News What are the hidden truths about the food industry?

[CaptainQuasar]

I don't think that the continuous rise in world food prices is a problem in and of itself, that's just inflation.

But what seems to me a significant problem is the http://www.energybulletin.net/33164.html" . Phosphate is second behind nitrates as essential to modern chemical-mediated agriculture. But whereas nitrates can be manufactured out of the atmosphere phosphate has to be mined. And the geological origins of these phosphate deposits is frequently organic, like bat guano deposits at the bottom of caves or fossilized remains of sea life, which means that we can't find more by simply digging deeper as is possible with mineral deposits of inorganic origin.

The problem is that many of the sources of mined phosphates have http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nauru--the-little-island-that-cant/2007/12/29/1198778769277.html" and we aren't finding new ones. Without phosphates the crop yields on most of the farmlands of greatest productivity in the world would be significantly affected and that could cause a real impact on the worldwide food supply. It probably wouldn't be totally depleted for many decades but I don't want to be eating soylent green when I'm in a nursing home nor do I want to disappear from the nursing home some night and become soylent green. As the first link points out the point at which this would start to become a problem is whenever we pass peak phosphate production, not when we're nearing depletion.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't think that the continuous rise in world food prices is a problem in and of itself, that's just inflation.

But what seems to me a significant problem is the http://www.energybulletin.net/33164.html" .

No such thing as "petrochemical sources of phosphorous". A comparison is being made between peak oil and peak phosphorous which is nonsensical.

Phosphate is second behind nitrates as essential to modern chemical-mediated agriculture. But whereas nitrates can be manufactured out of the atmosphere phosphate has to be mined. And the geological origins of these phosphate deposits is frequently organic, like bat guano deposits at the bottom of caves or fossilized remains of sea life, which means that we can't find more by simply digging deeper as is possible with mineral deposits of inorganic origin.

A vast majority of phosphate produced in the world is mined in the form of phosphate rock. It does not come from bat quano for the most part but from weathered igneous rock. The supplies are quite vast.

The problem is that many of the sources of mined phosphates have http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nauru--the-little-island-that-cant/2007/12/29/1198778769277.html", for example.

Without phosphates the crop yields on most of the farmlands of greatest productivity in the world would be significantly affected and that could cause a real impact on the worldwide food supply. It probably wouldn't be totally depleted for many decades but I don't want to be eating soylent green when I'm in a nursing home nor do I want to disappear from the nursing home some night and become soylent green. As the first link points out the point at which this would start to become a problem is whenever we pass peak phosphate production, not when we're nearing depletion.

Economic pressures are much more of a factor than supply is. The island of Nauru has always been a pipsqueak player in the phosphate market and its phosphate depletion hasn't caused even a ripple in the world supply or price of the product.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No such thing as "petrochemical sources of phosphorous".

I thought that "petrochemical" literally means "chemicals which come from rocks" since "petro-" means "rock". If it means something different feel free to let us know. I'm using it to distinguish between phosphorous in fertilizer with sources like manure and compost from mined phosphorous.

A comparison is being made between peak oil and peak phosphorous which is nonsensical.
A vast majority of phosphate produced in the world is mined in the form of phosphate rock. It does not come from bat quano for the most part but from weathered igneous rock.

From the report you linked to:

Phosphate rock resources occur principally as sedimentary marine phosphorites.

This would seem to contradict your claim that it comes from igneous rock. It comes from sedimentary rock, which is what I was trying to convey. I'm pretty sure that the reason why it appears in marine sediments instead of sediments in general is because organic processes are what has concentrated it. (And yes, by "organic" I mean "related to life" rather than what you as a chemist might mean.)

The bat guano case I was giving was referring to some mines in Venezuela and Colombia.

The supplies are quite vast... This couldn't be further from the truth.

