Now that you put it that way

My daughter is in advanced AP high school English, and occasionally she has me read an essay and see if I can what divine what kind of rhetoric the writer is employing. I like to think I'm a little more help to her with that subject than the Algebra problems she has stopped giving me, but that point is debatable.

Here is a link to an effective column on country of origin labeling.
The column is penned by Alan Geubert.

If you could save $1,000 on the purchase of a new car or truck because it did not have a shatterproof windshield and side glass, would you cut the deal?
Of course not; the safety of you and your family is priceless.


TK: Geubert sets up the straw man argument and then answers the question for you. It also poses a contingency; "Unless you desire your family to be sliced by shards of glass, you would obviously not agree to such a deal."

He then follows his point with a equivalency point of view about country of origin labeling.

Yet many ag businesses, farm groups and the federal government put a price on what you eat every day by promoting, lobbying and enacting food standards that do more to ensure their profits and your ignorance than provide public information and public safety.
Sometimes this price is as little as a penny per pound, the virtual nothingness researchers from five Land Grant institutions in 2003 estimated it would cost to implement country of origin labeling (COOL) for all food sold in the U.S.

TK: This guy is good. "Virtual nothingness" is classic. The ad hominem attack on those who resist mandatory country of origin labeling by attacking their greed doesn't acknowledge that consumers will pay the price.

More...

The silver bullet used by agbiz and their livestock allies to cripple COOL was - and remains - money: all complained it is too costly.
For example, a 2003 National Pork Producers Council-funded study concluded full implementation of COOL would cost producers $10.22 a head, drive down domestic consumer pork demand by 7 percent and slice U.S. pork exports 50 percent by 2010.
The study was a worse-case examination but it - and other gloomy reports by USDA and food lobbyists - had best-case results: COOL was shelved for most foods sold here.
But COOL is now moving again for several reasons.
First, the 2002 Farm Bill is undergoing a rewrite, and COOL proponents are again pushing Congress to make the law's implementation a priority in 2007. (So far, however, the anti-COOL giants appear to be winning this second round, too.)
Second, the pet food debacle - tainted Chinese wheat gluten in scores of U.S. dog and cat food brands - has again spotlighted the near powerlessness of under-funded, under-staffed and under-motivated U.S. food inspection agencies to keep tabs on the fast-moving, globalized food biz.

TK: "Globalized food biz" and "agbiz" apparently doesn't include Jack Q. Rancher, eking out a living in eastern Colorado. Well, rhetoric like Geubert is effective, partly because the public believes there is truth in it There is a sense that COOL shouldn't be that hard to deliver, so why all the resistance?

We are waiting for the always reliable device of the double blind question; Do you want mandatory country of origin labeling this year or next? Voluntary country of origin labeling is not a choice.

What's floating in the Hudson river?

Most people would never dream of eating something floating in the Hudson River, especially at the mouth of the river near New York City.

But an interesting project aims to put production of vegetables just a few paddles away from Manhatten. Plenty magazine has a feature on the Science Barge, http://www.plentymag.com/features/2007/05/vegetables_on_board.php.

This floating greenhouse has a windmill, solar power and more to make it pretty self-reliant. It's the first tangible project from the New York Sun Works. From the article:

Tomatoes, cucumbers, and bell peppers sit in a mixture of rice hulls and coconut husks, both agricultural waste products, and extend vertically along strings hung from the greenhouse’s ceiling. Herbs like basil and cilantro grow in crushed bits of rock and clay from stacked bins called “Verti-Gro” towers. Heads of lettuce, planted in rock that has been spun into cotton candy-like fibers, grow in elevated trays that display their roots.

Rainwater collected from the greenhouse’s roof, as well as desalinated river water, irrigates plants, and vents on the side of the greenhouse help reduce the need for electricity.

This is another example of how innovative producers can really go local. New England's Backyard Beauties http://backyardbeauties.com/ is another.

For prospecting greenhouse growers who want to try something else different. See my June 6, 2005, column titled "Science fiction can become reality in produce."

There, I wrote how New Yorkers wouldn't even have to leave the building to get their produce:

Greenhouses could be built on top of skyscrapers, taking advantage of the heat generated by the massive edifices. And 30 or 40 stories up, they would be that much closer to the sun.

Such man-made microclimates could satisfy the demand for ultra-fresh produce within easy reach of millions of hungry consumers. The reliance on California product could be eased, and along with that, the strain on the transportation industry -- and along with that, the demand for fuel.

RFID = "green" at Wal-Mart

Guest blogger Lance Jungmeyer chiming in ...

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. continues to drive the leading edge of technology, and increasingly the giant is putting an environmental spin on its initiatives.

This story in RFID Journal http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/3284/1/1/ shows how the retailer will use RFID technology not only for logistics efficiencies, but as a way to ease its environmental impact on the planet.

"What's good for the planet is good for business," says Wal-Mart's CIO, Rollin Ford, in the article.

"Using RFID to locate errors, get to root causes and achieve accurate forecasts leads to efficiency, which leads to sustainability," Ford continues.

Wal-Mart figures to reduce the number of truck drops by better inventory management, thus reducing exhaust emissions. And there is a consumer angle to having fully stocked stores, too.

"Twenty-four million people shop our stores every day. If only 100,000 extra trips are saved by having stock there (exhaust emissions would drop)," Ford said.

Call Wal-Mart the great Satan if you want, but the retail giant is pushing along some very positive social and environmental changes. The suppliers that can meet this challenge-- and you know that Wal-Mart will require at least an equal effort from suppliers -- will benefit by being market leaders in the burgeoning sustainability movement. And this undoubtedly will make these same suppliers attractive to other retailers as well.

Can they make it?

This is The Packer deadline day - it's moved up a day because of the United show - so there is not enough of me to go around.

I had another all too real example of my shortcomings last night. My wife and I hired a tutor for our high schooler, who has been struggling with Algebra of late. No matter how long I gazed into my daughter's Algebra textbook, I had no answers for her. A concession to my limitations, the tutor was very helpful in her first session last night and was a good investment.

As far as blog updates, I have no one else to turn to. I'll pick up the pace later in the day.

Some issues to consider:

1. Nuances on PBH policy on partnerships
2. More avocado talk
3. Indian mangoes - can they make it? They have to overcome the stigma of irradiation and an 18 day or more boat ride. Yet, the deal offers interesting varieties and new passion. Here is a link to a New York Times story on Indian mangoes.
4. Food safety - will the news cycle ever end?