Questions to Stimulate Discourse Regarding A Collapse in Food Distribution Systems

A High Level Observation From John Hoffman

 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:52 AM

Mike,

 

Very interesting exchange underway.   The lack of ownership of this discussion within the federal agencies is disturbing and unnerving.   (emphasis added by Ross) The Arab Spring (a poor and unrepresentative name for sure) began with food related security issues at the core.  The current unrest has many underlying sub-tones and issues.  What is clear is that spreading social unrest is creating a climate that extremists of many types are exploiting, as well as some nation states.   Combined with the economic declines, the EURO crisis and leadership failures here and elsewhere, the prospects for a stable, relatively peaceful world are dim.   Others are posturing to exploit the turmoil that is resultant of this evolving situation.   If our leadership does not begin to deal more directly with this evolving turmoil, it will have devastation effects in our own country.  Oh for the peace and quiet of the old bi-polar world…..

 

Food security, it strikes me, will be the core issue around the globe in the very near future and will be the source of unrest on a scale we have not seen in decades, if ever.   The clouds on the horizon are forming.  We need more than an umbrella to weather the next decade.  How do we motivate those who need to lead our preparation and response?

 

John

 

 

Ross Response to Luis Kun

 And the Final (I Hope!) Comment on Credible Scenario Issue

 

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:09 AM

 

Luis,

 

I agree fully that in developing solutions to a global problem one has to look at the entire problem, not just a national slice of a global problem.  And I am sure that Mike McDonald agrees with you, as well.   In fact, I suspect that probably everybody in this exchange also agree with you.

 

The more immediate scenario issue that Mike and I have been discussing has to do with characterizing and crafting exercise scenarios that cannot be dismissed by policy-makers, either because they are too extreme to be credible or that fail to instill a sufficient sense of urgency because they look too much like things we have already dealt with.  Once the policy-level agrees that there is an issue worth examining, then that examination has to, as you rightly insist, “look at the whole village.”

 

I apologize to all if, by initiating the exercise scenario discussion, I have dragged the larger discussion off course.  That was not my intent.

 

Bob

 

 

 

More From Luis Kun

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:28 AM

I insist that in the global economy you need to look at the whole village and not just some parts.

Case in  point -Summer 2011 –

• In addition of the problems generated by climate change on food production…
• Europe would not buy vegetable or fruits from the UE because of the fear of e-Coli. 
• They would not buy from Asia either because of fears of radiation contamination from the Fukoshima crisis- post earthquake / tsunami
• They wanted to buy from South America, but the volcano in Chile became active closing all the airports in the area, Buenos Aires / Argentina, Montevideo / Uruguay, Asuncion / Paraguay and all the south of Brazil.

Resulting on increasing demand … increasing the price of many agriculture products and foods…. Causing conflict particularly within poorer / developing nations.

Luis

 

 

 

Carl Taylor Comments 

 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:18 PM

 

Michael
It was great to see you at OHA, forgive me if this is treading on prior posts but I have been on continuous travel since I saw you.
Food issues are broader and more complex in many respects as the folks on this email know far better than me, but here are some general way points that I think are valid:
a. Rising middle class nations move from a grain diet to a meat diet. It actually takes more grain to raise a cow than bake a loaf of bread.
b. When nations such as Russia have their own internal economic issues particularly around food they limit or cancel imports to keep the surplus in country to manage their own internal econ issues as we have seen in recent years.
c. Drought conditions or drought impacted by climate change as we see in Africa, the US and Russia has a significant impact on food and requires importation from other nations.
d. Those nations seeking diversity and resilience often buy lands in other countries (with water) such as China,  but then have a challenge if that nation has a short fall in their own domestic production.
e. The biofuel rage actually depresses the amount of corn available for consumption which can contribute to a food shortage.
f. Of course we haven't mentioned the collapse of global fish stocks, rising populations, or the challenges around water, irrigation, damning (see the problems in Africa with Egypt and the Nile or the Colorado). Nor have we mentioned that food can be used to further other economic concessions or political leverage. We missed an opportunity early in Arab Spring in which food was an issue and maybe we will miss it  during Arab Winter when food again is an issue but again- I am just a guy far removed from the "reality" of DC so I am likely quite wrong in this observation.
g. And finally there is the other food security related to food borne outbreaks BSE in South Africa, as I mentioned last week, hoof and mouth, listeria (currently a problem), e-coli and a host of other bad bugs.

So after that cheerful introduction resilience is a huge issue. Part of it is about resource matching-my Kenya example of how close in proximity food wasting away was to IDP camps of people starving, part of it is about simply over consumption some 60% of the food in the US may find its way on our plate but then is thrown in the garbage- can we not super size? Part of the issue may be a rational international food security program but I am skeptic about large scale govt roundtables. Climate change has produced nothing, Syria is still Syria, the G 20 is neutered,  so if you are counting on some .org or .gov solution I would worry.  But perhaps if food is the new oil will we see a new OPEC arise from countries with sound farm policies and water, based upon economic interest not just global good? If so that would be interesting. Or will we see the cartels of food production create their own OPEC ( OFEC) and move beyond governments. That might be even more interesting or do we begin to nationalize food producers to protect our own interests ala China and Russia with their oil economies etc.  An uncertain yet changing world in which communities should consider and collaborate.

