Let's Market Our Beef Story Well

There is a breed loyalty for discerning meat eaters…the value of the artificial beef is in the ability to feed masses.

In 2013 the big food news was the great reveal and test taste of a burger made of lab raised cultured beef. It looked like beef and tasted like beef yet there was a deluge of comment finding it ‘unnatural’.

The reasoning behind our preference for unadulterated food is quite patchy. Most of our diet has been cultivated and processed. Where is the cut-off point between natural and unnatural? When the psychologist Paul Rozin researched the prevalent preference for natural foods in 5 European countries and the US, the two essential qualities of natural were ‘no human processing’ and ‘no additives’.

Late last year I was at the Melbourne Royal Show with a team of young New Zealand cattle, fleece and sheep judges. I had the privilege of attending a forum where the future of beef was being discussed. Panellists included a person involved in the manufacture of ‘artificial’ meat, another from a company that provided a high end market service linking people directly through the internet with the farm source of their meat, and another who represented beef breeds. I asked him if, given both the focus on production and the development of artificial meat, there was a place for breeds any longer.


He argued there was. There was a breed loyalty for discerning meat eaters and also a premium market for the real thing. The guy talking about artificial meat agreed. He said that the value of the artificial beef was in the ability to feed masses. I have written before that to keep pace with population growth, ‘the world’s farmers will need to produce at least 60% more food than they currently do, if all the mouths are to be fed adequately.’


He in fact reinforced the view that the high end protein meat market would only grow.


More recently, attending an A&P Show in the South Island, I was invited to be a guest judge of their Paddock to Plate competition. The competition involves farmers entering a beef animal which is judged in the paddock then is processed and the carcass is judged ‘on the hook’. Finally a sample of meat is taken from the 6 finalists, for the winner to be determined by a taste test. I had received advice on how to do this from an expert and there were two other judges whose business it was to buy beef on the hoof that would translate into prime export product. There was a large number of farmers who had entered, and their families watching us.

I am relieved to say my marking correlated pretty well with that of the judges. And there was a delicious distinction between each of the 6 steaks we sampled.

New Zealand is a small country and certainly very good at boutique production which is in demand in premium markets which our beef producers have demonstrated. Farmers should explore opportunities to collaborate with other farmers and meat companies to create a coalition around new products, either through unique breeds, unique genetics, or regional relationships.

Let’s market our story well and learn from the failure of the wool industry. When synthetic fibres were introduced to the market we stopped telling our story of the attributes of this great natural fibre, and sheep farms turned into dairy farms.


This was first published in the Franklin County News, p5, April 10th 2018 


 

Good Citizens make for Good Governance

There is a basic logic that democracy will benefit when more citizens participate. Nations with overall higher political participation also have better performing government.

Auckland Council has produced a draft 10-year Budget and Auckland Plan to 2050. During the month of March, we, the good citizens of Auckland, have the opportunity to have our say on Auckland’s future. The first Auckland Plan in 2012 included detailed objectives and targets, however things have changed a lot in our large city and this means that the 2012 plan needs to change if it is to provide direction and context for decision making. The draft 2050 Plan shows how Auckland is expected to grow and change of the next 30 years. We also have a lot of catching up to do in the areas of infrastructure and the environment which may necessitate targeted rates in addition to our normal rates.

We take democracy for granted but with it comes rights, privileges and responsibility. At first glance I could image it would be easy to argue these three terms are mutually exclusive. If we think about these words in the context of voting, a foundation of democracy, what is a privilege cannot be a right since rights are enjoyed by everyone, while a privilege is reserved for a select group. Likewise, it is impossible for us to take on the burden of citizen responsibility if we don’t have the right to vote in the first place. In a study conducted in the USA in 2006, most participants saw voting as a responsibility or as a privilege, more than a right.

Another hallmark of democracy is participation, and voting is an act of participation. Many observers lament the decline in voter turnout and view this trend as detrimental to the democratic process. In his book, ‘The Participation Gap’, Robert Putman examines evidence from the International Social Survey Programme which measured citizen participation in established democracies in 2004 and 2014. Whilst voter turnout is a worrying trend, the number and variety of ways that people can use to influence political outcomes have increased.

