artificial chemicals and fertilisation with uncalculatable hidden and externalised costs to the sanctity of the land, to biodiversity and to humans. Large scale food-production leaves populations susceptible to large scale contamination and disruption of food supply. Globalised food markets, commodity and future trading leave consumers and producers contingent to ever fluctuating global prices.
Similarly, genetically modified foods require extreme caution and temporal-restraint in their trial and implementation. We simply do not know the short-term and long-term effect on the bio-sphere and the impact on the 'web of life'. For example, GM crops 'designed' to grow 'bigger, 'faster' and more plentiful may do so at the expense of the integrity of the soil, plants don't grow in a vacuum!! In addition, we have already seen how corporations attempt to eliminate seeding of plants to leave farmers reliant on companies. There are additional concerns of the cross-contamination of GM crops into non-GM farms with inevitable patent issues and the farm->corporation reliance that ensues. Bio-diversification not monoculture brings resilience and sustainability of food supply. We simply must not be pushed by vested interests or those with incomplete knowledge, into believing Monoculture and GM crops are a large part of the solution to ensuring food supply. Policies which unnessicarily favour mono-culture and GM crops should be deeply questioned.
We must throw (what seems) positive light on the agri industry in terms of the manifold efficiency increases from reformed agricultural practices and new cultivated seed varieties. Innovation in agri-technology and practices as well as efficiencies in logistics, transport, warehousing and distribution of foodstuffs; have culminated in driving down prices and offsetting burdening oil prices. Related to this, is the move to renewable solar, wind and wave technology ( as well as nuclear); meaning we can make srides in replacing our dependance for fossil fuels which additionally helps curbs further increases in energy prices. At issue however, is that the present 'fossil fuelled' economy effectively subsidises the cost of researching and producing these renewables. Research illuminating the connection between fossil fuels and renewables is needed!
Paramount to all of this is 'truth' and 'price' in the market. To what degree does 'price' (undistorted by politics) in the market drive innovation and change in over food supply, farming practices and consumption? Does spiraling food prices drive diversity in food supply? Will increasing food prices drive change in lifestyles, behaviours and outlooks? For example; a rekindling of farm alotments in towns and cities, a curbing of excess food consumption, refocusing attention on the quality and sourcing of food etc. In otherwards, are we already moving to a situation where the 'truer' price of food (unsubsidised by cheap oil and regulated trade) is better reflected? The entanglement with food 'production' and energy prices has always existed in terms of fertilisation, machinery fuel costs etc. The entanglement though, look set to further increase with the advent of bio-fuels and energy price rises. Not only has farming land giving way to bio-fuel crops such as rape seed, palm oil etc. but crops such as wheat, corn and suger cane can now either be harvested for food or fuel. We must also emphasise how rising energy costs affects farming which relies on regular pesticide use, fertilisation and harvesting. This leads to the difficult question; how will increasing energy prices affect food production and food prices? Overall, to what degree will 'price' result in a restructuring of the market towards organic farming practices, bio-diversifiation and relocalisation of food supply? These are all questions which lack clear knowledge to date! I suppose though that rising prices favour a trend.
As already mentioned, 'efficiencies' and reform in the argi-sectors have made substantial differences to the 'cost' of food and the structure of the market. It is my belief that further efficiency gains and changes in practices will further restructure the industry. Information communication technologies (ICT's) have the potential to support and enhance small scale farming practices (including organic) in out-competing large scale mono-culture leading to sustainability of food supply and environment. A win-win, if you will!! Farmers with access to knowledge and assisted in connecting and communicating with other local farmers, producers and consumers; can enhanse bio-diversification and relocalisation of food supply. Small farmers who have easy access to up-to-date relevant information on market prices, long-range weather and product demand, as well as having access to knowledge repositories on relevant farming techniques, suitable crop varieties and the latest research; can flourish. ICT's importantly have the potential for farmers to better co-ordinate and communicate with local suppliers, retailers and consumers. 'Carrot' and 'Stick' policies which support small-scale food producers and artisans are needed in this regard.
As Baker argues, it may no longer make sense to simultaneously import and export high energy embodied food. I contend; policies which support biodiversification and small-scale farming are warranted, efficencies and reform in the agri-sector are ongoing and finally 'consumers', 'the market' and 'price'; invariably may help address disparities in 'energy' flows as they arrise.
For the full BBC article see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7553958.stm
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Examples he cites are that it takes 4 times the energy to produce a tomato in the US compared to its energy value. Or that the US dollar paid per amount of Nicaraguan coffee; does not compensate the energy cost of production and processing. Thus nicaraguans are 'subsidising the coffee' for export.