Let me know how I can help and thank you for raising this important issue.
all the best as always
carl

 

 

More From David Hastings

 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:42 PM

Mike,

Attached is a rough draft note on attempts to better perceive unemployment at the county level in the USA, with some linkages to poverty.  I think, these days, food insecurity may be related more to poverty and unemployment (and lack of transport flexibility to help respond to possible dusruptions, including price hikes, in the food supply), and in underlying problems in education and governance.

As you know, the USDA reports about annually on modest and more extreme food insecurity, at a state level.  Here's the link to USDA's most recent report (issued this month for 2011):
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err141.aspx      
Here's the link (also on that page) to their report:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf
Here's the link to the statistical supplement to this report, which has interesting info on trends in food security over the past decade:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884603/apn-058.pdf
According to this statistical supplement, food security improved by .7% (from 8.5% to 7.8% insecure) in North Dakota, while degrading by 7.4% (from 8.6% to 16%) in Missouri.  Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island degraded by 6% or more over the past decade.

My sense is that the counties with low HSI, or more simply with high unemployment, poverty, and DoEducation low functional literacy, can help to estimate where, within states, people may be more vulnerable (in general, as well as w.r.t. food security).

Related to your question about global food systems - the global HSI attempted to craft a food security element - in response to comments ~2 years ago by folks like those copied here.  It's a challenge, because of a shortage of relevant data, and a lack of dialogue on the subject.  The attempt looked at poverty, food imports vs. exports (by value related to GDP per capita), actual food aid delivered, change (mostly loss) in crop land over the past x decades by country, and population change rates.

Getting deeper into food security at national to community level would also be a challenge.  I assume that USDA's Economic Research Service has some folks who have thought about this issue, and perhaps others who may be reluctant to pursue the issue too deeply.  But, based on my (somewhat naive) draft assessment of the Denver area, I wonder how much is useful thought, and how much is overly shaky speculation.

It would be interesting to have a 1-day workshop, which might explore the issue of better characterization of food security at national-to-community levels - and see what the "to-do"list might be.

What is NOT speculative is (1) the ~70% drop in the USD compared to leading global currencies since the Nixon Shock of 1970; (2) the liklihood that such slippage in the USD will continue unless the economy becomes more globally competitive; (3) that unlike Greece, Spain, and Italy, we don't have Eurozone partners to bail us out.  China and a few others may be doing this by buying dollars and treasuries.  But for how long?  And what might cause them to (probably very quietly) cut back on their bail outs?  (4) that our traditional "moral suasion" approach with China appears more for domestic consumption than for real results; (5) that we haven't had an effective global competitiveness policy since when? the 1950s?; (6) inequality has increased, relatively steadily, since 1969; (7) the trade balance has been negative for ~30+ years; etc.

Cheers,

Dave

 

 

McDonald Reply to Stephens

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:57 AM

Tim, 

 

Good points.

 

In the social media connection to the exercise, we can certainly invite broad food industry participation.

 

I think that we are shooting for unity of effort, not consensus.  Differing views and a diversity of systems is most likely adaptive and more agile in severe emergencies. However, in preparation for severe emergencies, we need all the key groups to "buy into" the process and take their engagements and other's engagements and roles seriously to reach the most effective outcomes. 

 

Mike

 

 

 

Tim Stephens Comments

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:44 AM

Mike/John

Thanks for the opportunity to weigh-in.

No specifics to add, and against my normal desire to push for clarity, but I think there are so many additional overlays (market shortages for security services, bullets, competitive use raw materials) in these scenarios I think it might be hard to single out the unitary “food industry.”

Additional observation: the assumption that the participants “moderate their positions enough to collaborate more effectively,” sounds like the usual calls for bipartisanship from the press. I am not sure we have evidence that the “middle road,” the “consensus” in disasters, pandemics, etc is validated. There are specifics and correct actions, is the task might be to open thinking to where they come from, rather than agree?

Tim

 

 

McDonald Back to Hoffman

 

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:51 AM

John, 

 

If the intentional event scenario is designed so that its lessons learned could also be applied to issues involved in non-intentional events (e.g.,  climate change-induced crop failures and severe food price hikes), your observations could be utilized in a serious game designed with broadly useful educational objectives in mind. 

 

Let's have a side conversation with Andy Jaine.  We can bring him into this thread, if he and the group think that conversation would be useful to deepen this discourse. 

 

Mike

 

 

 

More From John Hoffman

 

 

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:44 AM

 

Mike,

 

Glad to help with this important effort.  Who is funding this?  Ideally,  if it could be jointly funded by government and industry, you would then get the most traction on outcomes. This is, however, often problematic to actually organize.    If it is a government effort only, I find that industry will participate but tends to take a very cynical approach to cooperation and outcomes, particularly where it is a federally conducted event.    If industry “owns” the event as well, their senior management expects and ROI. 