Did you even read that thing you linked to? It lists world mine production of phosphate rock at 133,000 MT and total world reserves at 12,000,000 MT. If the reserves are what's still in the ground (you didn't include the Appendix C where that stuff is defined), and only if consumption remained constant that would result in those reserves being entirely depleted in almost precisely ninety years, which is exactly what the thing I linked to said. The "peak phosphorous" idea is that unless changes are made similar to the changes made in response to scarcity of petroleum, we would experience problems long before the total depletion.

The island of Nauru has always been a pipsqueak player in the phosphate market and its phosphate depletion hasn't caused even a ripple in the world supply or price of the product.

That's curious because I read through several historical sources on this issue from the 20's, 30's, and 70's and they all mentioned it. It seems odd that the British would have bothered to secure dominion over a source of phosphate that's literally on the other side of the world from them if it's as common as you claim. I think perhaps "always" does not mean what you think it means.

Of course it didn't make waves in the world markets if it was gradually depleted over a century. The depletion of the tin mines in Cornwall in the 1990's didn't upset the world tin market. But the depletion of a source that has been worked for more than 2000 years is significant - it basically means there's no more f***ing tin in Europe (accessible through current prospecting and mining technology, of course).

Look, go ahead and say why you don't think this will be a problem but calling it "nonsensical" and saying "nothing can be further from the truth" are silly hyperbolic statements that show you haven't read any of this stuff, even what you're offering up yourself.

 

[chemisttree]

I thought that "petrochemical" literally means "chemicals which come from rocks" since "petro-" means "rock". If it means something different feel free to let us know.

Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum (hydrocarbon) origin. (With regard to etymology, the name is incorrect, as the Greek root petro- means "rock"; the correct term is oleochemicals, from the Greek root oleo-, meaning "oil".)

Nobody uses the term "petrochemical" to mean mined rock - anywhere.

This would seem to contradict your claim that it comes from igneous rock. It comes from sedimentary rock, which is what I was trying to convey. I'm pretty sure that the reason why it appears in marine sediments instead of sediments in general is because organic processes are what has concentrated it.

Weathering of igneous rock deposits it in marine sediments where it can be further concentrated by mechanisms that are not clear and concise. The source of phosphorous is igneous rock, weathered and carried into shallow seas where it combines with calcium and or fluoride and concentrates by mechanisms that are not fully understood. Both sedimentary and igneous rocks are mined as sources of phosphorous. My comment was actually focusing on the statement that phosphorous occurs as a result of organic processes such as in bat guano. Not so.

Did you even read that thing you linked to? It lists world mine production of phosphate rock at 133,000 MT and total world reserves at 12,000,000 MT. If the reserves are what's still in the ground (you didn't include the Appendix C where that stuff is defined), and only if consumption remained constant that would result in those reserves being entirely depleted in almost precisely ninety years, which is exactly what the thing I linked to said.

But the reserve base is 47,000,000 thousand metric tons. And that is only what is reported as known at this time. Where does that put the end of phosphorous?

The "peak phosphorous" idea is that unless changes are made similar to the changes made in response to scarcity of petroleum, we would experience problems long before the total depletion.

There is no alternative to phosphorous as there is in energy. Phosphorous application rates have been declining in the USA and worldwide, thus the use of phosphate rock has followed a similar trend. The number quoted in 2000 is smaller than that used in any given year in the 80's save 82, for example.

That's curious because I read through several historical sources on this issue from the 20's, 30's, and 70's and they all mentioned it. It seems odd that the British would have bothered to secure dominion over a source of phosphate that's literally on the other side of the world from them if it's as common as you claim. I think perhaps "always" does not mean what you think it means.

Nauru Island's production in 1980 was 2,087 thousand metric tons. Its peak production of roughly 2,800 thousand metric tons occurred in the mid 70s. That's "pipsqueak".

Look, go ahead and say why you don't think this will be a problem but calling it "nonsensical" and saying "nothing can be further from the truth" are silly hyperbolic statements that show you haven't read any of this stuff, even what you're offering up yourself.

I have on my bookshelf the book entitled "Industrial Minerals and Rocks", 6th ed. I have indeed read the chapter on "Phosphate Rock".