The expansion of resources and ways to participate makes it much easier for us to get involved in our democracy. Direct contact with political leaders has also increased. A good example of this is how members of our Franklin Local Board have set up stands at events such as A&P Shows and been there in person to discuss what is going on in the Franklin Community, and get your opinions. There is a basic logic that democracy will benefit when more citizens participate. Does government, local or national, function better if the public is more involved?

The Intelligence Unit of the Economist magazine measures the quality of governance (EUI Index). Nations with overall higher political participation also have better performing government. Nations that score highly on the EUI Index, such as Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Denmark, also have pretty high levels of citizen participation. Conversely, the four lowest levels of participation occur in the nations that are below average in the functioning of government. This supports the general logic that an attentive and involved public ensure the government is more responsive and effective. “Simply put” says Putman, “good citizens make for good democratic governance.”


The Auckland Council want to hear what you think about the draft plan so they can improve and finalise it. I urge you to be a good citizen and make your contribution to help ensure good democratic governance of our city of Auckland and local community of Franklin. You can have your say on our future by participating in the public consultation programme through the ‘Have Your Say Events’ and by providing feedback at akhaveyoursay.nz by 28^th March.

 

First published in the Franklin County News Tuesday 1^st March 2018

Impact of Child Poverty Damaging

Child poverty rates in New Zealand are above the average of other developed countries. 290,000 children – around 27% of Kiwi kids – are currently living in income poverty and it’s costing us dearly.

UNICEF defines child poverty as children being deprived of the material, spiritual and emotional resources needed to survive, develop and thrive. This leaves them unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential or participate as full and equal members of society.

Each day, around 15% of children leave for school without having eaten breakfast. Around 20,000 children a year, mostly from low income families, will be admitted to hospital for respiratory illnesses and serious skin infections caused by poor housing and overcrowding.

Living in poverty can mean homelessness, not having access to healthy food, going to school hungry, or coming home to a cold damp house to sleep in a shared bed. It can mean missing out on activities like learning a musical instrument or playing sport, or even having a birthday party.

The effects of living in poverty, year after year, on children are cumulative.

For example young children growing up in poverty are more likely to have lower school achievement and impaired health and development. A child from a low income household has a 1.4 times higher risk of dying than a child from a wealthy household.

Poverty damages. It damages childhood, it damages life chances, and it damages us all in society.

As much as $10billion of public money is required every year to deal with the negative consequences of child poverty and around three quarters of that is avoidable.

Parents who are struggling to provide the basic necessities are often unable to spend much quality time with their children, leading to low self-esteem & lifelong difficulties forming strong relationships with others. It will have a negative impact on children’s emotional health.

47% of the children living below the poverty line, live in two parent families, with a range of educational qualifications. A post school qualification or degree does not protect families from being poor.

In spite of a rise in incomes, poverty has remained persistent, mostly due to increased housing costs eating into more of the family budget. A family earning $35,000 per year, paying rent of $404 a week, has $21,008 per year to pay for everything else life requires. If they are lucky they may get additional support from the accommodation supplement, although an income of $35,000 is over the limit for the accommodation or childcare supplement.

Since the 1980’s New Zealand’s income inequality has grown more than any other OECD nation. In 2016 New Zealanders voted (in the Mood of the Nation Poll) inequality and poverty as the most important National issues.

So maybe we should heed the words of Gabriela Mistral - a Chilean poet, diplomat, educator, humanist and Nobel Prize winner – “Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time their bones are being formed; their blood is being made; their mind is being developed. To them we cannot say tomorrow. Their name is today.”



Impact of Child Poverty Damaging
First published in the Franklin County News, page 9, on 1 March 2018 

The Trolling Disease

Trolling is a relatively new term used to describe online behaviour that is disruptive, offensive and hurtful toward other internet users.


Almost half the population of the planet now has access to the internet, with about one in three of those people regularly active on social media.
Unfortunately social media has spawned a new disease, often with devastating consequences – trolling.


Trolling is a relatively new term used to describe online behaviour that is disruptive, offensive and hurtful toward other internet users. Trolls intend to provoke a reaction from others that allows for an escalation in their abusive behaviour. The extent to which they participate in negative behaviour can range from annoyance to extreme cruelty, such as posting abusive messages on memorial pages.

Are trolls ordinary people living ordinary lives until they are online? And why do some people behave in a more aggressive, disrespectful and hurtful way online than in a face-to-face interaction? So what makes a troll tick?