 

On the point of different solutions and public response, re item 6, I have found that the public tends to take accidental (non-intentional) events in stride, even where they simply avoid a product or group of products for some period. Government at all levels tends to take a very conservative, “don’t make a mistake”, but thorough approach to investigating accidental events.   That is why it usually takes many weeks for substantive results from an investigation.    On the other hand, if the event is perceived to be intentional, you immediately have law enforcement engaged, there is an atmosphere of “competition” between the food safety and law enforcement components involved as they pursue their differing agendas and roles.  There is much more urgency to find and produce results and to intervene.    The media will be much more aggressive, critical and excited and the public and politicians will react much more rapidly and confidence in related products will wane much more quickly.     

 

Who is developing the simulation?   Have you spoken with Andy Jaine?  

 

John

 

 

 

Comments from Luis Kun

 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:13 AM

Michael I appreciate your email but for the next 60 days literally I am overwhelmed with activities many related to the topics you are discussing so I have no time to answer one by one the questionnaire.

Let me offer you the following thoughts-

• As you know I depart with the assumption that everything is connected and yet disconnected.

I think that a holistic view is necessary in which you look at the problem as a dynamic system  and where you include the perspectives of multi-disciplines and inter-disciplines.  Given the economic disparities among those that have and those that don’t, I believe that the future wars and or conflicts will be about water, food, energy, medications, etc.

• The US is part of the Global Village where grapes come from Chile, pineapples from Costa Rica, kiwis from New Zeland, coffe from Brasil and Colombia, fish from Vietnam, cattle from South America, etc.  I also look at agriculture, food, water, healthcare and all the other Critical Infrastructures globally from the perspective of interdependencies. That exist among them and among all nations.
• You may remember the special issue of the IEEE-EMBS of Nov./Dec 2008  on Protection of the Healthcare and Public Health Critical Infrastructure that I Edited.   I co-wrote a piece with Stan Boodie , a colleague of mine at here at NDU, regarding an Enterprise Architecture for (global) food protection, which is very relevant to this discussion. 
• Journal of Green Engineering  - I am writng in this context a paper that should be out soon on all the floods and all the droughts, of this summer, the relations to climate change, global disasters, price of food, economic failures, etc. 
• I am heading as an observer and SME to Punta del Este where all the Ministers of the Defense of the Hemisphere will be having the CDMA meeting.  The number one area of discussion will cover, Natural Disasters, Environmental Protection and Biodiversity.  Again the topic of  agriculture, food, water, etc will be part of the discussion. [1^st half of October]
•   The 3^rd Worl Wide Summit on Cybersecurity will take place at the end of October in New Delhi, India.  I am organizing / chairing and presenting with a panel discussion a special session on “Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) of the Global Village in Cyberspace” on October 31 2012.  One of the panelist (Purdue U. will be presenting a modeling and simulation crisis predictive system.
• In my lectures on CIP I use also a predictive model from U. of Illinois on food  / agriculture demand production.  The model is based on the assumption that as the poorest countries will increase their capital their diet will change.  As they start eating meat more grain is needed to feed the animals, etc.
• You may want to check an interesting article on Time magazine regarding fish farming / aquaculture I believe it was July 18 2011 on the cover.

Regards Luis

 

 

David Hastings’ Comments

 

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 7:00 PM

 

Mike,

Many thanks for including me on this. I think that the responses already received have been valuable. I agree with your effort, and those responses.

Some additional, perhaps naive (and out of mainstream context) thoughts:

1. Currently, I envision that the next foreshock in our current decline may occur when one of our major international creditors (quietly) cuts back - leading to, perhaps, a serious down-tick in the USD. This may result from several possible causes, and might have diverse impacts in personal and other finance, and the wholesale, retail, distribution sectors including food in the United States.  This will happen - but we won't know when until the process begins to unfold.  A diplomatic gaffe, sovereign or corporate finance/governance crises, and others could trigger such an event.

2. If you are looking at food security locally in the USA, let me attempt to sketch part of the scene in the Denver area - as part of the pattern may be occurring elsewhere. Two of the old-line supermarket chains are under pressure. Albertsons has been in retreat for ~3 decades - with some folks wondering when they will entirely leave the area (or collapse nationally). Ditto for Safeway, though the period of decline may be half that of Albertsons. King Soopers (Kroger) seems strong, and follows urban growth patterns with new, and larger (maybe not a good idea..) stores. Of course, the challenge that people see comes from WalMart and the like. Trader Joe's (ALDI Nord) is about to enter the market, and could cause further vulnerability of the old-line majors. (ALDI is an intriguing story, worth watching if you aren't doing so.) In short, the old-line major grocery retail sector could collapse if further de-stabilized (by whatever event - supply, demand, finances including labor costs including health care).

