Food Ramblings

Where does all this horse meat go?

Wed, 22 May 2013 01:47:23 -0400

Two months ago or so, South Africa was caught up in our own horse meat (and donkey, and water buffalo, and…) scandal. (link, link).

Shortly before the scandal broke, DAFF issued a statement that it was unlikely that we would be caught up in a scandal like the UK scandal.

“In South Africa, the importation of animal products is very stringent - the veterinary authorities currently allow importation of recognisable cuts of beef and certain beef from Germany, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, Switzerland and veal meat from the Netherlands - horse meat is imported from Brazil and Belgium only at this stage. These consignments are inspected at the port of entry where veterinary authorities are stationed.

There are also imports of processed meat products, such as salami and ham from certain countries. However, South African veterinary authorities require that the raw meat used in those processed meat products shall be sourced within the country of origin of the consignment and shall be independently certified by the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.

The department therefore is of the view that it is unlikely that South African importers could have unknowingly imported animal products contaminated with horse meat as imports usually involve a single country and are properly certified by the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.

Regarding the local production, it must be noted that it is neither unsafe nor illegal to consume or sell horse meat in terms of South African legislation.

In fact, South Africa has a small market for horse meat. Presently, there are only three privately owned abattoirs approved for the slaughter of horses. Such abattoirs are regulated under the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000). Meat is inspected and passed by qualified meat inspectors. Horse meat is used in various animal products.

The labelling of foods is controlled by the Department of Health (DoH) - and DoH has labelling regulations that stipulate that the label of products shall declare the names and quantities of all ingredients under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectant Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972). ” (link to full statement)

But it seems to be me - and I may be mistaken, as I really don’t understand the meat trade and absolute volumes that something is not quite right. Minister Joemat-Pettersen released a written reply to a parliamentary question on meat imports yesterday (Link) that indicated that in 2011 - 1 175 080 kg of Water Buffalo was imported from India, and 61 000kg of horse meat from Brazil.

Meat imports from India were suspended in 2011. In 2012 - 150 000kg of horse meat was imported from Brazil, and in the first four months of 2013 - 49 800kg. (by way of comparison 211 436 319kg of chicken was imported in 2012, so this is small potatoes).

The question is, though: Where is this horse meat officially going? And where was the water buffalo going? As DAFF themselves say there is only a small local market for horse meat. The obvious answer would be pet food, but Marion Nestle (and wikipedia - much more authoritative than Marion Nestle) say horse is no longer used in pet food in the US both because it was outlawed (which it hasn’t been here), but also because it is too expensive. I imagine this is the case here as well. I have tried to look at the SA Animal Feed Legislation and there doesn’t seem to be anything in there that will help unpack this (Link). The websites of the big pet food producers are not that helpful (Link) - “Crude Protein” anyone? But I think we can be sure that it isn’t “prime cuts” - it is mainly meat by-products as the Hills website notes: “By-products are common ingredients found in both human and pet food. In fact Vitamin E, gelatin, beef bouillon, beef liver and vegetable oils are all by-products. In many countries, “by-products” are very desirable human foods.

Chicken by-product meal is a high quality, concentrated source of protein. We use it due to its low ash (phosphorus) content. It is also very palatable. This ingredient consists of ground, rendered, wholesome parts of the chicken. It includes white meat, dark meat, liver and viscera. The chickens are sourced from human grade processing plants.

Meat by-products consist of the non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat from slaughtered mammals. We specifically use beef or pork lungs, spleens, or livers in our products for consistency and optimal nutrient profile.” (link)

So, I return to my original question: If the horsemeat is too expensive for pet food and there only a small local market - where does the rest of it go?

Having blogged at this site for over two years, I decided to do...

Tue, 21 May 2013 02:27:12 -0400

Having blogged at this site for over two years, I decided to do a word cloud of most common blogged words.

Archbishop Thabo Makgoba on Food Insecurity

Mon, 20 May 2013 08:02:00 -0400

I was just looking for a quote on food security and remembered Arch. Makgoba naming food insecurity as a “Scandal” at the opening of the first AFSUN conference. I had forgotten what a great speech it was.

Have a read of it below:

“Dr Chilese, Madam Mayor, Mr de Zeeuw, honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a pleasure to speak to you this evening.