 

[DrClapeyron]

No one wants to become dependant on US manufactured seeds or US food donations. It is about power and control: politics.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Nobody uses the term "petrochemical" to mean mined rock - anywhere.

Did I somehow give the impression I was talking about rocks? I didn't use that word. I'm talking about the chemicals. Is it really completely unintelligible to talk about "a petrochemical source of phosphorous"? Look, I know I'm not a chemist but the way I'm phrasing this isn't gibberish, at best it's imprecise.

[edit] I get it, I missed your dictionary quote before. I had never realized that the "petro" is actually "petroleum" contracted rather than the prefix "petro-". You wacky scientists, you, getting all crazy with your Latin and Greek prefixes and roots and then pulling this on me. So after all, what I was saying is gibberish. I apologize but a less brusque correction would have been helpful.

But the reserve base is 47,000,000 thousand metric tons. And that is only what is reported as known at this time. Where does that put the end of phosphorous?

What is "reserve base" and why did you leave out the part of that report that tells what the difference between that and the "reserve" figure I quoted is?

That number is of course about four times what the "reserve" figure is. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to more than quadruple the worldwide amount of arable land cultivated with phosphorous fertilizer in the next century, which would result in the depletion of the "reserve base" in about the same amount of time I mentioned before. Compared to the U.S. chemical fertilizers aren't extensively used in the Far East, Central Asia, Africa, South America, or Central America, are they?

Weathering of igneous rock deposits it in marine sediments where it can be further concentrated by mechanisms that are not clear and concise. The source of phosphorous is igneous rock, weathered and carried into shallow seas where it combines with calcium and or fluoride and concentrates by mechanisms that are not fully understood. Both sedimentary and igneous rocks are mined as sources of phosphorous. My comment was actually focusing on the statement that phosphorous occurs as a result of organic processes such as in bat guano. Not so.

Bat guano and sea life is what I said. Of course, I realize that it must have ultimately originated in igneous rock, I'm not suggesting that it appeared from nowhere. By "comes from" I was referring to where we get the phosphate that's used in fertilizer, not where all phosphorous on Earth comes from.

I appreciate that you've clarified that the presence of phosphorous in sea sediments is due to non-organic processes - that means that older sedimentary rock than that containing sea life will contain it, right? And the USGS report you provide also sounds like it's saying there's believed to be some at the bottom of the Mariana Trench and other deep-ocean sources. So hopefully within the range of not-too-expensive future mining technology.

I have on my bookshelf the book entitled "Industrial Minerals and Rocks", 6th ed. I have indeed read the chapter on "Phosphate Rock".

Look, all I said was that this was a more interesting potential problem than the original post about fluctuations in world food prices. I said any actual problem is decades and decades in the future, didn't I? Why the heck are you being so mean and hyperbolic about this? I can take it of course, but do you feel as though I've stepped on your turf or something?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Ah, I hadn't noticed before that you're the original poster in the thread, too. So possibly you perceive this as threadjacking as well as an incursion of a non-chemist into chemistry. I apologize if this is too tangentially related to the original post for your tastes but because of the basic math this makes sense to me. I'm genuinely interested in hearing you articulate a debunking of this, it's just that what you've said so far doesn't seem to impact the core "peak phosphorous" argument and has seemed offhandedly dismissive.

Another reason that this seems feasible to me is that I reached a similar conclusion on my own, while reading about the chemical constituents of fertilizers, before I came across the article I linked to.

 

[W3pcq]

GMOs have patents as well. If you grow the seeds without rights then you can be sued by the owners of the patents. What if the natural species were destroyed, then they would rely on the GMOs and the owners of the patient would have absolute control over not only selling the seeds, but the rights to grow them.

 

[W3pcq]

I actually wouldn't doubt at all that the corn was given to them for this purpose and this only. The long term goal may not be to help feed these nations, but rather to eventually starve them off.

