Drought in Africa; Corn Surplus in the US

This week brought two startling contrasts in stories about food. In the Horn of Africa, the worst drought in 60 years has put an estimated ten million on the edge of starvation:

A poor rainy season coupled with rising food prices have led to severe food shortages in countries including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda.

Food prices are soaring with grain prices in some parts of Kenya up to 80 percent higher than the five year average, while in Ethiopia, the consumer price index jumped about 41 percent.

As a result, malnutrition rates are also rising, the UN agency said.

By contrast, the US reported today that corn prices plunged on news of the biggest crop of corn in at least 15 years.

The report said farmers in the vast crop regions of Iowa and Minnesota had been planting substantially more grain.

Corn futures, which were just under an all-time high of $8 (£5) a bushel at the start of June, finished 9.9% down at $6.29 on Thursday. At one point, the price was down almost 12%.

Wheat futures ended 8.8% down, with soybeans 2.1% lower. Analysts predicted the falls would continue when markets in Asia opened on Friday.

The Agriculture Department report that far more grain acreage is being planted than expected came despite recent bad weather in the US Midwest.

Will this eventually translate into lower food prices globally that will delay death for those in Africa? We can only hope so.

Did the 2010 Census Really Undercount City Populations?

Despite the worldwide concern about population growth, local officials never want to be living in a place whose population is declining. It just isn't done. So, we are not surprised that a number of cities in the US are challenging, or are planning to challenge, the results of the 2010 census. Of course, no one ever challenges what they perceive to be an overcount; it is only a perceived undercount that is problematic.

Cities have two years to contest their counts under the Census Bureau's appeals process, which began this month.

"Along with federal funds, there's a psychological impact when a city loses population, because people and businesses want to be in a vibrant region where things are growing and happening," Cincinnati mayor Mark Mallory, who chairs the U.S. mayors' task force on the census, said in an interview.

"There will be a dramatic increase in the number of city challenges, I guarantee it," he said.

Doubts about the government's numbers are cropping up everywhere.

Real-estate agents in New York City want to know where the Census Bureau found vast stretches of empty housing that resulted in a tally that was 200,000 fewer people than expected. Miami officials are puzzled over a count that fell 30,000 below the bureau's 2009 estimate, contending that immigrants and middle-class whites in gated downtown condominiums were missed. Houston added two new city council seats, even though the 2010 count showed it fell 549 short of the population required to do so.

California cities are also mulling challenges after state officials estimated the census had failed to count 1.25 million people there.

Despite the headlines, don't expect that much will ultimately happen, at least based on the experience from Census 2000.

In 2000, roughly 1,200 jurisdictions, or 3 percent, contested the count. The net change due to census challenges that year was just 2,700 people.

Apart from the challenges, analysts later determined the 2000 census had an overcount of 1.3 million people, due mostly to duplicate counts of more affluent whites with multiple residences. About 4.5 million people were ultimately missed, mostly blacks and Hispanics.

Anti-Immigration Legislation Bubbling Through the South

There seem to be two parallel state-level legislative agendas in play at the moment in the United States. One is aimed at restricting access to abortion, and the other is aimed at discouraging undocumented immigrants from coming to whatever state is passing the legislation. South Carolina has just passed such a law:

Republican Governor Nikki Haley on Monday gave her official approval for the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest for another reason and suspect may be in the country illegally.

"This is not an anti-tolerance bill. This is not a bill that pushes away one group for another group," said Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants. "This is a bill that enforces laws ... We support legal immigration."

The new law, due to take effect on January 1, also requires employers in South Carolina to use the federal E-Verify system to check citizenship status of employees and job applicants. Penalties for knowingly employing illegal immigrants will include suspension and revocation of a business license by the state.

However, on the same day, a federal judge in Georgia blocked, at least for the time being, the implementation of parts of that state's recently passed anti-immigrant legislation:

Judge Thomas Thrash issued a preliminary injunction halting Georgia from authorizing police officers to question criminal suspects about their immigration status.

He also blocked portions of the legislation that would make it a crime to knowingly harbor or transport an illegal immigrant.

"The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," Thrash wrote in his ruling.

It promises to be a busy summer...

Populations at Risk Throughout the US

The Associated Press today released a rather startling report showing the increase in the American population living near nuclear power plants in this country.

About 120 million people, almost 40 percent of all Americans, live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, according to the AP's analysis of 2010 Census data.

That 50 mile radius is important, because it is what the US government said it would invoke as an evacuation zone in a situation similar to the recent nuclear meltdown in Japan.

In fact, under rules in force for more than 30 years, U.S. communities must by law prepare federally reviewed evacuation plans only for those living within 10 miles of a plant. In a severe accident, most of the early deaths — those from radiation sickness, not cancer — are predicted to occur within a 10-mile radius.

Those living within 50 miles, meanwhile, are covered only by an "emergency ingestion zone," where states are required to make plans to ban contaminated food and water — but not evacuate.

After a May 10 tour at the Indian Point nuclear complex, where two reactors operate just 25 miles from New York City's northern border, Jaczko said the 10-mile rule was merely a "planning standard." He said decisions on what to do in the "unlikely event" of an accident would be based on circumstances. "So if we needed to take action beyond 10 miles, that's certainly what would be recommended."

If a 50-mile order were ever issued for Indian Point, it would take in about 17.3 million people — 6 percent of all Americans, according to an AP population analysis. That would include parts of New Jersey and Connecticut and all of New York City, except for a chunk of Staten Island.

Such a mass exodus would be an "enormous challenge" — and a historic feat, said Kelly McKinney, New York City's deputy commissioner of preparedness.

"At no time in the history of man," he said, "has anyone tried to move 17 million people in 48 hours."

I have just offered a few tidbits from this detailed report, and none of the remaining information is even remotely reassuring. We seem to be rather complacently sitting around in denial about what could happen if something went wrong with any one of these nuclear plants. 

A New Twist on the "Real" Causes of Death

As I note in Chapter 5 of the text, there have been widely circulated studies of the "real" causes of death, by which the researchers mean things like smoking, alcohol and drug use, and diet. Now researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health have produced a new twist on this theme--the social categories that increase your chance of early death. None of this will be news to readers of my book, but the numbers are very interesting, nonetheless:

The investigators found that approximately 245,000 deaths in the United States in the year 2000 were attributable to low levels of education, 176,000 to racial segregation, 162,000 to low social support, 133,000 to individual-level poverty, 119,000 to income inequality, and 39,000 to area-level poverty.

Overall, 4.5% of U.S. deaths were found to be attributable to poverty -- midway between previous estimates of 6% and 2.3%. However the risks associated with both poverty and low education were higher for individuals aged 25 to 64 than for those 65 or older.

"Social causes can be linked to death as readily as can pathophysiological and behavioral causes," points out Dr. Galea, who is also Gelman Professor of Epidemiology. For example, the number of deaths the researchers calculated as attributable to low education (245,000) is comparable to the number caused by heart attacks (192,898), which was the leading cause of U.S. deaths in 2000. The number of deaths attributable to racial segregation (176,000) is comparable to the number from cerebrovascular disease (167,661), the third leading cause of death in 2000, and the number attributable to low social support (162,000) compares to deaths from lung cancer (155,521).

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and has been accepted for publication in the American Journal of Public Health.