Let me express my gratitude to the African Food Security Urban Network and the Municipal Development Partnership; with particular thanks to Mr. Sithole Mbanga of the South African Cities Network – who, in initiating the invitation, acknowledged the role of the faith communities across Africa in tackling the challenges of poverty and hunger.

I must admit that it feels a little paradoxical to be speaking about urban food security immediately before we proceed to dinner. None of us is in any doubt about where our next meal is coming from!

But that is not the case for far too many millions in cities and towns across this continent.

Nor was it the case for many of the followers of Jesus Christ, whom he taught to pray ‘give us this day our daily bread’.

It is the first petition of what we know as the Lord’s Prayer, that famously begins ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name …’

After acknowledging God as Lord of all, we express our need for basic nourishment.

We all need our daily bread, if we are to get on with the rest of life. Without it, our whole existence is threatened.

Implicit in this prayer is the recognition that God understands this.

It is a reminder, should we need it, that he cares about our physical, as well as our spiritual, well-being.

It matters to this God of love that every member of the human family should have access to sufficient food, on a daily basis.

It matters to him that there are 800 million hungry people on this planet.

And he calls on his followers to demonstrate his love for the world through doing something practical about this scandal.

It is, of course, not only Christians and other communities of faith who understand this – but our religions certainly insist that those who have, have a responsibility towards those who have not.

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells us that we shall all be judged on whether or not we have fed the hungry, given a drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, tended the sick and visited those in prison.

Or, to put it in the words of the Russian theologian of the early twentieth century, Nicholai Berdyaev, ‘food for myself is a physical concern; but food for my neighbour is a spiritual concern.’

So it is no surprise that Christians and churches across the world are heavily involved in the provision of food through soup kitchens, feeding schemes and food parcels.

Ten years ago, my predecessor as Archbishop of Cape Town, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, was a Commissioner in national poverty hearings held across South Africa. At that point, the greatest need voiced by those who came and spoke about their struggles to make ends meet, was access to education, jobs and training.

In 2008 Archbishop Ndungane instigated a further round of poverty hearings. He was shocked to find that now, the overwhelming concern was the ability of people to feed themselves and their families. Many were not managing.

The problem goes wider. I understand that sub-Saharan Africa as a whole produces less food per person today than it did three decades ago.

I am also told that of the 86 countries in the world that are defined as both low-income and food-deficient, 43 are in Africa.

Ensuring food security – their fundamental right of people to the food they need – is one of the greatest developmental challenges.

It is no surprise that eradicating extreme poverty and hunger is the first of the Millennium Development Goals.

If there is inadequate access to food, if people are hungry or malnourished, then their ability as individuals and communities to embark on any development process is severely compromised.

Though the churches are committed to feeding the hungry, we would far rather see people empowered to feed themselves, and from this basis be enabled to be agents of their own development and self-advancement.

Many of those who first followed Jesus, who were taught to pray ‘give us this day our daily bread’, were fishermen. They were dependent on daily activity to feed themselves, their families, their community.

The Bible records how Jesus told them to let down their nets in broad day-light – entirely the wrong time for fishing – and they made a vast catch.

In practical terms, this gave them a surplus for sale, and so set them free from a hand-to-mouth existence to pursue a different life, of their own choosing – namely, choosing to follow Jesus.

In Southern Africa, the Anglican Church has a particular commitment to helping people acquire the dignity of being able to feed themselves. Many of our churches run food garden schemes.

I will admit that there is scope to make better use of land under church control for food production and livestock rearing.

However, I am glad to say that Hope Africa, our Social Development Programme, is busy initiating and developing food production programmes in South Africa and in Swaziland.

Returning to the Bible, we can also look at the vast catch of fish from another angle – seeing it symbolically as evidence of God’s superabundant generosity, a reflection of Jesus’ saying that he came that we might have life in abundance.

Abundance is still God’s promise, and still our reality.

The truth is that globally we produce far more than is required to feed the planet’s entire population.

But we fail in our responsibility to produce and share food justly, and we fail to recognise that the earth is a finite resource (indeed, this is one of the reasons for our current global economic crisis).

You will know better than I the distortions that arise when food produced in the south is not available for local purchase and consumption, but is transported to the markets of the north.

This also comes at great environmental cost – a cost that will be disproportionately borne by those least responsible, those least able to cope.

The Bible tells us to be wise stewards of creation – I am glad to say that organic principles and sustainability are at the heart of the church’s agricultural programmes.

