Showing posts with label Food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food. Show all posts

2/25/2013

Lies, Damned Lies, And Banks: Deutsche Bank Caught Again


Πηγή: Tetosterone Pit
Feb 24 2013

Deutsche Bank, long coddled by the German government, is mired in a swamp of costly “matters,” such as the Libor rate-rigging scandal or the carbon-trading tax-fraud scandal that broke with a televised raid by 500 police officers on its headquarters. It’s writing down assets and setting up reserves to settle these allegations.

Co-CEO Jürgen Fitschen insinuated more gloom was to come. The bank, he said, would “be confronted with more developments in these and other matters”. And now, one of these other matters seeped to the surface: the bank had known for years about the impact of commodities speculation on food prices and the havoc it wreaked on people in poor countries. And it had lied to the German Parliament about it.

On June 27, 2012, David Folkerts-Landau, head of Deutsche Bank’s DB Research,educated a parliamentary commission about the dire consequences of food price inflation—and what didn’t cause it.

“In developing countries where often up to 90% of the income must be spent on food,” he said, “price increases of wheat, corn, and soybeans in the years 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 had devastating consequences.” Volatility made it worse. “Even spikes of only a few months are a serious threat to food security.”

While the volume of options and derivatives in agricultural markets had been ballooning in recent years, “primarily in search of higher yields,” he said, there was “hardly any sound empirical evidence” for the assertion that any of it “led to price increases or higher volatility.”

He cited the big players. The US Commodity and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) had received “no reliable economic analysis” that showed that excessive speculation influenced the markets. US Department of Agriculture came to the same conclusion in 2009. And the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) pointed out as early as 2007 that there was “no convincing causal relationship” between speculation and price increases. That the BIS would say that makes sense: it groups together 58 central banks, including the most prodigious money printers. On its board: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, NY Fed President William Dudley, ECB President Mario Draghi, etc. etc.

Thus inspired, Folkerts-Landau concluded that “commodity prices are primarily determined by fundamental demand and supply factors,” not speculation.

Alas, foodwatch, an independent non-profit, has obtained four studies by DB Research and two studies by German insurance and finance conglomerate Allianz that showed that both companies had known for years that commodity speculation—one of their major business activities—drove up food prices.

In September, 2009, a DB Research study pointed out: “Speculation has also contributed to price increases.”

A year later, DB Research found that speculation could be “distorting the normal functioning of the market,” which “can have grave consequences for farmers and consumers and is in principle unacceptable.” It argued that it was important for the proper “functioning of the food chain” that commodity derivatives serve their original purpose of price discovery and hedging against volatility. And it suggested that more regulation of derivatives would “be helpful in avoiding excesses.”

In January, 2011, DB Research—shocked that high food prices had at least in part triggered social unrest in a number of countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa—admitted that “in some instances speculation might have added to the price movement.”

Two months later, DB Research acknowledged that in developing countries where “consumers spend over 50% of their income on food,” price increases can be devastating and “hollow out the right to food.” While there was no consensus on the role of derivatives, the study nevertheless fingered speculation: “When speculation drives prices to a level that is no longer consistent with fundamental data, this can have serious consequences for farmers and consumers.”

Hence another scandal: large banks have known for years that commodities speculation and related products that they sold to their clients caused immense damage to people in developing countries and hurt people even in rich countries. foodwatch points out that even short price spikes can cause permanent damage to already mal-nourished children—and can lead to death. Yet banks “deceive the public, even lie to Parliament, to continue without scruples to profit at the expense of those who are starving.”

But the banks are just a link in the chain. Central banks have cranked up their printing presses and flooded the world with speculative capital, causing asset bubbles left and right. Their stated policy goal is to cause inflation, but when food-price spikes wreak havoc around the world, it’s of course someone else’s fault.

Deutsche Bank is flailing to get this under control. There have already been noisy demands that it remove those financial products from the markets that bet on price changes of agricultural commodities. But the bank is the bedrock of the German economy, and Germany must soldier on. All hopes rest on it: its vibrant economy teeming with globalized, ultra-competitive, export-focused companies is supposed to drag France and other Eurozone countries out of their economic morass. But then, there’s an ugly reality.



8/24/2012

Americans toss out as much as 40% of their food, study says

Americans waste up to 40% of their food, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Πηγή: Los Angeles Times
By Tiffany Hsu
August 21 2012

Americans are throwing out nearly every other bite of food, wasting up to 40% of the country’s supply each year – a mass of uneaten provisions worth $165 billion, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

An average family of four squanders $2,275 in food each year, or 20 pounds per person per month, according to the nonprofit and nonpartisan environmental advocacy group.