He concluded by emphasising the merits of locally produced and consumed foods, while lamenting the lack of data and metrics which make apparent the situation at present:
''We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand. ' (Baker, 2008)
From my own research, I certainly agree with most of Peter's article, but his utilising of 'the second law of thermodynamics' unnecessarily confuses rather than crystallises his main points. The price consumers pay for food certainly reflects the added cost of production, storage, packaging, advertising, retailing etc (many of these entailing white collar 'informational' jobs). We can talk about the added energy all this brings, but is this fruitful? These are all jobs after all, eliminating the middle men has its consequences. Principly, let's not get overly distracted from the core issues; that of producers being given a 'fair' price for their goods, ensuring policies don't favour and subsidise mono-culture (and the associated 'chemical' and 'fertilising' industries), and ensuring bio-diversification by supporting small-scale farming industries and organic practices. Bakers emphasis on the true 'energy' costs of agriculture may well throw a negative light on monoculture, whilst raising awareness about the purity and nutritional value of food may favour organic. These are of course useful in informing policy though they may delay action. My point is that focusing on key policy principles may remedy many of the associated problems of 'energy' costs to which Baker refers. Getting bound up in the energy costs of food-supply can then be avoided.
The reality is that the value of food doesn't lie in its calories alone; it lies in the proportion of nutrients, minerals and compounds, its emotional value, its scarcity value, its shelf-life, its versatility, flexibility and utility in transport, storage, preparation and processing. Thus, the situation is unfathomably complex and it is doubtful that data or metrics could ever satisfactorily illuminate all that is involved (as Baker seems to suggest). Having more information about foods may not be better information. Instead, past experience, sound theory, principle and practice can aid in developing sound normative strategies for influencing the industry. Below I try to elucidate some of the contingencies absent from Bakers article:
The fact remains that current globalised agri-industry's (fertilisation and its synthesis, production, processing, warehousing, transport, retail etc) are inexobably bound up with fossil fuels. Understanding and decoupling this relationship is of key concern. Today, the cost per barrel currently hovers around $115. Projections on future price all point upwards(because of increased demand, peak oil etc.). Fossil fuels embody energy condensed over thousands of years and the price nowhere near reflects this embodied energy. Our way of life, our food supply, is being subsidised by 'ghost acreage' (past energy accumulations) which constantly diminish and become more cost prohibitive to extract (albeit rising prices have thus far opened up the viability of further extractions and alternative energy industries). We must acknowledge steps and adaptations to increasing energy prices: Options available for coping include; innovations and efficency gains in industry and associated relocalising and diversifying of food markets etc, switching to renewables as well as steps such as switching to organic farming practices. Realisically though, steps taken thus far fail to account for an ever rising global population and a concurrant appetite for western standards of living. Fossil fuels have allowed humanity to overshoot the planets carrying capacity and it remains unknown to what degree humanity can adapt.
With such pressures on global food supply, it is my view that we must throw caution and a critical eye to the prevalence and advocation of mono-culture (powered by a fossil fuel economy) and the push for genetically modified crops as a solution. Monoculture; the large scale 'rationalisation of food supply'; means farmers and consumers increasingly rely on key food stuffs and are thus sensitive (particularly in developing countries) to price fluctuations and shortages as a result of weather systems, commodity/future markets and energy prices etc. Monoculture quells biodiversity with associated ramifications. Monculture overly relies on artificial chemicals and fertilisation with uncalculatable hidden and externalised costs to the sanctity of the land, to biodiversity and to humans. Large scale food-production leaves populations susceptible to large scale contamination and disruption of food supply. Globalised food markets, commodity and future trading leave consumers and producers contingent to ever fluctuating global prices.
Similarly, genetically modified foods require extreme caution and temporal-restraint in their trial and implementation. We simply do not know the short-term and long-term effect on the bio-sphere and the impact on the 'web of life'. For example, GM crops 'designed' to grow 'bigger, 'faster' and more plentiful may do so at the expense of the integrity of the soil, plants don't grow in a vacuum!! In addition, we have already seen how corporations attempt to eliminate seeding of plants to leave farmers reliant on companies. There are additional concerns of the cross-contamination of GM crops into non-GM farms with inevitable patent issues and the farm->corporation reliance that ensues. Bio-diversification not monoculture brings resilience and sustainability of food supply. We simply must not be pushed by vested interests or those with incomplete knowledge, into believing Monoculture and GM crops are a large part of the solution to ensuring food supply. Policies which unnessicarily favour mono-culture and GM crops should be deeply questioned.
We must throw (what seems) positive light on the agri industry in terms of the manifold efficiency increases from reformed agricultural practices and new cultivated seed varieties. Innovation in agri-technology and practices as well as efficiencies in logistics, transport, warehousing and distribution of foodstuffs; have culminated in driving down prices and offsetting burdening oil prices. Related to this, is the move to renewable solar, wind and wave technology ( as well as nuclear); meaning we can make srides in replacing our dependance for fossil fuels which additionally helps curbs further increases in energy prices. At issue however, is that the present 'fossil fuelled' economy effectively subsidises the cost of researching and producing these renewables. Research illuminating the connection between fossil fuels and renewables is needed!