Finally, there is another area where the church can help make a difference in questions of hunger and food security, and that is in advocacy.

It was probably the Brazilian priest, Dom Helder Camera, who first said, ‘when I give food to the hungry they call me a saint. When I ask why they had no food they call me a communist.’

Well, I’m not much of a communist either – but I am prepared to speak out, and press for change, wherever there is injustice, and wherever those with power and authority have it within their capacity to make a difference.

So let me end by thanking you once again for inviting me here tonight. I hope that the church participants in this conference over the next few days will learn how we can do more, and do it better – both within our own direct sphere of influence, and in partnership with others.

And my prayer for you all, is that God will bless you, as you look for practical and realisable solutions to these urgent questions – and so make you a blessing to others.

Amen.” (Link)

Hunger haunts our cities

Mon, 20 May 2013 07:28:15 -0400

On Friday 12 May, I had the Op Ed below published in the Cape Times.

Here is the text in full:

Everyday in Cape Town households struggle to access enough food. They eat foods that are nutritionally poor. They reduce meal sizes. They reduce meal numbers. They go hungry. And although the Constitution states that everyone has the right to sufficient food and that the state “must take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of [this right]”, the food insecurity of the urban poor has been largely invisible to the state.

There is a profound urban food policy gap. For reasons for history, ideology and a few methodological quirks, food insecurity has always been viewed as a rural problem in South Africa. The government’s main food security directive, Integrated Food Security Strategy is therefore housed within the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. This location has had two major impacts on food security policy. Firstly, the strategic responses to food insecurity have been informed by the mandated department’s priority areas and have therefore had a strong rural, small-scale food production bias. Secondly, because there is no municipal level Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, there is no urban scale government mandate to address urban food security and no specific urban food strategy. Although municipalities are increasingly aware of the reality of food insecurity in their areas of jurisdiction, the mandate to address food insecurity sits at the National and Provincial government scales. So, although the impacts of food insecurity are felt at the local scale, local government is largely powerless to act within its mandate.

Urban food insecurity is an urban problem, which requires a suite of urban appropriate solutions, of which urban food production is just one component. In urban areas, food insecurity is primarily a problem of access, not availability. The vast majority of urban residents access food by buying it and urban agriculture has had limited uptake.

In 2008 the African Food Security Urban Network (AFSUN) conducted a baseline survey on food security in 11 cities in Southern Africa in an attempt to understand the extent, causes and consequences of urban food insecurity. The survey results raise a number of questions about current approaches to urban food security and urban food governance. In Cape Town some 80 percent of households in three low-income areas were moderately or severely food insecure. The same survey found levels of 87 percent in Msunduzi and 53 percent in Johannesburg.

More than 70 percent of households reported that they had not had enough food in the household at some point in the previous 12 months. Despite constant availability of food within the city, there were distinct hungry seasons during periods of food price inflation, increased expenditure on other required items (such as fuel) and reduced income from seasonal labour. The households had limited dietary diversity, which has long-term health and development implications. These findings and those of other studies, challenge the ongoing government perception of food insecurity as a predominantly rural problem.

If urban food insecurity is to be addressed there needs to be a specifically urban policy response. Urban food insecurity manifests differently to rural food insecurity and has different drivers. Food security policy and work to ensure the right to food cannot simply replicate models designed for rural areas to the cities. The clearest indicator that rural, small-scale household food production as the solution to food insecurity is not appropriate for the urban context is the data on sources of food. Within the AFSUN survey households were asked where they sourced food from and how frequently they acquired it from these sources. Less than five percent ever sourced any food through own production. The market dominated sources of food, with 99.3% having sourced food from a supermarket at some point in the last year. Daily or weekly supplies came mainly from informal traders through, with 61.5% getting food from small shops/restaurants/takeaways (mainly spazas) and 55.1% purchasing informal markets/street foods. Just 26.8% purchased daily or weekly from supermarkets. These food-sourcing patterns invite us to think about the role of wider urban processes and urban form in shaping food security.

South African cities remain shaped by the colonial and apartheid histories and by design locate the lowest income households on the cities’ peripheries. This geography impacts food insecurity in a number of ways. Firstly, it shapes economic opportunities available for residents of low-income areas. Given the dominance of the market as the primary source of food, access to employment and therefore income is an important driver of food insecurity. In addition, the limitations of the public transport system ensure that many low-income workers have lengthy commutes and spend a large proportion of their incomes on transport, leaving less money to buy food. Because of commuting times, households choose to cook less time intensive foods and buy and/or cook more pre-processed foods. These foods are often more expensive and less nutritionally dense than more traditional foods. The macro-geographies of housing, employment and transport therefore need to be considered as drivers of food and nutrition insecurity.

