I Tweeted
Tuesday, April 28th, 2009- Okay, Hill geeks, riddle me this: Who gets ranking on Judiciary now? Does Hatch get another run? #
Connecting kids on the autism spectrum with Google's 3D modeling tools.
Apologies in advance, but you're just going to have to bear with me as I learn how to build awesome visualizations. It's my new thing. Behold, trends in the popularity of different cheese varieties from 1970-2007, based on data from the USDA Economic Research Service.
What's with that blue cheese spike in 1973?

Michael Pollan makes an interesting point about how we deal with food safety in the U.S. that I don't think I've heard articulated before. (You know, I think that fella is going places. Mark my words.) The context is a regional-based food system, which Pollan argues in favor of. You've likely heard some of the debates over whether the carbon footprint of local foods is really all that much smaller than foods trucked/flown/shipped in from elsewhere. But trying to eat foods within the same general range in which you might take a long weekend road trip has a lot going for it on other fronts. Pollan:
Food eaten closer to where it is grown is fresher and requires less processing, making it more nutritious, and whatever may be lost in efficiency by localizing food production is gained in resilience; regional food systems can better withstand all kinds of shocks.
All well and good. But the part that caught my attention is that Pollan argues that one straightforward way of advancing regional eating would be to tweak our food safety regulations so that they're actually sensative to differences in scale. So, imagine a farmer raising and butchering a few dozen chickens for sale on her farm. Under this model, she'd be given a softer touch than a national processor sucking up chickens from near and far and spitting them back out across the country. Jane Farmer's ability to wreak havoc is simply less than Perdue's. Size is a factor, and so is location.
So you could develop a food regulation algorithm (I don't think it would need to be that complicated — I just like saying "algorithm") that takes them into account. The resources we'd save on regulating small producers could go to getting the FDA, USDA, and other responsible agencies to actually do the oversight many of us probably already expect that they're doing. You could even imagine that producers might find it worthwhile to go the route of inputting and outputting foods more regionally than they currently do. It's the sort of gentle nudge that might seem right up Obama's alley.
Science Progress, the science and technology wing of the vast Center for American Progress empire, has put together a nice little book detailing what a progressive vision for innovation might look like. It's called "Science Next," and in it are lovely pieces by folks like Chris Mooney and Vint Cerf. Elizabeth Edwards wrote the introduction. I'm enormously humbled and pleased to have two essays in the book — one describing the fragmented and fractured federal food oversight system, and the other profiling the rather neat Peer-to-Patent program where citizen-experts help the U.S. Patent Office make sense of software patent applications. Not sure how widely it's being distributed, but I found a copy in my neighborhood Barnes & Noble. Many of the essays, I suspect were written before the election (mine both were) and were more advocacy pieces than anything else. But with the Obama Administration looking like it's chomping at the bit to be a science-based presidency, there's a good chance that these essays will really serve as an early look at "what's next." If it's up your alley, hope you might think about picking up a copy.