Paramount to all of this is 'truth' and 'price' in the market. To what degree does 'price' (undistorted by politics) in the market drive innovation and change in over food supply, farming practices and consumption? Does spiraling food prices drive diversity in food supply? Will increasing food prices drive change in lifestyles, behaviours and outlooks? For example; a rekindling of farm alotments in towns and cities, a curbing of excess food consumption, refocusing attention on the quality and sourcing of food etc. In otherwards, are we already moving to a situation where the 'truer' price of food (unsubsidised by cheap oil and regulated trade) is better reflected? The entanglement with food 'production' and energy prices has always existed in terms of fertilisation, machinery fuel costs etc. The entanglement though, look set to further increase with the advent of bio-fuels and energy price rises. Not only has farming land giving way to bio-fuel crops such as rape seed, palm oil etc. but crops such as wheat, corn and suger cane can now either be harvested for food or fuel. We must also emphasise how rising energy costs affects farming which relies on regular pesticide use, fertilisation and harvesting. This leads to the difficult question; how will increasing energy prices affect food production and food prices? Overall, to what degree will 'price' result in a restructuring of the market towards organic farming practices, bio-diversifiation and relocalisation of food supply? These are all questions which lack clear knowledge to date! I suppose though that rising prices favour a trend.
As already mentioned, 'efficiencies' and reform in the argi-sectors have made substantial differences to the 'cost' of food and the structure of the market. It is my belief that further efficiency gains and changes in practices will further restructure the industry. Information communication technologies (ICT's) have the potential to support and enhance small scale farming practices (including organic) in out-competing large scale mono-culture leading to sustainability of food supply and environment. A win-win, if you will!! Farmers with access to knowledge and assisted in connecting and communicating with other local farmers, producers and consumers; can enhanse bio-diversification and relocalisation of food supply. Small farmers who have easy access to up-to-date relevant information on market prices, long-range weather and product demand, as well as having access to knowledge repositories on relevant farming techniques, suitable crop varieties and the latest research; can flourish. ICT's importantly have the potential for farmers to better co-ordinate and communicate with local suppliers, retailers and consumers. 'Carrot' and 'Stick' policies which support small-scale food producers and artisans are needed in this regard.
As Baker argues, it may no longer make sense to simultaneously import and export high energy embodied food. I contend; policies which support biodiversification and small-scale farming are warranted, efficencies and reform in the agri-sector are ongoing and finally 'consumers', 'the market' and 'price'; invariably may help address disparities in 'energy' flows as they arrise.
For the full BBC article see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7553958.stm
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
New research finds 'Soy' may halve sperm count, what are the possible implications?
New research published finds that even modest regular Soy consumption may half male sperm count. However, empirical evidence has yet to show any link between soy consumption and fertility rates. Thus, there has yet to be shown any negative impact on population as a result of widespread soy consumption. Specifically, research needs to be done into whether Asian men who eat significantly more soy based products are affected with higher infertility rates and whether population levels are affected.
This could become pivotal scientific research: firstly, because with widepread media coverage, it may harm the soy industry; curbing demand for soy and soy based products(though soy only reduces sperm count and does't cause infertility).
Secondly and more significantly, imagine the possibilities and implications of such research: For example, policies impacting developing countries could be influenced by such lines of research. Stabilising world population through favouring the production and distribution of soy products (or food stuffs with similar properties) could be envisioned by such policy makers for underdeveloped or developing countries. Are there other foods which adversely affect sperm count? Could such foods ethically be justified and promoted in developing countries where population growth is a problem? In otherwords, here is a clear example of research with unforeseen and possibly unenvisaged consequences. Can policy makers with an agenda remain uninfluenced when such knowledge comes their way? We are it seems, living in an increasingly complex and contingent 21st century, where the expanding 'production' of knowledge 'claims' requires evermore vigilance and cautiousness.
For a detailed news article, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
This could become pivotal scientific research: firstly, because with widepread media coverage, it may harm the soy industry; curbing demand for soy and soy based products(though soy only reduces sperm count and does't cause infertility).
Secondly and more significantly, imagine the possibilities and implications of such research: For example, policies impacting developing countries could be influenced by such lines of research. Stabilising world population through favouring the production and distribution of soy products (or food stuffs with similar properties) could be envisioned by such policy makers for underdeveloped or developing countries. Are there other foods which adversely affect sperm count? Could such foods ethically be justified and promoted in developing countries where population growth is a problem? In otherwords, here is a clear example of research with unforeseen and possibly unenvisaged consequences. Can policy makers with an agenda remain uninfluenced when such knowledge comes their way? We are it seems, living in an increasingly complex and contingent 21st century, where the expanding 'production' of knowledge 'claims' requires evermore vigilance and cautiousness.
For a detailed news article, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