The structure of the food retail market is also critically important in urban food security. Within South Africa, and globally, the location of formal food retail is skewed to wealthier areas. In the US and Europe this is known as the Food Desert phenomenon. A recent UCT student thesis mapped the location of supermarkets in Cape Town over Census 2001 data and found that the highest income areas of the city had over seven times as many supermarkets per thousand household than the lowest income areas. This limits the capacity of low-income residents to access food from these stores, which are often cheaper than informal traders. However, it would be too simplistic to call for a supermarket on every corner. The informal sector is often better equipped to sell products in volumes for low-income customers can afford and will offer credit. The impact of supermarket expansion on informal traders is not yet well understood. Given the role of both formal and informal food retail in providing food for the residents, the structure and location of these markets in the cities need to be considered in urban food security policy.

Finally, the household asset base is a crucial element of food security in urban areas. Food security is not simply determined by income levels – although income stability allows households to plan food consumption more effectively – but also by other household factors. For example, limited food storage capacity and refrigeration mean that households are less able to store fresh produce or take advantage of bulk buying.

Food security policy therefore needs to move beyond a focus on household food production and poverty alleviation strategies. It needs to engage with the broader drivers of food insecurity at the food system scale and how these connect to the wider social, spatial, political and economic exclusion.

There is a possibility for just such a set of considerations to inform future food security strategies. On the 24 and 25 May the Khayelitsha Development Forum will be holding a Food Security Summit in Khayelitsha, supported by the National Planning Commission. This summit will bring together representatives from the NPC, the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, civil society groups and community members to discuss issues affecting urban food security. It is hoped that this will generate empower residents and connect civil society organizations to develop locally generated solutions to food insecurity. It is also hoped that it will play a role in developing city-wide strategies as well as incorporating urban concerns into future national food security strategies and policies. For this to be a success, however, the responsibility for the realization of the right to food needs to be partially devolved to the City scale.

This is a great post on the Scientific American blog site (link) Dear Consumers: A disturbing trend...

Mon, 20 May 2013 04:07:03 -0400

This is a great post on the Scientific American blog site (link)

Dear Consumers: A disturbing trend has come to our attention. You, the people, are thinking more about health, and you’re starting to do something about it. This cannot continue.

Sure, there’s always been talk of health in America. We often encourage it. The thing is, we only want you to think about and talk about health in a certain way—equating health with how you look, instead of outcomes like quality of life and reduced disease risk. Your superficial understanding of health has a great influence over your purchasing decisions, and we’re ready for it, whether you choose to go low-calorie, low-fat, gluten-free or inevitably give up and accept the fact that you can’t resist our Little Debbie snacks, potato chips and ice cream novelties.

Whatever the current health trend, we respond by developing and marketing new products. We can also show you how great some of our current products are and always have been. For example, when things were not looking so good for fat, our friends at Welch’s were able to point out that their chewy fruit snacks were a fat free option. Low fat! Healthy! Then the tide turned against carbohydrates. Our friends in meat and dairy were happy to show that their steaks, meats and cheeses were low-carb choices. Low carbs! Healthy!

But we’re getting uneasy.

In 2009, Congress commissioned the Inter-agency Working Group (IWG) to develop standards for advertising foods to children. The IWG included the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Congress identified these organizations as having “expertise and experience in child nutrition, child health, psychology, education, marketing and other fields relevant to food and beverage marketing and child nutrition standards.”

We were dismayed when the IWG released its report in 2011. The guidelines said that foods advertised to children must provide “a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.” For example, any food marketed to children must “contain at least 50% by weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.”

This report was potentially devastating. These organizations, experts in nutrition, were officially outlining what constituted “a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.” Thankfully, we have a ton of money and were able to use it to get the IWG to withdraw the guidelines.

In a public comment posted on the FTC website, our friends at General Mills pointed out that under the IWG guidelines, the most commonly consumed foods in the US would be considered unhealthy. Specifically, according to General Mills, “of the 100 most commonly consumed foods and beverages in America, 88 would fail the IWG’s proposed standards.” So you see? If you people start eating the way the nutrition experts at the CDC and USDA recommend that you eat, that would delegitimize almost 90 percent of the products we produce! Do you realize how much money that would cost us?

