I Tweeted
Friday, July 31st, 2009- In my free time, I watch West Wing reruns. In his free time, Henry Waxman overhauls the U.S. food safety system. http://tr.im/uQyK #
The American Prospect is featuring a piece from yours truly, which I'm thrilled about. The subject is the State Department and 21st century statecraft. If you get a chance to take a few minutes to give it a read, I'd much appreciate it. Like most of what I write, this piece grew out of something provocative on the scene that caught my attention but that I didn't quite understand. In this case, it's the new emphasis by Hillary Clinton and her team on using technology to accomplish the State Department's mission. I got to spend a day hanging around the State Department last month, trying to make sense of it.
Around Foggy Bottom, they call the approach "21st century statecraft." You'll also hear it talked about in the foreign policy world as part of a smart power approach. It's an umbrella that covers everything from getting embassies on Facebook to keeping Twitter up and running during the post-election conflict in Iran to connecting women in Afghanistan to mobile banking networks. Some of it is straightforward. Some of it is unproven. Some of it might make you scratch your head and say "you know, that just might work."
But what I think I found out is that the the interesting context here is that, while much of this is the sort of pure development work that USAID has for the last fifty years, the driving vision for 21st century statecraft is about something more inherently strategic. It's about actively creating human-to-human connections that are themselves not political on their face, but that create the networks that can support political change. That's the hope, at least.
Again, I hope that you might take a few minutes to give it a read.
(I started writing this up for this here blog, and then decided to post it on HuffPo, but I wanted to drop a copy here too.)
So last night I devoted some free time to two of my great loves — open government data and food policy — and checked out the data on the rate of U.S. adoption of genetically-modified food crops in the United States that was released by U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this month. Now, you can talk about the changing nature of the U.S. food supply until you're blue in the face. Or you can point to the numbers. And in this case, the USDA's new data on the U.S. adoption of genetically-modified food crops is so off the charts that there was little choice but to make a chart:
Wowza. The blue line represents soybeans. The red line is corn. What we're looking at is the growth in the percentage of all the acres of U.S. farmland used to raise the respective crops that is now used to grow what's known as Herbicide Tolerant, or HT, varieties. HT crops are designed in a lab to be resistant to chemical herbicide; the best-known HT brand are Monsanto's Roundup-Ready products. Sprayed on a non-modified plant, Roundup kills. But HT are engineered to be able to tolerate the herbicide, allowing for weed control through blanket-spraying of farm acres. For years, food advocates and food producers have been arguing over the merits and risks of HT crops. Monsanto, for example, has engaged in a long battle with food advocates over whether or not it should develop strains of genetically-engineered wheat.
But what's clear from the new USDA numbers is how quickly the U.S. food supply is changing, whether we eaters like it or not. The simple fact is that for many of us, the food we eat today is simply different than what we ate as kids. When I was a sophomore in high school back in 1996, for example, just 3% of farmland used to grow corn was given over to HT varieties of the crop. Today, 68% of U.S. farmland used to grow corn grows corn that is genetically engineered to be HT. The leap has been even greater for soybeans — from 7% in 1996 to a whopping 91% in 2009.
We might, as American eaters, still be having a healthy debate about whether we want to eat genetically-engineered corn, soybeans, and other foods. But the USDA data shows that our farmland is much farther along in making up its mind.