Finding healthy food in an unhealthy economy

Author's note: probably the most interesting part of this post is the excerpt and link from TIME Magazine towards the bottom. The rest is just my own unedited rambling on the subject of finding healthy foods in an unhealthy economy.

A morning news story today showing people boycotting Whole Foods for its CEO's stance on health care reform gave me an equal dose of disappointment and encouragement. Disappointing of course, because any time I see a corporation that seems to share the values of a consumer who just wants to find healthy, reliable products for his/her family, it's only a matter of time WHEN that company will be exposed for lying, cheating, stealing and generally contributing to the slow, yet constant poisoning of our food supply.

But, encouraging because each revelation about how unhealthy a "grilled chicken salad" at the awning-striped place of your choice really is -- is a reflection of the growing transparency of the debate. And ironically, that's a good thing.

It is nice to finally hear other people join what used to be the wing-nut fringe of folks who wanted healthy food. Truly healthy food. In our country, we are told what's good for corporations is best for the economy. So, any request that they consider their impact on the environment, our health, or even condoned discrimination of their own employees is an absurd cost they can't bear.

Those of you who know me know I am not trying to paint a negative picture of factory farms or rights-violating retail giants, but simply trying to provide an entry point for many friends and family into this debate. While questioning that great deal you are getting on pickles at Wal*Mart shakes the foundation of your reality (if not simply your budget), I believe it is utterly necessary for our children, and our civilization.

Unfortunately, the answer is not taking what these corporations give us, to try and make the "best decision available." When we shop in Target's organic farmer's market section, it's out of hope, not fact. I can only hope that food is a little less bad, used a few less pesticides, was grown in soil that was a little less lead-contaminated and the trucks it came in on drove a few less miles to get here (and hopefully, crates didn't get switched by the minimum-wager responsible for stocking them on the shelves before his smoke break).

Here's an excerpt from TIME Magazine (8/21/2009):

"So what's wrong with cheap food and cheap meat — especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don't receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories — some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s — but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it's no surprise we're so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin."

Read more in TIME Magazine's Getting Real about the High Prices of Cheap Food.

We live in a time when even the alternatives are not always good ones. I was told about a neighbor a few years ago who devoted a large area of his yard to gardening. He produced at least half of his family's fruits and vegetables on his own. Truly remarkable, and something I'd like to work towards, but it seems he forgot to check one last thing before planting his first seeds. A simple soil test would have revealed that his soil had a high contamination of lead, and he wouldn't be left wondering if he was responsible for his own child's mental illness.

What that should warn us is that even the alternatives, like urban farming, we are given might be no better than the injustices we are trying to avoid. But joining the conversation and trying to put pressure on the companies we buy from is our right, and our responsibility. Corporations will not do the right thing on their own, it would not be "fair" to their shareholders in the short-term, which is all we typically ask them to consider.

What are your thoughts?

Cost Cutting is a Mentality Not a Strategy

"Whenever I read about some company undertaking a cost cutting program, I know it's not a company that really knows what costs are about. The really good manager does not wake up in the morning and say 'This is the day I'm going to cut costs,' any more than he wakes up and decides to practice breathing."

- Warren Buffett

In my line of work, we are constantly coming across firms whose top priority is cutting costs. Obviously to a tech company providing web application development, and trying to push the limits of what is possible on the web, this isn't exactly music to our ears - but it should be.

A member of management once asked me, "Ben, how can we cut costs?" He brought up great ideas like double checking with two or three vendors before a print project, or challenging our assumptions on expenses of signage, banners, conference materials, etc. Even the concept of shutting down computers and turning off the lights came up.

These were all valid ideas, and I was initially surpised (and a little dissapointed) in myself for not being able to rattle a list of ten cost saving ideas off the top of my head. But the more I thought about what things would really make a difference, the more I realized that, unlike good design or other great inventions, saving money doesn't come out of a flurry of short-term necessity. It comes from people who practice it way before management tells them to.