According to the General Mills letter, if everyone in the US started eating healthfully, it would cost us $503 billion per year! That might affect our ability to pay CEOs like General Mills’ Ken Powell annual compensations of more than $12 million.

But revamping the food environment will also cost you money. The General Mills letter stated “a shift by the average American to the IWG diet would conservatively increase the individual’s annual food spending by $1,632.” Sure, we’ve heard talk about costs to the individual that arise from being obese. One 2010 paper from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services estimated that the annual costs to an individual for being obese can be upwards of $8,000. We like to think of this as a small price to pay for consumer freedom.

Of course, we don’t necessarily want you to be unhealthy. It’s just that it’s so much more profitable to provide foods that happen to be unhealthy. We’ve been able to industrialize the food system so that we can produce massive amounts of the cheapest ingredients available, in the cheapest, most efficient way possible.

On top of that, we understand human biology. Humans evolved in situations in which food was scarce. This led to an evolutionary adaptation that causes you to crave salty, sugary and fatty foods. Consuming foods with these characteristics actually lights up the same pleasure centers in the brain as cocaine. Who wouldn’t play upon that biological craving to increase profits? If one company didn’t, their competitors would, so we all kind of have to do it.

We are also able to provide you with perceived value. Because it doesn’t cost us that much more to make a soda, say, 42 ounces instead of 22, we can almost double the size of a beverage and only charge you 20 percent more. How could you resist a deal like that? You can’t. Trust us, we know.

So you see, dear consumer, everything is fine. We’ve got a good thing going here. There’s no need for you to start worrying about the industrial food system. If you do start thinking about your weight, check out our line of Healthy Choice frozen meals. If that doesn’t work, our friends over in the pharmaceutical industry, the health and fitness industry and the healthcare industry will be happy to help you to continue to fulfill your role as an American Consumer.

Images: by the author

About the Author: Patrick Mustain earned an MPH from The University of Minnesota School of Public Health and an MA from the University of North Carolina School of Journalism & Mass Communication. He is a veteran of the US Navy, a freelance videographer and multimedia producer, and a skeptical fitness professional. Patrick is interested in how commercialization shapes the way people think about and pursue health, especially in the fitness, nutrition and weight-loss realms. His other interests include food advertising and policy, obesity prevention, health promotion, the effects of media consumption on health, consumer advocacy, outdoor recreation and fitness, parks, environmental determinants of health behavior, music, biking, climbing, snowboarding and he really, really loves food. You can find more of his work at his website, patrickmustain.com. Follow on Twitter @patrickmustain.

Malnutrition is killing South Africa's children, yet half of the country's fresh produce is wasted.

Sun, 19 May 2013 12:02:27 -0400

Malnutrition is killing South Africa's children, yet half of the country's fresh produce is wasted.

Daily Maverick - Is the future of Cape Town 25km from Cape Town?

Fri, 17 May 2013 03:03:36 -0400

Daily Maverick - Is the future of Cape Town 25km from Cape Town?

Charitable And Faith Leaders Respond To House Farm Bill Inclusion Of Severe Cuts

Thu, 16 May 2013 01:28:49 -0400

Charitable And Faith Leaders Respond To House Farm Bill Inclusion Of Severe Cuts:

“WASHINGTON, May 15, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The nation’s leading hunger-relief charities and religious advocates expressed outrage in response to the severe cuts to anti-hunger programs included in the farm bill considered today by the House Agriculture Committee. The bill includes $21 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s largest nutrition assistance program. Bread for the World, Catholic Charities USA, Feeding America, and United Way Worldwide called on Congress to reverse course and restore cuts to SNAP as the farm bill moves forward.
“A vote for this level of cuts is shameless,” said David Beckmann , president of Bread for the World. “Millions of people will lose food assistance and hundreds of thousands of households will see their benefits cut dramatically at a time when families across the country are struggling with long-term unemployment or reduced wages. Hungry and poor people do not deserve to bear the brunt of our deficit-reduction efforts.”“
See full article at title link

Insects for food and feed security

Tue, 14 May 2013 02:24:54 -0400

The FAO released a new document “Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security” which is getting plenty of news coverage. (See for example the Guardian’s story)

The full report is downloadable here:

The report argues that insects can be both a source of direct and indirect food. In terms of direct food, the paper addresses where insects have traditionally be consumed and why they haven’t been elsewhere.

