Only 7 census tracts in Washington, DC are identified as "food deserts." In one case, the reason is not a lack of access so much as the government's cramped definition of an acceptable grocery store. In one other case, the reason is the government's definition disregards large grocery stores in adjacent census tracts that lie within one mile of where people actually live. For the remaining five census tracts, no large grocery stores appear to be nearby under any reasonable definition of the term. But these census tracts are predominantly industrial.
Yesterday's post on the federal government's new program to eradicate "food deserts" provided an obvious example in which the database yields nonsensical results. A large US Army installation, one with its own grocery store, no unemployment, and essentially no poverty, nevertheless appeared to meet all of the government's (arbitrary) criteria for inclusion.
A closer look shows that there is yet another reason why this particular "food desert" is a mirage. Soldiers who live within this census tract actually do live within one mile of a second, large grocery store--albeit one that is in an adjacent census tract.
One of the latest trends in federal government food policy is the eradication of "food deserts" -- places where it is said to be difficult to find fresh produce. The Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture has created an interactive map to help you learn whether you live in a "food desert".
The data are interesting, but perhaps not for the intended reason.
The federal government's reported figures for jobs "created or saved" by the "stimulus" bill (formally the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or "ARRA") are now known to be wrong. The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which oversees these figures, apparently has decided not to correct them.
A scandal has erupted over the federal government's reporting of the number of jobs created or saved by the "stimulus" bill (formally the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).
This scandal would have been avoided if the government had complied with the Information Quality Act.
Washington Post staff writers Kimberly Kindy and Lyndsey Layton say the US Department of Agriculture's National Organics Program is falling short, allowing synthetic ingredients or to be used in making organic foods.
In their long Page One story, Kindy and Layton never reveal crucial facts about the National Organic Program: it's a marketing program, not a food safety program.
Regulation is widely understood as a tax on the activity or person being regulated. Where these activities repair genuine market failures, benefits from regulation may result. If there are benefits from, say, automobile safety regulation, one would expect the beneficiaries to be persons who otherwise would have been killed or injured at the pre-regulatory safety level.
But what about the costs of regulation? Who bears them? More...
An important element of Monday's post on E. coli and irradiation was the recognition that years of federal regulations had failed to significantly reduce foodborne illness risks. Conducting research for the post brought back memories of having reviewed the Food and Drug Administration's and Food Safety Inspection Service's initial regulations implementing the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection regime.
Those reviews led to a presentation and a food safety conference, and the presentation led to a paper that was published as a chapter in a book on the economics of HACCP. (Amazon ranks the book #2,020,211, but hurry: as of Monday night they had one copy left.)
Last fall's E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in spinach has now been followed by an outbreak in lettuce used by certain fast food enterprises. Today's Wall Street Journal includes an editorial criticizing "E. Coli's Enablers," by which they mean activists who oppose irradiation.
Would irradiation of produce intended to be consumed raw have prevented these outbreaks?
Investigators have found the cattle ranch that appears to be the source
of the E. coli O157:H7 bug that infected a spinach farm a mile away But
they haven't figured out how the bug traveled the mile between the two
locations.
Industry and food safety experts alike are encouraging the public to
expect fresh produce to have zero microbial risks. Is that feasible?
USA Today reporters Elizabeth Weise and Julie Schmit say the E. coliO157:H7 bug responsible for the recent spinach outbreak has been positively matched to a farm in the Salinas Valley. Although the farm has not been identified, the story provides enough information to suggest that, at a minimum, federal Good Agricultural Practices are too vaguely defined to be useful. Making them mandatory, which Earthbound Farms implies government should have done to prevent the outbreak, is unlikely to help. More...
More problems for Earthbound Farms and its parent company Natural Selection Foods. Now its organic carrot juice has been identified as the culprit in an outbreak of botulism. More...
Sonya
Geis reports in today's Washington Post that there is an acute labor
shortage in California's Central Valley. There are not enough workers to harvest
and pack the tree fruits that are ready to go to market.
Growers and packers interviewed by Geis blame the shortage on a combination
of intensified immigration enforcement, competition for unskilled labor from
other industries such as construction, and the complexities of the federal government's
H-2A visa program. None apparently have considered the possibility of solving
the labor shortage by raising wages.
It is said that federal "Good Agricultural Practice" guidance ensures that fresh produce does not transmit pathogenic foodborne illness. Is this a reasonable inference? More...
In June, the ad hoc National Academy of Sciences committee empaneled to review OMB's proposed risk assessment guidance asked several affected federal agencies to provide comments.
Neutral Source has copies of these comments in our Library.