There may be another parallel trend happening in the "Health" food sector. Sprouts and Sunflower are a new generation of health-oriented grocery markets. Their prices are often cheaper than WalMart - and quality tends to be better than any of the old-line supermarkets. Sprouts and Sunflower have merged, and are likely to grow further, putting price (and additional financial) pressure on the more traditional, much more expensive health-oriented retailers. The Whole Foods places appear (to my eye) to be getting less business. Also, the Hispanic and Asian communities have their own markets, with their own goods and customers. Some of these are growing, as well. {We now shop mostly at Sprouts and the Hispanic and Asian groceries, with WalMart used for a few things.}

 

The healthy retailers have a stronger presence in the growing, prosperous, suburbs - but not so much in Denver or the less prosperous sub-urban clusters like Commerce City. If Albertsons and Safeway leave the area, King Soopers (Kroger) would be about the only supermarket left within Denver's most urban areas. Denver has its share of people without cars (because of finances, age, or other reasons). Collapse of the legacy supermarkets could result in increased food security issues in the area.

 

In short, I wonder if local vulnerabilities in the distribution chain, including retailers and their suppliers, may trigger food security issues – come the next financial crisis. Mayors' offices may be more aware of such issues than state-level offices.

 

3. I have been attempting to better characterize the unemployment and underemployment situations in the country. As you know, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports U3 numbers, which have had several adjustments over the past 2 decades – which result in (intentional?) under-counts. John Williams' Shadow Stats attempts to provide a more accurate estimate at a national level, and sometimes to the state level. Estimates: BLS U3 of 8+%, BLS U6 of ~15% (both trending downward) and SGS – his estimate of real unemployment including those unemployed for over a year (and thus dropped from the “labor force”) - of ~23% and rising as more long-term unemployed fall out of the “labor force”. My own attempts to estimate unemployment use BLS estimates, plus Census enumerations of those who “did not work in the past 12 months.” My estimates for U6 at the county level range between 2% and 56%, with county mean and median values about 14.5%. My attempt at an even more comprehensive "U7" estimate, including unemployed persons “not in the labor force” is not fully trustworthy, but seems to range from 2% to 73%, with county mean and median values about 22%.

 

If you consider these unemployment numbers, and also county level poverty figures, which range between 0 and 51%, with county mean and median values around 17%, and figures for underemployment (those working either <35 hours/week or <40 weeks/year) which ranges between 0 and 71%, with county mean and median values about 36%, one may see where vulnerabilities may lie. Mapping such figures suggests, to me at least, where people might be most vulnerable to challenges such as food insecurity.

Regards,

Dave

 

Ross Reply to Vroegindewey’s Comments on Credible Scenario Issue

 

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:08 AM

This is exactly one of the kinds of scenario that I was talking about as having great credibility.

 

It is, of course, a different kind of scenario than would be a widespread shortage of food generally as the result of, for instance, a long term climate-change-driven drought.

 

These two very different extreme cases would present significant challenges for both government and for the food production sector, with some aspects probably being common across both and some being very different.   As a result, being prepared for one says nothing about being prepared for the other.  Not that we are now prepared for either…

 

Bob

 

 

 

Gary Vroegindewey Comments on Credible Scenario Issue 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:38 PM

Mike, David, All,

Thank you for including me in the discussions.  This is an important topic and one that needs all the visibility it can have.

There was discussion of having a credible event either accidental or intentional.  The following event is a model that could get attention. 

The largest single point source natural food poisoning event I am aware of caused an estimated 224,000 illnesses. "Lessons from a case of toxic ice cream; A national outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis infections from ice cream" Hennessy, T.W. et al 1996 New England Journal of Medicine 334 

What if this were 19 terrorists with TICs and TIMs instead of box cutters and planes hitting 19 tankers of milk products that got into multiple food lines.   224,00 times 19 = chaos

Alternatively the Salmonella in peanut products and how it penetrated hundreds of products could be used.

Politicians and policy makers should be interested since food issues, in addition to cost and availability that David discussed, have brought down governments.  BSE in UK and more directly dioxin in poultry in Belgium 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin_Affair

I will continue to follow this conversation.

Gary

 

 

Ross Reply to McDonald’s Credible Scenario Response

 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:56 AM

Mike,

 

I agree with everything you said here.

 

There is a fine line to walk in crafting scenarios and other devices to help people understand the problem.  Go too extreme and you either lose credibility (“that, like Black Swans, can’t happen!”) or the implications are simply too inconvenient to bear thinking about (e.g., the so-called “conservative” response to Al Gore and global warming).  Not extreme enough and the issue becomes another of those where the response is “Well, we’ve been through something like that before and it wasn’t so bad.  We can just muddle through again, if it actually happens.”   There are two issues with that kind of mindset.  The first is that we aren’t talking about events/issue that are like things we have faced before.  The second is that the word “if” inaccurately implies a high degree of uncertainty about what is coming down the pike.   In any event, the potential for that latter reaction is at the heart of my concern about using Katrina and Deep Water Horizon as examples of the kind of precipitating events that we have to worry about.  I don’t think they can be sufficiently effective or credible in setting the stage for the dire circumstances that you, and I suspect the rest of the addressee list, envision.