Trolls must have an audience to witness their antics – and this aspect appears to play a major part in the pleasure they experience. Trolls use a baiting tactic to find victims who will provide them with the most entertainment. People who take the bait are then considered fair game by the trolls.

Trolling has been explained by a psychological concept called the “online disinhibition effect”.

Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret

emotions, fears, wishes. They show unusual acts of kindness and generosity, sometimes going out of their way to help others. This is benign disinhibition.

On the other hand we witness rude language, harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats.  This is toxic disinhibition.

Whether benign, toxic, or a mixture of both, what causes this online disinhibition?

 With the exception of webcams, people on many social platforms are invisible to one

another, there is no eye  contact. The gaze of a person’s eyes has been shown to inhibit negative behaviour. Eye contact increases self-awareness, empathy and the awareness of other people’s reactions to what is being discussed.

The cover of anonymity allows the troll to treat the internet as their personal playground, throwing provocative comments into forums like stun grenades into a crowd.

A 2014 study found that people with higher levels of sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism were more likely to engage in online trolling behaviour. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behaviour. Therefore cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism. Such individuals are likely to enjoy inflicting psychological pain and distress on others.

What motivates individuals to engage in trolling behaviours? The rewarding feelings and social pleasure derived from creating social discord, through selfish or self-serving behaviours and interactions, and knowing that others are annoyed by it. The more negative social impact the troll has, the more their behaviour is reinforced. If behaviour is rewarding, an individual is more likely to do it.

Happily, this discovery suggests an easy way to deal with trolls: ignore them, rather than giving them the satisfaction of an angry reaction. If they don’t receive that negative social reward, then their motivation to engage in this behaviour will likely diminish.

So it appears that the classic internet adage really does hold true: don’t feed the trolls. Deny them the pleasure of an angry reaction, and they’ll probably leave you alone.

Trolling is different from Cyber-bullying, but that is another story.

This BLOG was first published in the Franklin County News on Tuesday 30 January 2018

First solution not usually the right one

This BLOG was first published in the Franklin County News on Thursday 11th January 2018.

How often have you attended a meeting where creative thinking was met with, ‘it won’t work’ ‘we don’t work like that here’ ‘you are new and don’t understand’? Similarly, how often have you seen the first idea being the best idea, or only idea?
In meetings looking for solutions to problems or in brainstorming creative sessions, we have an unfortunate tendency to seize, and often in an act of group think, on the first best solution that presents. And even worse, if on analysing further, it is not sufficient to solve our problem, we try to modify the solution rather than consider alternatives.

Research has shown that the first solution is seldom the most creative and only occasionally the best. The first solution is usually the most commonplace solution, and the one most people and your competitors would adopt in the same circumstances.

There is a scientific reason why your first idea isn’t usually your best one. Our brains are lazy. The first idea we have is usually the handiest rather than the best. To get your brain to your best idea, Neurologists will tell us, the key to innovation is to distrust the first answer and send it back. Once we have cleared our minds of the obvious, we must push our minds further to come up with new ideas. This is when creativity kicks in and powers our thinking.

I think some people get involved in committees so they can indulge their predilection to rain on everyone’s parade. They have never met an idea they liked.   Their perspectives are perpetually negative, their commentary destructive, hurtful, and non-productive. In fact their ongoing criticism, cynicism, and negativity can single handedly bring down a group leaving a string of casualties along the way.  Research indicates that people who do that probably don’t know what a creative idea looks like.

Creative ideas are by definition novel and that can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make people uncomfortable. Uncertainty makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most. People dismiss creative ideas in favour of ideas that are purely practical – tried and true.

By and large, we tend to be threatened by creativity, and are eager to shut it down.

Neither intelligence of the smartest member, nor the average intelligence of the group, influences the overall group intelligence. Instead, social sensitivity, the ability to understand the feelings and thoughts of others, is the most important factor that influences the overall group intelligence.

There is always an opportunity hidden within a problem. And rather than being a problem solver we should look to become solution creators. The process of having original ideas that add value is individual and individuals in a group situation will only contribute in a positive, encouraging environment. If people are scared of being mocked then they are going to be reluctant to step forward with new ideas.

Encouraging multiple perspectives, diverse viewpoints and out of the box thinking increases dramatically the chance of finding not just the best idea but the right idea.