 

[mheslep]

I actually wouldn't doubt at all that the corn was given to them for this purpose and this only. The long term goal may not be to help feed these nations, but rather to eventually starve them off.

Arg, you've found us out. Shhhusss, don't tell anybody.

 

[mheslep]

The UN reports that the World's food supply is dwindling rapidly while prices are approaching historic highs. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php


Wheat has just hit a record high of $10.095 per bushel for March delivery.


What happens if next year's crops don't do well?

From Erlich's The Population Bomb, 1968

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to 'stretch' the carrying capacity of the Earth by increasing food production and providing for more equitable distribution of whatever food is available. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control

Erlich also predicted that 'England will not exist in the year 2000' due to mass starvation, poverty, etc.

Stop the Malthusian madness.

See Simon's http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...c9-eBmrOM-afR9iQ&sig2=H5_twiKE9UhKDIAIRhOLQw"
Science Jun 27, 1980

 

[chemisttree]

I understand that those predictions were off by a bit. The food supply is not an estimate, however. Neigher are the historic high prices of grain. These are real numbers.

 

[mheslep]

...The food supply is not an estimate, however. Neigher are the historic high prices of grain. These are real numbers.

Yes, agreed, but what is the significance? I That 52% jump in 1 year is certainly going to hurt; its also just the thing needed to get more wheat planted. Regards the $10/bushel, how does that compare historically after inflation adjustment? couldn't readily find any historic wheat price data already crunched.

 

[chemisttree]

Let's hope that the high prices can encourage additional supply. However, I believe that the supply is largely limited by failed crops over the last several years in the face of increasing demand.

 

[Evo]

I actually wouldn't doubt at all that the corn was given to them for this purpose and this only. The long term goal may not be to help feed these nations, but rather to eventually starve them off.

Actually, the seed is sent with the instruction that it is for CONSUMPTION ONLY, it is NOT to be planted. Since people tend not to follow instructions, plans to mill the corn to prevent planting are being put into place. So much for that consipiracy.

And there is literally tons of food decaying because it is being held and not distributed to the people that need it. There is plenty of food, politics is peventing it from getting to those that need it.

 

[henxan]

Should a country be able to supply its own inhabitants with food? I think this is a important question. GM or not, shouldn't a country limit the population to who they can feed? As in china ;)

 

[denverdoc]

Should a country be able to supply its own inhabitants with food? I think this is a important question. GM or not, shouldn't a country limit the population to who they can feed? As in china ;)

To me this is a difficult question along the lines of asking whether division of labor makes sense?

One could live in a desert sitting on a large reserve of oil, and not be able to grow a thing, and squak like hell when the price of rice rises. Or anywhere from Kansas to Iowa and *****ing about the price of petrol. The world is not a homogeneous ball. To set limits, wish we could, in fact wish the whole world would at about 1950 levels..

 

[OmCheeto]

Should a country be able to supply its own inhabitants with food? I think this is a important question. GM or not, shouldn't a country limit the population to who they can feed? As in china ;)

I was reading about Pakistan a couple of weeks ago and was astonished at the number of headlines regarding the wheat shortage there. It seems Pakistan does generally produce enough for their own people. Unfortunately, someone goofed last year and exported 1.6 million tons.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/features/article_1386542.php
South Asia Features
Pakistan's poor, Musharraf reeling under wheat crisis
Jan 14, 2008, 12:39 GMT

Now Musharraf has even more explaining to do. His government has been accused of miscalculating wheat harvest estimates, causing shortages that doubled the price of wheat flour from 15 to 30 rupees (24 to 48 cents) per kilogramme in less than a week.

The sudden price spike has aggravated the suffering of millions of families whose daily income is only around 100 rupees, especially because roti, a round, flat bread made of wheat flour, is part of every meal.

Thousands of people took to the streets in several cities and towns across the country in protest, and commentators have warned that such demonstrations could increase if the wheat crisis is not overcome quickly.