 

I don’t know if you are familiar with the work of Morris Massey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Massey ).  He is a sociologist formerly at the University of Colorado.  He talks to the idea that our values are largely set by what is happening in the world when we are teenagers and that, absent what he calls a “Significant Emotional Event” (or SEE), our values remain largely fixed throughout our lives.  For example, for those who were teenagers during the Great Depression, like my parents and probably yours, financial security became a preoccupying concern for the remainder of their lives.  For this same generation, WWII was a SEE that instilled a patriotism value on top of the concern for financial security.  In turn, these values set the stage for the inability of that generation to understand why so many of their children were concerned with things other than financial security and/or were opposed to the Vietnam War.  His ideas are very consistent with your discussion of memes.  I think that a lot of what we hear from today’s “conservatives” is an echo of values passed down by The Greatest Generation to a portion of their progeny.  And, of course, superimposed on that echo, we have 9/11 which, as Significant Emotional Events go, has to rank very high on the significance scale.  But even here, 9/11 is fading in its effect on our collective psyche, as are both Katrina and Deep Water Horizon.

 

To that, I think our psyche is also changing.  We are becoming inured to larger scale events.  For example, the EXXON VALDEZ resulted in national outrage and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, passed in response to the EXXON VALDEZ incident, was passed unanimously in both houses of Congress.  Even the declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor wasn’t unanimous.  But after DWH, we actually had a Republican Congressman apologizing to BP for the President having insisted that BP clean up the spill and compensate those who suffered economic harm, even though that is exactly what the law requires.

 

All that said, I know that you will craft the best scenarios possible, and that (warning: mixed metaphors ahead) you will carefully thread the needle with the fine line you will be walking.

 

Best,

 

Bob

 

 

McDonald Response to Ross’s Credible Scenarios Comments

 

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:11 AM

Bob,

 

Thank you for your input.  Your points are always incisive and well-stated, even when I don't agree entirely with them.  When we dig into the differences in our points of view, it is always insightful for me and often leads to breakthroughs in my thinking.

 

First, I agree with you that scenarios must be credible in the minds of the principal decision-makers for them to take action and direct resources.  This statement is at the heart of our greatest challenges today, because some of our most important strategic challenges already apparent, as well as many more that are rapidly emerging in a manner that threaten the health and human security of Americans, and the resilience and sustainability of their communities of interest globally, do not show up on the radar screen of many key decision-makers as credible.  Some of the most important emerging threats (e.g., overpopulation, collapse of water and food systems) have no sufficiently powerful champions, or even institutions in the U.S. that have sufficient resources and power to address them.

 

As you know, the Bush Administration's strategy to deal with climate change was to didact all mentions of it from the record and to destroy EPA and NOAA programs that would investigate its causes and patterns of risk.  Climate change was explained away by using the meme that Al Gore invented it, as he said that he invented the internet.  Unfortunately, you could interview 100 Congressman today and they would use the same memetic misinformation (misleading cultural artifacts) in spite of the scientific consensus that the poles are melting, sea levels are rising, the planet is warming, and weather patterns are changing and growing more extreme and destructive.

That said, these facts do not change the reality that we have to work with the worldviews of leadership and the American citizenry.  We have to frame our arguments within their memeplexes (complexes of acceptable cultural artifacts) to enable adaptive change in American institutions and in the American public, so that they are resilient in the face the very different conditions that are emerging.  They most often cannot even contemplate any information that does not fit within the social constructs within which they see the world.

 

Another complication is that if they did, their own institutions would sometimes begin to build an immune response to them and would begin to sideline their influence, and potentially expel them, or even attempt to destroy what credibility they have that threatens the status quo, as was the Republican's approach to Al Gore on climate change.  The historical record is full of these characters that took unpopular principled stands from a position of greater insight and anticipatory knowledge, like Linus Pauling and Robert Oppenheimer.  Some of these characters because of their principled stands, end up being celebrated for being right, but were too far ahead of their time.  Most don't, and only suffer the same arrows born by the other "heretics" that were strident, but wrong.  

 

Within a time of exponential change, the time horizon between revealing a mission critical truth (that is treated as heresy) and the time in which anticipatory action can no longer prevent catastrophe is uncomfortably short.  This increases the chance of catastrophic errors.

 

As a result, we have to very carefully update and derive knowledge from our rapidly changing science base, and even more carefully choose our memes (self-replicating fragments of culture) to explain the insights we are gaining to those that will not wade through the complexities and tedium of the science.  In some cases, we have to fit our arguments and proposals to the memetic frames of the key decision-makers so that some anticipatory actions and infrastructures can be developed.  In other cases, we have no moral choice, but to release inconvenient truths that can only be seen by some as "heresies, if they are, if fact, essential to the resilience of our communities and societies.   if you will - if they are mission critical.  Unfortunately, often the tactical programs that are acceptable become strategic failures, and we are left with only the opportunities of cleaning up the mess afterwards.  Even more unfortunately is when the inconvenient truths are treated as heresy, so long that we end up in Severity Level 4+ and Severity Level 5 crises, with no ability to recover.

