low prices: good for consumers, bad for people

You always have to wonder when people repeat something over and over again. They must be trying to make you accept something that does not make sense. And low prices don't make any sense. Low prices not only send the wrong message, they are downright harmful for your health and your environment.

At first it seems like a no-brainer. Why would you not buy something for less money? Why would you pay more? Why would you not buy the same thing cheaper? Would that not be a stupid thing to do?

There is a catch of course. But let me first say this. Let's take a look at those examples where people prefer to pay more money and buy items that are more expensive and let's see why they do it. There are items, such as soap and toiletries that people will gladly pay more money for. There are also services, some of which are free, like education, that people will pay a lot for. And in both cases, people will pay more because they think the more expensive product is better. While that may not always the case, in many instances you really do get what you pay for.

You get what you pay for in two ways. If you pay fair value, you receive a lot of value. And if you paid a lot of money, you will value what you got more. Not only will the seller be satisfied and able to make an honest living, which contributes to the good of society, you will be more satisfied too. You will truly feel that you acquired something of value and cherish it as such.

That is not all. If people are able to sell you items at rock-bottom prices, there has to be a catch somewhere. Nobody can sell items below cost. In essence the sellers are "stealing" from somewhere to support their business. And when they do, nasty consequences are likely to follow. Unfortunately, it is not always obvious where the damage happens.

If a food corporation can sell you calories below cost, it isn't just due to "efficiencies." It is due to heavily subsidized petroleum and wanton environmental destruction. To say nothing of worker exploitation. You could shrug and say our environment is alright, and the immigrant workers make a better living here than they would in Mexico or South America. Or you may not care about what goes on as long as you get food for less.

However, I can assure you that you will pay for those "savings" many times over. And the destruction that goes on is in many cases irreversible.

Already we have a situation where over half the population is overweight or obese. Soon up to 1/3 will suffer from metabolic disorders such as diabetes, hypertension and other chronic ills. These conditions will extract an immediate price in medical care, and a long term price in lower life-expectancy, amputations, kidney failure, and blindness. The money we saved on food is going to be spent many times over on medical care. And even if we are personally unaffected, we all have to pay for the ballooning medical costs.

Mass production of food is also wrecking the environment and contributing to global warming, ocean and air pollution, and other ills that make our survival on the planet more precarious by the day. Already a huge area in the Gulf of Mexico is so polluted that no fish can survive there.

We also pay direct costs. We support an enormous military and fight endless wars just to ensure access to cheap petroleum. The cheap petroleum is what keeps our economy humming but because it is so cheap, people do not value it either. They waste it in enormous amounts. In doing so they once again pollute the environment, contribute to inactivity and obesity, To say nothing of the many accidental deaths from traffic accidents.

There are simple ways to make a difference in this madness. You can get a smaller car and drive less. You can have your kids walk to school. You can bike to work. You can buy and eat only locally produced foods. You can stop wasting energy unnecessarily. You can do what is good for you and your community.

chinese medicine

We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch but that hasn't kept us from trying to eat one. And the fact is that some people eat free while all others pay. The trick they use is quite simple. It is called credit. But it is a type of credit where no bill comes due. At least not to them or in their life-time. It is a trick as old as Chinese medicine.

Today's WSJ has an article about tainted ginger originating in China and sold in California. Given how much food California grows, you would wonder why we import basic items such as ginger and garlic.  The US imports 68.7 million pounds of unground ginger per year. 53.8 million pounds travels 8,000 miles from China to get here.  And the reason why is simple. Ginger from China can be had for $7 per 30 pound box. And it can be sold for $2-3 per pound in the store. Good deal? Ginger from Brazil, the second leading source costs as much as $35 per box.

And the same applies to garlic. If you live in California, you may be forgiven to think that garlic comes from Gilroy. But think again. The US is a net importer of garlic. And China is the primary source.

One reason Chinese goods are so cheap is that Chinese workers aren't paid as well. That is the part the Chinese suffer for. They have a lower standard of living and we take advantage of it. The second part is that the Chinese are not subject to the same strict regulations and inspections that apply here. And here is where things get a bit tricky.

Everyone is always up in arms about government regulation. Demonizing regulations and the government is a favorite US pass-time. We conveniently forget that we elect the government, and that we put regulations in place to protect ourselves and our children. We do not want cheap toxic pesticides on our food, lead paint on our toys, or unsafe devices. We want inspections and guarantees. We want to sue for damages when someone gets hurt. And we expect multi-million dollar payments for pain and suffering. All that adds to price of things produced here. And like all good capitalists we really want someone else to pay for it. We effectively put locals out of business and go shop elsewhere.