There is of course the ‘yuck’ factor, but this does not adequately explain it. Insects are traditionally eaten in the tropics because the bugs are bigger (therefore greater reward per gathering) and they tend to congregate. It just hasn’t been worth the effort in the West.

More interesting is the work on the use of insects as feed for animals. This has been trialled at Stellenbosch by a team driven by Jason Drew (link, link), who are predominantly using abattoir waste to feed maggots to make an alternative to existing fishmeal and soy-based protein feed for chickens.

In some ways this seems address a number of problems in the existing food system. It would reduce the health risk associated with the potentially toxic food waste stream. It would allow less land to be used for the production of grains for livestock feed. It would stop out chicken tasting like fish (and our fish like chicken - link). It could potentially release small scale producers from being tied into big agra for feed. It could enhance food security.

However, can this be rolled out safely and affordably for small scale producers? And is this just another technofix that fails to address the real problem of our commitment to over-consumption?

hugsta: lickypickystickyme: If grandmothers around the world...

Mon, 13 May 2013 14:23:02 -0400

hugsta:

lickypickystickyme:

If grandmothers around the world had a rallying cry, it would probably sound something like “You need to eat!”

Photographer Gabriele Galimberti’s grandmother said something similar to him before one of his many globetrotting work trips. To ensure he had at least one good meal, she prepared for him a dish of ravioli before he departed on one of his adventures.

“In that occasion I said to my grandma ‘You know, Grandma, there are many other grandmas around the world and most of them are really good cooks,” Galimberti wrote via email. “I’m going to meet them and ask them to cook for me so I can show you that you don’t have to be worried for me and the food that I will eat!’ This is the way my project was born!”

The project, “Delicatessen With Love”, took Galimberti to 58 countries where he photographed grandmothers with both the ingredients and finished signature dishes.

He acted as photographer and stylist during each shoot with the grandmothers, taking a portrait of both the women and the food they made for him.

From top to bottom:

Inara Runtule, 68, Kekava, Latvia. Silke (herring with potatoes and cottage cheese).

Grace Estibero, 82, Mumbai, India. Chicken vindaloo.

Susann Soresen, 81, Homer, Alaska. Moose steak.

Serette Charles, 63, Saint-Jean du Sud, Haiti. Lambi in creole sauce.

The photographer’s grandmother Marisa Batini, 80, Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy. Swiss chard and ricotta Ravioli with meat sauce.

Normita Sambu Arap, 65, Oltepessi (Masaai Mara), Kenya. Mboga and orgali (white corn polenta with vegetables and goat).

Julia Enaigua, 71, La Paz, Bolivia. Queso Humacha (vegetables and fresh cheese soup).

Fifi Makhmer, 62, Cairo, Egypt. Kuoshry (pasta, rice and legumes pie).

Isolina Perez De Vargas, 83, Mendoza, Argentina. Asado criollo (mixed meats barbecue).

Bisrat Melake, 60, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Enjera with curry and vegetables.

Love this so much.

What was it Michael Pollan said about eating only foods your grandmother would recognize as food?

South African student seeks change in country's food system | Queen's University News Centre

Mon, 13 May 2013 11:40:00 -0400

South African student seeks change in country's food system | Queen's University News Centre

Coca-Cola's bid to teach the world to slim is not on

Sun, 12 May 2013 01:33:38 -0400

Coca-Cola's bid to teach the world to slim is not on

Food shortages in Joburg hospital denied.

Fri, 10 May 2013 14:00:00 -0400

If we view food as part of our constitutional right, for the reason that it enables the pursuit of health, then this is a worrying story carried by the IOL (link)

“ the non-payment of outstanding accounts.

Zwane said this was not true.

“There is no food supply company that is owed. I was in discussion with (hospital) management this morning (Friday) and last night. Patients are receiving hot meals.”

Section27 and the TAC said it received “disturbing” reports on Thursday about the food shortages.

“… Over the last few days, the hospital department responsible for food services has rationed food, providing patients with (a) small portion of plain soup with no bread, as a substitute for certain meals,” the two groups said in the statement.

“… No mention was made of breakfast or tea… we are… informed that some patients received no breakfast this morning (Friday) and that food stocks are likely to be exhausted soon.”

The two organisations said they were “extremely concerned” about human rights violations at the hospital.