Food waste is the largest single portion of solid waste cramming American landfills. Since the 1970s, the amount of uneaten fare that is dumped has jumped 50%. The average American trashes 10 times as much food as a consumer in Southeast Asia, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Such profligacy is especially unwarranted in a time of record drought, high food prices expected to get higher and families unable to afford food, according to the council. Efforts are already in place in Europe to cut back on food waste.

But American consumers are used to seeing pyramids of fresh produce in their local markets and grocery stores, which results in $15 billion annually in unsold fruits and vegetables, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. In restaurants and home kitchens, massive portions often end up partly in the trash.

Half of American soil and many other key resources are used for agriculture – the Natural Resources Defense Council says wasted food eats up a quarter of all freshwater consumed in the U.S. along with 4% of the oil while producing 23% of the methane emissions.

In its report, the council urges the government to set a target for food-waste reduction. Companies should look for alternatives in their supply chain, such as making so-called baby carrots out of carrots too bent to be sold whole at the retail level.

The study also asks Americans to learn when food goes bad and to become less averse to buying scarred or otherwise imperfect produce. The average consumer should also save and eat leftovers, researchers said.


9/13/2011

EU food labelling law spotlights strength of industry lobbying


Πηγή: EUobserver
By HONOR MAHONY
13 Sept. 2011


Next month one of the most ferociously contested EU laws in Brussels’ history is expected to be given the final nod by member states.

Lobbying on food label regulation was of a "comparable level" to the infamous 2007 REACH law regulating chemicals (Wikipedia.org)

The quest to change food labelling rules so that consumers can easily tell whether a product is healthy provoked a bitter three-year battle between food companies, health campaigners and legislators.

The resulting law, agreed by the European Parliament in July, is largely seen as a win for industry which pulled out all the stops in its bid to shape the legislation.

Among those at the heart of the lobbying maelstrom was Glenis Willmott.

The British Socialist MEP proposed a traffic-light labelling system that would have seen ingredients ranked red, amber or green for sugar, fat or salt content – a system strongly opposed by industry who argued it would discriminate against foods such as olive oil, healthy but high in fat.

"In all my time as an MEP I have never received so many emails, letters, faxes and phone calls requesting meetings, inviting me to breakfasts, lunches and dinners, round table discussions, seminars and conferences all organised and paid for by food and drink industry representatives, and all opposing my proposals for greater transparency and honesty in food labelling," Willmott told this website.

She said it is "right" that the views of industry affected by new legislation be heard but it is "wrong that the sheer power and wealth of these companies (…) should be allowed to influence policy-making to such an extreme that those with vested interests are almost writing the legislation."

Carl Schlyter, a Green MEP from Sweden, said in his experience the lobbying was of a "comparable level" to around the infamous 2007 REACH law regulating chemicals, which occupies a special place in the annals of Brussels lobbying history.

The actual tactics were perceived as new and more aggressive too.

"Aside from the usual emails and telephone calls, they [the lobbyists] were coming directly to the door and knocking, without an appointment," said one parliament source.

In one of the most notorious incidents associated with the law’s passing, the Alliance for Food Transparency, a front for food colouring companies, managed to distribute leaflets in the environment committee ahead of a vote on the issue.

"It was really underhand. The name sounded like it was an NGO and because it was on the desks it also looked like one of the official documents handed out to committees. You had to read it really carefully to see what it really was," said the source.

Socialist MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt called the approach "dark and dirty".

With Willmott’s traffic light proposal already rejected in first reading in June 2010, the final draft of the laws says labels must contain the energy content as well as the amount of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt in a food product. And the information must be expressed per 100g or 100ml.

Potential allergy-inducing ingredients, such as peanuts, as well as nano-ingredients, will also have to be listed while the list of foods for which the country of origin has to be stated has been extended.

But in what is seen as another victory for industry, the information does not have to be displayed on the front of the package and nor is the font size as big as consumer advocates – who point to the rising obesity levels in Europe - wanted.

Matthias Wolfschmidt, campaign director, at Foodwatch, a consumer focussed lobby group based in Berlin, says an illustrative example of the power of the industry lobby was a press release sent out by the German food industry group, BBL, directly after the June 2010 vote shooting down the traffic light system.

The statement praised the parliament for rejecting the traffic light system but said obliging companies to state where the ingredients of processed food came from - as suggested by MEPs at the time - was going too far. An impact assessment would have to be carried out first, said the BBL statement.