The third part of the China bill is shipping. Importing basic stuff such as ginger, garlic, children's toys, and gadgets burns tons of oil. But we still "gain" because the oil is cheap too. It is cheap as nobody pays for the pollution part. Or the inevitable oil spills that mess up our coastlines. These are separate issues after all. Or are they?

Next time you volunteer your valuable time to clean up coastlines think about that. If you paid a few extra dollars for your goodies, you could save yourself a ton of time. And the environment a ton of hardship.

false modesty

There are those who believe we are too puny to matter on this planet. They are usually the ones who only display this type of modesty when it comes to arguments about pollution or global warming. When it comes to showing of their cars, boats, mansions, and other toys, they are not nearly so modest. In essence what they want is to be left alone in their mecca of over-consumption. 

Consider this. The US has 442 million acres of cropland according to the USDA. Of that, about 77% or 340 million acres is used for crops. That works out to about 1.13 acres per person. Using traditional farming methods, it is estimated that 1.2 acres is needed to feed a person for one year. This is a rough estimate of course and depends on location, climate, whether the person is a vegetarian or a meat eater, and what you define as "traditional farming." Modern farming does a lot better, unless you figure in all the hidden costs.

Those costs include depleting aquifers, fertilizer and pesticide runoffs, petroleum products used, gas, etc. Some have estimated we put in about 10 calories for every calorie of food we grow. But apart from water it seems we can at least keep doing this for a while longer.

Crop yields have jumped dramatically since the so-called green revolution of the 50's. Estimates are that yields jumped by an order of magnitude after world war II due to the increased use of fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation. That, by the way was what people meant when they said the "green revolution." It turned the country green.

In 2002, an irrigated acre of land yielded 4,260 pounds (1,932 kgs) of wheat on average. Barley yields are comparable, while oats yield half as much and corn about twice as much. A rough estimate says that one acre of wheat could feed 4-5 adults for a year if they were lean vegetarians. If they were lean meat eaters only about 1 person per year could be supported for every acre.

Not surprisingly, the US is the world's biggest food exporter. According to some estimates the income derived from food exports is close to $40 billion per year. However, if the population keeps growing at present levels, the US will cease to be a food exporter by 2025 or there about. All the land will be needed to feed the people living here. By 2050, food shortages will start affecting the population at large.

The point is not to paint a doomsday scenario. Clearly there are many ways to avoid disaster. And quite frankly it won't affect everyone. Already more than 10% of the US population or 35 million do not have "food safety" (i.e. they go hungry), and we are still exporting food to other countries. Call it the free market.

The point is that we are incredibly close to disaster. And given the enormous lag times in the system, we could cross a boundary and not notice it until it is too late. So much for modesty and laissez faire.

chemistry

In 1960 the US used 7,464 tons of fertilizer, 37% of it nitrogen, 34% phosphate, and 29% potash. By 1970 the total had more than doubled to 16,068 tons, and the nitrogen component had risen to 46%. By 1980, the total stood at 23,083 with 49% nitrogen, 24% phosphate and 27% potash. Since the 1980's use has been more or less steady at slightly over 21,000 tons, but the nitrogen component has gone up to as high as 57%, with the rest equally divided between phosphate and potash.

Fertilizer uses are heavily concentrated in states draining into the Mississippi watershed. Other high use areas include the Eastern seaboard, Florida, California's central valley and Eastern Washington state.

In 1995, about 4.5 billion pounds of chemicals were used as pesticides in the US every year. Half of that is chlorine and chlorine products used to treat water. A quarter are conventional pesticides, petroleum and sulfur. The majority of these are used in agriculture to produce food and fiber. That amounts to nearly 1 billion pounds. Another one billion pounds is in herbicides.

Pesticide uses have leveled off too, especially in agriculture. But in-home uses are skyrocketing and in-home uses are quickly making up for any losses. Surveys estimate that home owners use as much fertilizer and pesticide per acre for lawn care as agriculture does to grow food. 

Excess fertilizer and pesticide run off into rivers and streams and end up in the oceans. There the fertilizer can powerfully boost algae and micro-organism growth. These critters can grow so quickly that they choke off oxygen supplies and kill fish and shellfish. Algae blooms also produce toxins that find their way to people.

Pesticides accumulate in filter feeders that are eaten by fish and so these end up in the food supply as well.

Think about that when you look at your green lawn.