“The situation is unacceptable and must be addressed… as a matter of extreme urgency. We will continue to monitor the situation.””

Burger King opens in SA

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:06:52 -0400

Burger King opens in SA:

And there you have it…
Burger King has arrived.

Peter Hain: Why Britain needs South Africa

Thu, 02 May 2013 01:52:33 -0400

Peter Hain: Why Britain needs South Africa:

Peter Hain writes back in response to the British government’s decision to cut aid funding to South Africa (link.) He helpfully reminds us that economic growth and improvements in the quality of life for the poor are not the same thing.

“Now, with similar high-handed arrogance and contempt for those millions still suffering from the apartheid legacy originally bequeathed by Britain, the government is chopping its £19m aid programme to South Africa – itself a figure that has halved since it peaked at £40m under Labour. (By the way I checked, and South Africa was not consulted, simply informed. When asked why the rush, Justine Greening, the Conservative international development secretary, indicated on Tuesday to Pravin Gordhan, the South African finance minister on a visit to London, that she had to tell the electorate in advance of Thursday’s local elections).

Yet three-quarters of the world’s poor now live in “middle income” countries like South Africa – where, according to the World Bank, 7 million people are living on under $1.25 a day, and 15 million on under $2 a day. The United Nations reports that more than half of South Africa’s children still live in poverty. South Africa may be defined as middle income, but apartheid’s legacy is a population still divided between a wealthy – sometimes extremely wealthy – minority and a vast poor majority.

Greening blithely ignores this destitution – deepened by chronic rates of HIV/Aids and TB – in claiming that South Africa has made “enormous progress over the past two decades”. It is true that Mandela’s African National Congress has delivered electricity, water and sanitation to millions, built more than 3 million new houses, doubled the number at school and is spending more per head on education than almost any other country in the world – some schools financed by British aid.

Nevertheless horrendous levels of black unemployment remain, worsened by apartheid’s deliberate policy of ensuring that black people had no skills. A growing population, swelled by some 3 million migrantsfrom Mali to Zimbabwe, means the demand for basic services seems insatiable.

But let’s leave aside Britain’s historic responsibility for all this. Let’s ignore the view that insulting the South African government is small beer compared with its value as a dog whistle, on the eve of the local elections, to Tory voters the party fears are haemorrhaging to Ukip.

Let’s leave aside also the raids on Britain’s aid budget for defence and other purposes. And how even in the government’s own increasingly hard-nosed terms aid is once again becoming a tool of trade rather than an agency for tackling world poverty.

Purely out of self-interest this decision is catastrophic for Britain. South Africa, a key strategic partner, is the sole African member of the important Brics alliance, and is already turning to those countries, away from its traditional European trading links. In turn this threatens the gateway the country provides to vast African markets – where it has close ties of friendship and mutually beneficial trade and investment agreements. It offers a solid base from which companies, including Britain’s, can develop their operations across Africa.

And the continent is awakening, with huge growth rates especially compared with sclerotic Europe. Soon seven out of the world’s 10 fastest growing economies will be in Africa. If Britain wants to be part of that future, then being a respected partner of South Africa is key, accounting as it does for fully a fifth of total GDP for Africa – despite having a population of just 50 million in a continent of one billion.

Sadly it seems that the era when Britain under Labour could proudly lead the world in cancelling debt, conquering world poverty and establishing a funding mechanism for the millennium development goals, is now over.”

Navigating the Supermarket Aisles With Michael Pollan and...

Thu, 02 May 2013 01:21:42 -0400

Navigating the Supermarket Aisles With Michael Pollan and Michael Moss (by TheNewYorkTimes)

South Africa warns aid cut means change in relationship with UK

Wed, 01 May 2013 01:54:24 -0400

South Africa warns aid cut means change in relationship with UK:

The Guardian reports that : “South Africa has rebuked the British government for stopping direct aid to the country after two decades, describing it as “tantamount to redefining our relationship”.

Justine Greening, the international development secretary, announced that the UK’s aid programme to South Africa, currently worth £19m a year, will be terminated in 2015. The support has recently focused on supporting businesses and reducing the mortality rate among women giving birth.

The decision provoked a sharp response from Pretoria, which said it noted with regret what it described as a unilateral announcement by the UK.”