"And that is exactly what then was finally agreed," said Wolfschmidt.

For its part, food industry representatives said they would "rather look forward than back."

"We are concentrating on the implementation of the law and the application of it," said Margaret Kelly of FoodDrinkEurope, an industry pressure group, declining to answer questions on the nature of the lobbying around the law.

Schlyter believes the antics surrounding the law only confirms the need for stricter rules governing relations between parliament’s 736 MEPs and the thousands of lobbyists in Brussels.

One of his suggestions is that a lobbyist should be obliged to send a copy of every email they send to an MEP to a public register as well making it easier for outsiders to see where pressure has been brought to bear.

"There is a systematic problem with lobbying in that it is very one-sided. Economic resources buy influence. NGOs and small businesses have no influence," he said.


9/04/2011

European Union is conducting $4.3 million study on nutritional value of eating insects

Would you like a bowl of scorpion soup? How about a mixed locust salad with bee crème brûlée for dessert?


Πηγή: Impact Lab
September 4th, 2011


It may not sound like the most appetizing of prospects but the European Union thinks all these could soon be on the menu.

Experts in Brussels believe insects and other creepy crawlies could be a vital source of nutrition which will not only solve food shortages but also help save the environment.

They have launched a three million euro (£2.65 million) project to promote the eating of insects while also asking national watchdogs like the UK’s Food Standards Agency to investigate the issue.

Proponents of entomophagy – insect eating – argue that bugs are a low-cholesterol, low-fat protein foodsource.

According to one study, small grasshoppers offer 20 per cent protein and just six per cent fat, to lean ground beef’s 24 per cent protein and 18 per cent fat.

Crickets are also said to be high in calcium, termites rich in iron, and a helping of giant silkworm moth larvae apparently provides all the daily copper and riboflavin requirements. There are even claims that bees boost the libido.

Insects emit less greenhouse gases than cattle and require less feed, supposedly making them environmentally-friendly. And supporters claim they could help feed the world, because they are so abundant they provide at least 200kg of biomass for every human.

The European Commission is offering the money to the research institute with the best proposal for investigating “Insects as novel sources of proteins”.

It has asked for research into quality and safety, including potential allergic reactions and the precise sort of proteins consumed.

Professor Marcel Dicke, leading a team at Wageningen University, in the Netherlands, which is applying for the research grant, said: “By 2020, you will be buying insects in supermarkets. We will be amazed that in 2011 people didn’t think it was going to happen.

“We have already seen the introduction of eggplants, sushi, things people never ate here. I think it will start with ground-up insects in sauces and burgers. Grinding them up will make them look more palatable.”

He said bugs were biologically similar to shellfish and that flying insects should be regarded as “shrimps of the sky”.

“Old sources of protein will be insufficient to feed the growing world population,” he added. “The price of regular meat will soar. The EU must invest in food security.”

However, Stuart Hine, a senior entomologist at the Natural History Museum, said insects still may not solve all problems.

It would be costly to heat a British warehouse full of locusts, and insect diseases can spread rapidly enough to kill a farm’s entire stock in a day.

“Insects are fantastic, but they aren’t the ultimate solution if the world desperately needs food. We would turn to something more efficient – like huge vats of nematode worms.”

He also cautioned that they were best eaten cooked, because of the germs they might contain.

“Surviving on insects when you can’t cook them is one thing; but most cultures who eat insects, cookthem,” he added.

In addition to the research project, the EU is also asking national watchdogs including the UK Foods Standards Agency to investigate current insect-eating habits to decide which, if any, bugs will need safety assessments.

This follows the recent emergence in the UK of a very niche market in edible insects, prompted in part by the television series, I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out Of here! in which contestants eat unpalatable “bushtucker” meals.

Todd Dalton, of Edible, which supplies insects for human consumption to Selfridges and Fortnum & Mason, said the EU interest in the area was unlikely to help.

“The EU is wasting taxpayers’ money. People aren’t suddenly going to start eating insects because the EU is spending money researching. It would be great if they did, but our eating habits won’t change until our stigma about consuming insects is removed.”

Previous attempts to achieve this have failed. In 1885 the Victorian writer Vincent Holt wrote a book suggesting the rural poor try recipes such as woodlouse sauce. It did not catch on.

Those enjoying their Sunday lunch today may also wish to consider that some studies found so many insect fragments slip into food that we eat the equivalent of 500g of bugs per person, per year.