 

Some of the strategic challenges we now face are potentially so destructive, that the acceptable tactical drills, exercises and concepts of operations are basically useless and simply reduce American's ability to adapt, pass meaningful laws to avoid catastrophic effects, or change behaviors in mass to enable sustainability.  Severity Level 4+ and 5 crises result from lack of leadership that devolves into catastrophic conditions, even when the facts are known.  "I told you so" after the fact is not leadership and is never warmly received.  

 

In a Severity Level 4+ crisis, the public's trust in their institutions is lost and cannot be regained.  In a Severity Level 5 crisis, social ecologies supporting the health and human security of Americans and the resilience and sustainability of their communities of interest globally can no longer avoid catastrophic collapse.

 

Tardy actions on such things as climate change, food crises, water crises are the types of leadership-induced crises that lead to violence, riots, and revolutions, because the public comes to the conclusion that the powers that be are fundamentally myopic and destructive.  When the security of bureaucrats, the politician's narcissistic avarice for power, or the businessman's greed make them impervious to growing evidence that their worldview is fatally flawed and destructive, we should not be trying to fit our scenarios into convenient truths that do nothing to address mission critical gaps. 

 

 

Let me stop here first, then let's dig into and rarify the potential simulation scenarios to address the most strategic threats we face in the U.S. food systems.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Bob Ross Comments re: Credible Scenarios

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:29 PM

 

Mike,

 

I read John Hoffman’s comments with great interest.  He raised some great points on your interesting/challenging questions.  But he also skipped over the things that had grabbed my eye on first reading.

 

When I read through your list of scenarios I realized I had some trouble with your characterizations.  One of the problems in creating scenarios that have the power to get policy-maker attention is the issue of achieving credibility in the mind of those whose attention you desire.   If the scenarios are not credible, then they won’t be effective in grabbing sufficient emotional and intellectual attention of the policy-makers you are trying to reach.  Some thoughts are inserted below in RED. 

 

Also, in several places you refer to disruptions to food production “in your region.”  Food production, however, is not necessarily a regional industry.  Some products are highly regional, dairy products for instance are generally produced and distributed in localities, but others are much more centralized in their production and national in their distribution.  It is harder to impact a food type with highly decentralized production/limited distribution than it is with one with highly centralized production and national distribution.  A regional impact may be at least partially offset by transportation. 

 

Similarly, a single commodity or product impact may be offset by substitution, depending on the commodity or product – corn and tomatoes are vastly different in terms of criticality while, contrary to their advertising claims, Ragu and Prego are somewhat interchangeable. 

 

Finally, a shortage situation may be very different in its impact than would be a tampering situation in which many people died (some of the scenarios I have seen run into the tens of thousands from just one production plant being targeted).

 

To really get to a Level 3 or higher situation, the effects would have to be very significant (lots of deaths, widespread shortages of critical foodstuffs extending over time, etc.).

 

All that said, you raise some interesting questions.

 

Best,

 

Bob

 

1) Do you have the tools that you want to face large-scale social crises impacting the food industry, the global food distribution, and/or the U.S. food distribution system?

 

                1.1)  a Katrina-like (naturally-occurring crisis, such as prolonged extreme bio or weather event impacting food supply) in the US food industry within your region?  I am not sure that “Katrina-like” is a helpful characterization here.  Yes, Katrina was a natural event, which I believe to be is your major teaching point here, but Katrina had limited impact both geographically and temporally, and very little impact on food production in the bigger sense.  I think a better event to use, despite the fact that it is not recent and is therefore not seared into our current collective conscience, would be the Dust Bowl of the 1930s (see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl).  The Dust Bowl affected a large area, affected agriculture in a big way, and lasted for several years.  It may also be what we are coming to, vis-à-vis the recent drought and climate change.

 

                1.2)  a Deep Water Horizon (socio-technical collapse) event in the US food industry?   I have similar reservations about using the Deep Water Horizon event as a comparison.  The DWH event involved only one facility rather than an entire industrial sector.  Yes, DWH implicated a major company’s entire approach to safety (actually it was only one of numerous events over time which proved that BP was not concerned with safety, either for its workers or for the environment) and it raised concerns over the industry’s ability to safely drill in very deep waters, but it did not immediately upset the availability of petroleum products or otherwise create concern about the continued viability of the oil and gas industry.  In short, DWH was much more of an industrial accident than it was a true “socio-technical collapse.”   I am having a hard time thinking of an historical socio-technical collapse that would be sufficiently analogous to use as an illustration.  Perhaps the closest thing I can think of would be the 1973 Oil Embargo or, looking forward, what would happen if Iran were to successfully block the Strait of Hormuz following an Israeli or, God forbid, an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.   I am not sure what might cause such a socio-technical collapse in food, although the combination of an emergent disease that runs rampant due to monoculture, say of corn, or perhaps genetic modification which eliminated resistance to an emergent disease in wheat might be possibilities.