Though the Pakistani AP reported something different the next day

http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26411&Itemid=2
Wheat flour shortage ends in big cities:

ISLAMABAD, Jan 15 (APP):There is no wheat flour shortage in big cities of the country as sufficient supplies have been ensured through prudent and timely measures, Spokesman and Joint Secretary Ministry of Food and Agriculture Seerat Asghar said Tuesday. “

Sounds like Baghdad Bob found a new job.

Anyways, that would really suck if I were to walk into the grocery store one day and find that all the prices had doubled since my last visit.

 

[denverdoc]

As has the price of rice in Saudi Arabia, which according to the NPR story I heard, has increased tensions beteween the very rich and the rest. My best guess and not happy one is these events will only rise exponentially over the next two decades, and will result in more quasi-police state emergencies.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Should a country be able to supply its own inhabitants with food? I think this is a important question. GM or not, shouldn't a country limit the population to who they can feed? As in china ;)

If that's a serious standard I actually think China wouldn't be the one to look at, would it? They probably have much more sustainable farming methodologies, for more people, than anywhere else in the world, I would think.

I would think that all of the countries that have populations greatly in excess of their ability to feed themselves would be in the first world. I would expect Britain, Japan, or Belgium to be candidates, not China. Though I could certainly be wrong on those counts, I haven't done research. Looks like the relevant search term may be http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="net+food+importer"".

My impression has been that the horrendous famines in Chinese history have most frequently come from wars, or in the last century from Mao. Once Mao had control of the country it was like playing with dolls, he thought he could completely restructure Chinese agriculture and industry with no knowledge or experience, and no one could say "no" to him.

 

[Astronuc]

'We blew it' on global food, says Bill Clinton
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_re_af/un_un_food_crisis

UNITED NATIONS – Former President Clinton told a U.N. gathering Thursday that the global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me," by treating food crops "like color TVs" instead of as a vital commodity for the world's poor.

Addressing a high-level event marking Oct. 16's World Food Day, Clinton also saluted President Bush — "one thing he got right" — for pushing to change U.S. food aid policy. He scolded the bipartisan coalition in Congress that killed the idea of making some aid donations in cash rather than in food.

Clinton criticized decades of policymaking by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others, encouraged by the U.S., that pressured Africans in particular into dropping government subsidies for fertilizer, improved seed and other farm inputs as a requirement to get aid. Africa's food self-sufficiency declined and food imports rose.

Now skyrocketing prices in the international grain trade — on average more than doubling between 2006 and early 2008 — have pushed many in poor countries deeper into poverty.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the gathering that prices on some food items are "500 percent higher than normal" in Haiti and Ethiopia, for example. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the number of undernourished people worldwide rose to 923 million last year.

"Food is not a commodity like others," Clinton said. "We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themselves."
. . . .
"If we're going to do biofuels, we ought to look at the more efficient kind," he said, referring, for example, to the jatropha shrub, a nonfood source that grows on land not suitable for grain.
. . . .
D'Escoto also expressed disappointment that of $22 billion pledged by wealthy nations to help poor nations' agriculture in this year of food crisis, only $2.2 billion has been made available.
. . . .

10 Things the Food Industry Doesn't Want You to Know
Two nutrition experts argue that you can't take marketing campaigns at face value
http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...he-food-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know.html

. . .
4. More processing means more profits, but typically makes the food less healthy.
Minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables obviously aren't where food companies look for profits. The big bucks stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops—mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans—into fast foods, snack foods, and beverages. High-profit products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value.
. . .
6. Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace.
In 2006, for example, major beverage makers agreed to remove sugary sodas from school vending machines. But the industry mounted an intense lobbying effort that persuaded lawmakers to allow sports drinks and vitamin waters that—despite their slightly healthier reputations—still can be packed with sugar and calories.
. . .
10. The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics.
According to the new JAMA article, the Center for Consumer Freedom boasts that "[our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We've got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons."
. . . .

High-calorie, low-nutrition food contributes to the obesity problem in the US.