Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Food security and the coming storm

eurasiagroup.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 427 posts

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#311

Post by tyrfing »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #285
tyrfing wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This writeup on Reddit has a decent breakdown of the pitfalls: https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/uvcijm/a_pediatri... Looks like osmolality is a major concern. Good luck explaining that in a 30 second clip on CNN.

> Good luck explaining that in a 30 second clip on CNN. That's pretty much exactly my point, as I mentioned in another comment. I'm having a difficult time believing that the ingredients or measuring devices are so difficult to replicate at home that it would be impossible to do. I think the more likely explanation is a large portion of the population, put generously, "lacks attention to detail", and so homemade form…

Yeah, even if it's possible in theory at home (I don't know, won't research it, and think it could very well be either - I think it's very likely the "100% correct" version isn't possible), it will result in harm statistically. Thus it's not standard of care, and recommending it will result in very expensive malpractice lawsuits.

Caffeine powder is also illegal these days.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#312

Post by jandrewrogers »

10u152 wrote: post #298
adriand wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We lived for a couple weeks in Nicaragua and we hired the sister of the guy who maintained the property to cook for us (an optional service we were quick to agree to). On the first day she cooked a big batch of black beans in a pot. She left the pot on the stove, and would briefly bring to a boil each morning and night, which eliminated the need for refrigeration. With each successive day she’d throw in a few things…

Do you mean that it was always on ? To prevent bacteria you need to keep it above 65c or so to prevent bacteria. Heating it up once a day does kill bacteria but does not remove the toxic byproducts of bacteria which is what actually makes you sick.

No, they bring it up to temperature once per day. This is common practice around the world and quite safe.

Every time they heat the pot, it sterilizes it. It takes bacteria a significant time to recolonize a sterile pot, and it starts from a sterile state. As long as you re-sterilize (re-heat) it regularly, the bacteria won't have to time to colonize it in a meaningful way.

The downsides of this practice are not safety but the texture of the food, since repeated heating over many days tends to break it down into mush. On the other hand, it is well-known to improve the flavor of some dishes.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#313

Post by SkyPuncher »

Sylveste wrote: post #295
SkyPuncher wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Baby formula isn't some magical combination of ingredients. This is overlooking an incredibly important piece - composition and reliability. Infants, particularly those under 6 months, have very specific nutritional needs. A subset of that population has extremely strict nutritional needs. Even in a health baby, "stretching" the formula with too much water can cause a dangerous drop in electrolyte levels. For the a…

So, if infant formula is unavailable the course of action you recommend is simply letting the child go and making another one, because it won't be possible to guarantee that any alternative food source is 100% perfect? That's the weird thing about these interactions. If someone's asking for an alternative to infant formula - because they can't get any - the situation is already unsafe. Starvation has a 100% fatality…

I'm tempted not to respond because you're clearly not applying a good faith argument here. Nobody in this thread, besides you, is suggesting that it is preferable to let a baby die than to feed them partial nutrients. Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution.

This thread is in the context of "why isn't the media providing alternatives". I'm refuting the point that "it's simple and easy to replace baby formula" - which supports your argument, highlighting the severe and dire consequences of this situation.

I'm making an argument that highlights the severity of this situation for parents with young infants.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#314

Post by ajsnigrutin »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #309
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or regulate price transparancies... how much does the farmer get, how much the processor, how much the retailer, and how much goes to taxes.

Then the government will need to admit much of a price tag is taxes, probably 1st after taxes.

People have been waking up to this during the current gas price crisis... governments say they're doing everything they can, but they can't do more, because of the global oil prices,...

...meanwhile more than half of the gas price goes to the government, and people are notcing.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#315

Post by thematrixturtle »

abandonliberty wrote: post #217
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find two things funny... it might be a local thing (i'm from slovenia) but yeah... 1) gas was ~1.5eur here, then it fell to 1.0eur during the plague, and there were zero price drops beacause of that, and when the price started rising to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 eur, everybody (farmers, retailers) started complaining about increasing gas prices and how that will result in higher consumer prices (even before we hit the price a…

Farmers expect you to pay extra for the inconvenience, in addition to already cutting out the middle-men. Same thing everywhere I've been in more developed countries across North America and Asia. Even Bali. The most charitable interpretation is that farmers are simply not as optimized as grocery stores, resulting in a higher overall cost.