More tales of chicken: over brining

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:18:20 -0400

Once again there have been concerns raised about the proportion by weight of chicken that is actually injected brine (link). Current estimates suggest that around 30% of sold weight of frozen chicken is brine.

Frozen chicken producers say that brine is essential for tenderness of chicken, flavour etc. The reality is that is the motivation is price. The producers argue that it makes the product affordable for consumers, but David Wolpert of the Association of Meat Traders and Exporters has said, “We have no problem with the principle, providing that there is added value to the consumer, but we believe the current level of injection is excessive, and is effectively supplying consumers with expensive water instead of cheap chicken,” (Link)

According Gabi Steenkamp the following is meant to be on the label, according to the food labelling legislation, Regulation R.146 (link)

According to a DAFF presentation on the brining issue, the following is under discussion (link) “NRCS will amend their standards to prevent injections for weight gain/yield enhancement: “Poultry meat may not be injected with any liquid or substance purely for weight gain””

So, why the concern about brine? It has health consequences - it introduces additional salt into the diet that consumers may not be taking into account.

It means that people are not buying what they think they are buying, and are paying more for less.

Currently there is no legislation determining how much brine can go into a chicken, unlike in many other countries. I finish with this from the DAFF presentation:

Let’s hope we get some resolution, particularly with reference to frozen chicken, which is where the worst of the brining seems to take place.

Thank you, Simon Mathale - Citizen action against the sale of expired foods

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:57:20 -0400

From iol.co.za

“ I met a consumer hero last week. His name is Simon Mathale, a 29-year-old entrepreneur who lives in Mamelodi.

The youngest of 10 children, he has a mechanical engineering qualification but makes a living by handling red tape – registrations, tax and the Unemployment Insurance Fund – for small business owners who would have to shut up shop to do the schlep work themselves.

Why do I call him a consumer hero?

In his spare time, and at his own expense – he’s reliant on public transport – he regularly visits stores in his area to monitor expiry dates on the food products they sell.

He recently emailed Cape Town food scientist Dr Harris Steinman, asking for advice on how he could formalise his food monitoring project. Steinman forwarded his email to me.

This is what he wrote: “I visit local shops around my community to check if there are any expired items on the shelves, ready to be sold to consumers.

“If I find any, then I write down the barcodes, item descriptions and expiry dates.

“I then advise them to replace the expired stock and introduce them to a system to help with stock control.

“These are my findings: most of the shops sell expired items – in about 40 percent of cases, I find expired baby food.

“Most of the goods are covered in dust, and some of the goods have expired as far back as 2010.

“Some shops pile chemical household cleaning products right next to food products.

“But if you go to any of the shops which I recently visited, you will notice the difference in how they pack their stock.

“Some make arrangements with their distributors to return expired stock and they now make use of reminders on their computers or diaries to control their stock.

“The problem is that I am not accredited by any organisation to do this research, and recently I got into trouble…”” (full article here)

Tracking China's Aid in Africa

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:43:45 -0400

The Guardian has a fascinating dataset on their site today, examining patterns of Chinese Aid in Africa. This draws on research done at the College of William and Mary in the US (Link).

“While aid from OECD countries stagnates or shrinks under the pressure of budgets and an increasingly sceptical public, a host of new emerging donors – including Brazil, Venezuela, and Iran – are expanding their work in other developing countries. These countries have largely resisted calls to disclose data or abide by international aid transparency standards. This lack of information has fuelled wild speculation over what the donors are doing – and why. While some insist the bottom line is China’s thirst for natural resources, others argue Beijing’s development projects on the continent – from infrastructure to debt relief to providing medical support – are also part of a public diplomacy strategy to build up goodwill and international support for the future.”

I’ve included a screenshot of the main map. There are some fascinating insights from this - first being the 129 projects in Zimbabwe. This does rather explain why Robert Mugabe celebrated his birthday at the Chinese embassy in 2010 (link)

From a food perspective this investment matters. The are been considerable agricultural investment - appropriate or not (link) - in part fuelled by environmental crises in China (link) and in part by increases in demand.

This investment indirectly opens up the Chinese market for African produce (see here for discussion of the need for food imports in China). I would argue this will increase the export focus of African agriculture. I have heard concerns about water quality challenges meaning that the export of fresh produce to the EU may no longer be possible soon, but that farmers may switch to exporting the Chinese market where regulations are less stringent. I wonder how wide spread this is, and therefore what the long term environmental impacts of this Aid and opening of new markets might mean