Articles by Grist staff

Growing small houses for the recession age

Taken individually, the economic meltdown and the burst housing bubble are both, to use a technical term, bummers. But together, for certain problem-solving designers, architects, urbanists, and planners, they present an opportunity, especially when meshed with a rising environmental awareness.

Besides building too many houses, we made them too large (not to mention too far away from centers of employment and commerce): they are essentially stick-framed gas-guzzlers. But if advocates have their way, the small house will be the next big thing.

More on the FDA's bumbling role in the peanut-butter salmonella outbreak

As a writer whose beat includes the food-safety system, I sometimes feel like political satirists must have felt in the Bush II era: unable to keep up with the extreme buffoonery of the ruling "elite," always one beat behind reality.

The nationwide peanut-butter salmonella outbreak, caused by a single factory in Georgia run by Peanut Corporation of America, is a case in point. In a previous post, I tried to come to grips with it. The New York Times had revealed that Georgia officials, working on behalf of the FDA, had repeatedly cited the company for dire sanitary conditions -- and let it continue operating. I was stunned that a company with such a vast range and reach into the Americans' grocery bags would be allowed to continue after repeatedly demonstrating reckless practices.

Now the FDA reveals during 2007 and 2008, the company found salmonella in its own products through in-house testing no fewer than 12 times -- and sent the paste out anyway.

A lot of folks are seeing this episode as a case of corporate malfeasance. It is that, to be sure.

But I want to look back to those Georgia health officials, working on behalf of the FDA, who were inspecting the plant in '07 and '08, diligently recording an epic series of sanitary misdeeds. What was done with their reports? Now we know that the company was actively testing the peanut butter for pathogens. Was the FDA? If not -- given the mounting evidence of reckless practices -- why not?

For those who can stomach it, here is the FDA's official report [PDF] of what it found at the plant starting Jan. 9, when it finally began to move to close the plant -- after hundreds had gotten sick (mainly children) and several had died. Some highlights below the fold.

USDA chief made $100k from an Iowa power company

From an AP report:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's income included $300,000 from the law and lobbying firm Dorsey and Whitney in Des Moines, Iowa; $100,000 consulting for MidAmerican Energy; $63,000 from Iowa State University; and $55,000 from other sources, including honoraria, a fellowship, a director's fee and consulting. In addition, he and his wife have $500,000 to $1 million in farmland that yielded $15,000 to $50,000 in rent, plus $7,552 from a U.S. Agriculture Department Conservation Reserve Program.

I've mentioned before that Vilsack recently stepped down from a partner role at Dorsey & Whitney, a corporate law firm that has represented Cargill, ConAgra, and other agribiz giants.

Some folks want to make a big deal about Vilsack making $7,552 from the Conservation Reserve Program. Not me. I'd rather see him idle land under CRP than drench it with agrichemicals to grow industrial corn.

The $63,000 from Iowa State University must be a reference to his role at that institution's Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, where until recently he sat on the advisory board with representatives of Monsanto, Dupont's Pioneer Hi-Bred, and the World Bank. But I already knew about that.

What gets me is the $100K in consulting for MidAmerican Energy. MidAmerican Energy Holdings describes itself like this:

Industrially grown produce shows long-term nutritional decline

Talk to old-timers, and they'll often tell you that the tomatoes you find in supermarket produce sections don't taste anything like the ones they had in their childhoods in the '30s and '40s.

Turns out, they're probably not as nutritious, either.

In an article [PDF] published in the February 2009 issue of the HortScience Review, University of Texas researcher Donald R. Davis compiles evidence that points to declines in nutrition in vegetables and (to a lesser extent) fruits over the past few decades.

For example:

[T]hree recent studies of historical food composition data found apparent median declines of 5% to 40% or more in some minerals in groups of vegetables and perhaps fruits; one study also evaluated vitamins and protein with similar results.

He points to another study in which researchers planted low- and high-yielding varieties of broccoli and grain side-by-side. The high-yielding varieties showed less protein and minerals.

The principle seems to be that when plants are nudged to produce as much as possible -- whether through lots of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides or through selective breeding -- they deliver fewer nutrients. It evidently isn't just the flavor that's become diluted in those bland supermarket tomatoes.

This is a fascinating insight. We should reflect that for at least 50 years, the best-funded agricultural researchers are the ones work to maximize yield -- that is, gross output per acre. Even now, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is expending hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to increase yields in Africa.

Rather than isolate and fetishize yield, perhaps ag researchers should learn to take a whole-systems approach: study how communities can develop robust food systems that build healthy soil and produce nutritious food.

(It should also be noted that last year the Organic Center compiled peer-reviewed studies finding that organically grown produce tends to deliver significantly higher nutrient levels than conventional.)