It was then that I realized I had been cutting costs, for about the last ten years. As far as marketing budget, I have made a reputation for being a practicing meiser with my company's money (which isn't always a good thing). For example, out of 100 or so people in our firm, it turns out my laptop is the oldest one currently in use. That's not even among the power users, that's all employees. My other laptop (the Macbook Pro) is three years old. I've rebuilt it myself four or five times, including Windows XP and Vista virtual machines each time. I'm not going to say I'm the companies biggest time-saver, because it consumes hours to be your own tech support, but as far as costs... And what about software? Probably half the software I use is free, open source problem-solving shareware (fine, the other half is the entire Adobe Design suite, and Microsoft's entire MSDN library of software - but we still get a great deal on those licenses!). Yeah, overall, I'd say I've been practicing what you are now preaching.

A case in point - IT asked everyone to turn off all devices at night, not just computers. This means monitors, printers, etc. I went a step further and offered, "Employees should use power strips, since we all know that even if your monitor (for example) is turned off, it still draws juice from a standard outlet. Multiply that by all employees (two monitors for many) and over a year, I'll bet that would make a measurable impact." Of course that's a non-issue in my case. I bought mine myself. Well, obviously that idea got laughed at as "a little over the top." I guess I thought that kind of thinking was what really affected the bottom line, but it would seem that me and my friend Warren are in the minority here (I think the above quote is worth repeating):

"Whenever I read about some company undertaking a cost cutting program, I know it's not a company that really knows what costs are about. The really good manager does not wake up in the morning and say 'This is the day I'm going to cut costs,' any more than he wakes up and decides to practice breathing."

- Warren Buffett

OK, my own self pandering asside, there are still plenty of things I can do. For an example that I think will really blow your mind, see my post about the Industrial Revolution of Data about how Google will bring us analytics about our own energy usage through their smart PowerMeter application.

But, for the time being, I should focus on my job, which, if you remember the beginning of this article, is helping business owners learn how to approach their design projects with a cost cutting mentality. That way, when they find that management finally catches up, they know the fad will pass, but good practices will drive the company forward.

The Industrial Revolution of Data

My next genius blog idea was going to be a discussion about when tech becomes mainstream, sifting through the "next big thing" vs. the "next big nothing." Bear with me here, but I believe the point at which a technology becomes profitable is not when it becomes popular. In fact, far after that first push (thats when it becomes popular) and people start asking - but how does this make any money? An example of this is Gary Vaynerchuk's How will Twitter Monetize?

Google is another perfect example of a company who, even well after its 2004 IPO (where Google initially set their stock price at $85, to close that day over $100) folks continue to ask - but how do they make money?

You might say "advertising" and leave it at that. And you would be as right as you are vague - but right nonetheless. While that's the second most common way to make money (right behind selling something), the longer winded answer is much more interesting to me. And it's the one that gives us a real insight into the long-term plans of some of these corporate geniuses.

So what are these guys really up to?

When you look at the standards that these organizations build upon in their "spare time," the Hadoop MapReduce project comes up. So, What is it?

MapReduce is a programming paradigm that expresses a large distributed computation as a sequence of distributed operations on data sets of key/value pairs.

Huh?

The Hadoop MapReduce framework harnesses a cluster of machines and executes user defined Map/Reduce jobs across the nodes in the cluster. A MapReduce computation has two phases, a map phase and a reduce phase. The input to the computation is a data set of key/value pairs.

Huh?

A perfect example is Google's PowerMeter program, which aims to give us all a tool to measure our own energy consumption, ideally leading to lower bills and a lower collective carbon footprint. Google estimates that with access to personal energy information, each family could save 10-15% a month on energy consumption costs. The practical application from Google is to answer questions like: How much does it cost to leave your TV on all day? What about turning your air conditioning 1 degree cooler? Which uses more power every month — your fridge or your dishwasher? Is your household more or less energy efficient than similar homes in your neighborhood?

The question of "why would Google provide this information?" is answered only by imagining just how they can use the data. Keep in mind, for every bit of data Google reports to you and me, it's data they are archiving, parsing and crunching for their own use elsewhere. Besides that, this so-called "Smart Grid" of power appears to be a joint effort between Google and GE. No one said it was going to be free to join.