 

                1.3)   a EuroZone collapse while the U.S. hits an economic cliff creating discontinuities in food distribution?   The scenario credibility issue to overcome here would be in showing the connection between a global economic collapse and agriculture/food production/distribution.  Agriculture and food production/distribution are highly capital and energy intensive.  It might be that the capital requirements would be too much to bear, thus causing farms to go out of production and creating scarcity.  Even that might not be terribly credible as energy prices and interest both tend to go lower during an economic downturn.  Farm revenue would have to fall off faster than energy and interest costs.  That may be happening now, but primarily because production has fallen due to the drought more so than any economic factors due to a soft economy.

 

                1.4)  a 9/11-like strategic, but prolonged, attack on the American food supply system the origin of which is not discoverable for three to seven months?   This one is perhaps the easiest to see, particularly if it involves both foods that are highly regional in nature (e.g., dairy products and bread) and highly centralized (e.g., a packaged/processed food item that is produced in only one place).  The closest I can think of for this, at least in terms of a manufactured ingestible, is the Tylenol tampering case of a few years back.  If this event had involved not just Tylenol but essentially every OTC pain relief medicine coming from every point of production, and not just a few bottles but essentially every bottle, then it would have created serious doubts about the entire pharma industry.  It would have been even more serious if it had involved prescription meds coming from a real manufacturer, as opposed to counterfeit meds coming from wherever.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael McDonald’s Response to Hoffman’s Comments

 

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:16 AM

John, 

 

1) I hear you and agree with you on being specific about the essential tools and methodologies as we go deeply into the discourse with them.  Phase I is primarily state government, private sector food industry, food distributors, food councils, and ports behind closed doors.  Phase II would focus on the resilience of communities with federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, private sector, social sector, and the public invited to join, but with different interfaces into the same serious game environment distributed through social media nationally.  I have added "major animal disease outbreak" as a scenario.

 

2) I will change the question to:  "Under what conditions would your state's food interests collectively engage the use of new advanced analytics, communication and computing tools and methods to ensuring more robust food distribution during severe crises?"  I will also add the question, "What do you think the probability is that your state's food interests will not be able to collectively implement these changes before a major food disruption occurs in the U.S.?"

 

3) I will add sub-elements to question 3, along the threads you recommend.

 

4) I understand your point.  However, it is proposed that the state and some local city leadership be engaged in the serious game with the private sector players that are already engaged in thinking about, if not effectively preparing for, the scenarios you outline.  I will ensure that your issues regarding #4 are brought up in the discourse.

 

5) I will work to incorporate the greater precision your comments suggest.

 

6) I agree with the scenarios you suggest.  Please clarify your comment, "Solutions and public response to the event will differ, however,"

 

7) I agree with your comments.  I will change the question to: "Are you prepared with agile logistics systems, if the current distribution systems begin to falter under severe, prolonged social crisis? How do you intend to interact with the Federal government, if the Feds implement rationing within your state, because of severe shortages in other states?

 

8) In the White House Resilience Roundtable meeting with the Fortune 100 emergency management leads, there was a clear disconnect between the private sector views and the government views, even though the conversation was genteel.  The government wanted to hear what industry wanted government to be prepared to do under the impact of severe events.  The private sector was saying we want one contact, ideally the President, that we can talk to in order that he will take actions under private sector guidance.  The private sector leaders mostly held the believe that anything the government would do in severe events would disrupt the superior supply chain and logistics that the marketplace can provide.  The outcome appeared to be the usual impasse between two groups standing across a cultural chasm wanting to prevent the same adverse outcomes, but speaking at each other with a completely different set of culturally and socially-determined assumptions, knowing that their own solution sets were superior.  

 

That is why I think it is helpful to run the simulation and let them observe the outcome of maintaining this impasse in a serious game scenario, so that they moderate their positions enough to collaborate more effectively in the aftermath of the game rather than a real event.  I realize some of this exercising has happened at the national level, but my guess is that very little has happened to enable collaborative public/private planning at the state and local level in most states during severe crises.  This type of planning would be the third stage of the process we are proposing be engaged in this state exercise during Phase I.

 

 

Thank you for your deep insights into these issues. 

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

John Hoffman Comments on McDonald’s Original E-Mail

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:04 AM

Mike,

 

My first cut at this……

 

1)       Do you have the tools that you want to face large-scale social crises impacting the food industry, the global food distribution, and/or the U.S. food distribution system?