Well, it's also that the people with the time and mobility to drive up to farms to buy local organic produce also tend to be price insensitive, so it makes sense for the farmer to price accordingly.

This also applies to wineries: buying a bottle directly at the cellar door is almost always more expensive buying it at $LIQUOR_SUPERSTORE, but the people plonking down $100 for a bottle don't care, so this is a perfectly sensible pricing strategy.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#316

Post by Sylveste »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #313
Sylveste wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if infant formula is unavailable the course of action you recommend is simply letting the child go and making another one, because it won't be possible to guarantee that any alternative food source is 100% perfect? That's the weird thing about these interactions. If someone's asking for an alternative to infant formula - because they can't get any - the situation is already unsafe. Starvation has a 100% fatality…

I'm tempted not to respond because you're clearly not applying a good faith argument here. Nobody in this thread, besides you, is suggesting that it is preferable to let a baby die than to feed them partial nutrients. Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution. This thread is in the context of "why isn't the media providing alternatives". I'm refuting the…

>Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution.

Yes. That's the issue we're having here. People are encountering that situation of being unable to find formula, meaning that their children are literally at risk of starving, asking for alternatives and being told 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media as though that information will make formula appear out of thin air. They are looking for that less than ideal short term solution from the media, which is responding oddly.

It is quite simple to provide short-term replacements for infant formula. Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#317

Post by simtel20 »

colechristensen wrote: post #271
RustyConsul wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that was my initial thought as well, but you are limited by the availability of financial instruments as you move up the chain to inputs. Outputs are easy to craft instruments around, but inputs are what a business is.

Instead of financial instruments they are actual contracts for purchasing a commodity in the future from a local purveyor.

Without a futures market, you don't get futures, you get forwards, don't you? Forwards don't have enforcement for when the seller goes bankrupt, which leaves the buyer out any money paid in the forward contract and needing to find another supply at market price. That's my understanding, at least.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#318

Post by simtel20 »

WalterBright wrote: post #306
colechristensen wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn’t, you don’t buy fuel on the futures market, you buy it locally from the coop or whatever local purveyor you use for future delivery, hundreds of gallons at a time. The same for your other inputs, you have contacts to buy them well into the future, you don’t just pay the market rate when you need it.

Commodities futures are just like gold based money. The gold itself wasn't traded, it sat locked in a vault somewhere. People traded receipts for the gold. I.e. that's what banknotes literally used to be.

That is true right up until the day the contract comes due. Then you need to pick up your oil, pork, OJ, etc. at the time and place specified in the contract. If you holds the contract at that point in time, you are responsible for picking it up at the place in space.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#319

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

fractallyte wrote: post #167
guerrilla wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All we need is to sink down russian ships in Black sea. Yeah, I'm sure nuclear war will be good for food pirces.

Nato could have marched in at the beginning, with the justification that Russian aggression in Ukraine was a security threat to Europe. Russians only respect strength. The situation could have been escalated much further without tipping over into nuclear exchange. Nato failed, and now we have a multitude of security issues.

NATO is a defense pact. It only acts when its members are attacked.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#320

Post by zdragnar »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #161
sdoering wrote: post #4

I recently had a conversation with an organic farmer. While he is able to pass on at least some of his increased costs for energy and fuel through direct sales and cooperatively organized distribution channels, his conventionally farmed colleagues have a bigger problem. They have long-term purchase contracts that fix the prices for milk, meat or vegetables. In the case of milk and meat in particular, production costs…

I find two things funny... it might be a local thing (i'm from slovenia) but yeah... 1) gas was ~1.5eur here, then it fell to 1.0eur during the plague, and there were zero price drops beacause of that, and when the price started rising to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 eur, everybody (farmers, retailers) started complaining about increasing gas prices and how that will result in higher consumer prices (even before we hit the price a…

Farmers aren't salespeople. They often don't want to deal with the hassle of selling a part here, a part there. You want a tenderloin? What is the farmer supposed to do with the rest of it?

Far easier, more predictable and less wasteful of the animals to sell the entire lot to processors, who then deal with butchering, packaging and distributing individual cuts for them.

I could do one off short term programming contracts, but my customers would definitely pay much more for the overhead of me making a living that way vs simply getting a salaried job.

Post reply on HN