 

You might want to be more specific here….”tools” is a bit general when approaching this very complicated topic.  Additionally, many in public administration at the state level actually have little background in the area of massive system disruption within food and agriculture infrastructures.   The areas of need range from logistic systems to laboratory capacity/bench tools/tests, to surveillance capabilities, reporting systems, event analysis tools (like GIS systems and supply chain documentation data) and specific plans (written, in place, trained and exercised) for dealing with loss of supply of specific commodities, severe animal disease outbreak management and response plans, large scale recall of contaminated products, price controls and hoarding.

 

Is the target audience here just local and state government?  Are you proposing to also engage the private sector owners and operators of the national food supply chain?

 

                1.1)  a Katrina-like (naturally-occurring crisis, such as prolonged extreme bio or weather event impacting food supply) in the US food industry within your region?

 

                1.2)  a Deep Water Horizon (socio-technical collapse) event in the US food industry?   

 

                1.3)   a EuroZone collapse while the U.S. hits an economic cliff creating discontinuities in food distribution? 

 

                1.4)  a 9/11-like strategic, but prolonged, attack on the American food supply system the origin of which is not discoverable for three to seven months? 

 

I would add “major animal disease outbreak” to this list.

 

2)       Would you be open to engaging the use of new advanced analytics, communication and computing tools and methods to ensuring more robust food distribution during severe crises?

 

Clearly all states have a desire for improve capabilities.  The problems are staffing and funding.  All exercises to date reflect a clear need for and receptiveness for such capabilities.  Katrina was a wake-up call for several states, yet we have seen little actual progress in the implementation of new event management plans, new analytics, improved bio-surveillance or expanded engagement with the private sector owners and operators in this arena.  Worse, we have seen little real progress within FDA in dealing with large scale product contamination events where the source is domestic or imported.  While the development of new preventive controls programs under FSMA will help with symmetric events, they will be of little value in any intentional event or a major global infrastructure disruption.  

 

3) Have you exercised a massive impact on the food industry during a rapid large economic downturn due to a lapse in food security in a serious game? 

 

Please clarify this question….do you mean a lapse in food protection (as in a failure to protect a key component within the privately owned infrastructure from a major contamination event or attack?  Or do you mean a failure to protect industry from the loss of access to ingredients or supply chain inputs or do you mean protecting the public from a sudden and large scale loss of access to adequate protein?  

 

4)        Have you exercised scenarios in which countries are defaulting on their agreements to provide grain and other food supplies into the global food distribution system based upon rapid escalation in global food prices?

 

Many firms are already addressing this topic because of currency issues, climate change planning and trade disruptions based upon civil unrest or arbitrary government actions (like nationalization actions in Argentina).  But little in this arena is on the radar for state and local governments and I doubt they would even have context for this question, as written.  

 

5)       Have you exercised scenarios in which there is a rapid and prolonged shift in demand regarding food, given a massive memetic (cultural) shift in the public stemming from specific events regarding food safety and security? 

 

The private sector deals with such shifts routinely, though they are much slower developing than what I think you are suggesting here.  Where there is a developing loss of confidence in a specific commodity or calls of foods, due to whatever perceived risk, there will be an avoidance develop that may render an otherwise healthy product group useless.   How will government and the private sector manage such an event?  

 

6)       What are your assumptions about management and governance regarding food insecurity problems in scenarios of rapid food insecurity within the U.S.?  

 

Are you addressing loss of access to sufficient protein here or food protection?   Both could be local or state level problems in both accidental and intentional events.  Solutions and public response to the event will differ, however,

 

7)       Are you prepared with agile logistics systems, if the current distribution systems begin to falter under severe, prolonged social crisis? 

 

Here again, the system involved are privately owned at this point.  Most large scale firms have plans for disruptions or a short term nature.  For longer term events, the assumption is a shift in commodity or alternate sourcing.   Few plan for major, longer term supply constraints.  When that happens, the assumption is that some type of rationing will be imposed by government.   I am aware of no states that have looked at or exercised food rationing on a large scale.   There are some federal government authorities, plans and capabilities for such an event.  However, the private sector plays a major role in such events (as they did during World War II, the last time we had national food rationing).

 

8) What are your assumptions regarding what Congress will do in terms of regulations regarding the food industry under severity level 3, 4, and 5 crises?

 

                8.1)  Severity Level 3:  Areas of the Food Distribution Falters

 

                8.2)  Severity Level 4:  The American People Lose Trust in Food Distribution Systems

 

                8.3)  Severity Level 5:  The US Faces a Collapse in Food Production or Food Demand Due to Ecosystem Collapses or Collapses in Social Ecology

 

I doubt many have thought much about what Congress will do, including members of Congress.   We have had trouble getting the federal agencies to take a serious look at this type of eventuality, much less a common approach to solutions and proposals for Congress.  Where we exercised some of these issues during the TOPOFF exercises, most responses were Knee Jerk, poorly considered actions where the problems were exacerbated, not ameliorated.  It would be interesting to hear what key state and local level leaders think Congress should or may do in such a situation. 

 

I will consider these issues a bit more and get back to you with additional thoughts.

 

John

Mike,