It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, April 01, 2020
Walmart to begin temperature checks of workers
Walmart will begin taking the temperature of its US workers, mirroring a practice that is now widespread in China as it responds to coronavirus
Walmart announced Tuesday it will begin taking the temperatures of workers at stores and warehouse facilities in the United States as it fortifies its response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Workers with a temperature of 100 degrees fahrenheit will be paid and not allowed to return to work until they are fever-free for at least three days, Walmart said in a blog post.
Walmart, the world's biggest retailer and the nation's biggest employer, has previously said that it would guarantee workers up to two weeks of pay if they get the coronavirus or if their store or distribution center is closed by a government agency.
The company, which has more than 5,300 stores in the United States, said it is sending infrared thermometers to all locations, which could take up to three weeks.
Images from China of temperature checks outside of restaurants and stores have been a mainstay of the coronavirus outbreak.
Some observers believe the practice could become widespread in the United States as well once the outbreak is better managed and the country begins to ramp its economy back up.
Walmart will also make gloves and face masks available to workers who desire them "as supplies permit," the company said.
"The masks will arrive in one-two weeks," Walmart said. "They will be high-quality masks, but not N95 respirators—which should be reserved for at-risk healthcare workers."
Coronavirus crisis could trigger relapse among those fighting addiction
The social distancing and isolation of the coronavirus pandemic may put people struggling with addiction at risk for relapse, an expert says.
Feeling stressed, isolated and scared may drive them back to substance abuse, said Dr. Lawrence Brown Jr., CEO of the nonprofit START Treatment & Recovery Centers, New York's largest independent drug treatment agency.
"Whatever structures used to maintain sobriety by people with substance-use issues tend to fall away in a pandemic," Brown said in a START news release.
"People who have lost proximity to support systems, programs and relationships that help them stay sober may be tempted to self-medicate in order to deal with stress, anxiety and isolation," he explained.
"In addition to substance-use disorders, many people are grappling with mental health issues and co-morbidities, including HIV, hepatitis C, hypertension [high blood pressure] and diabetes, that put them at higher risk for COVID-19," Brown added.
He offered advice for people struggling with drug or alcohol addiction during the coronavirus pandemic.
It's important to maintain relationships. Even when they're challenging, family and friends provide comfort and security, and hearing words like "I love you," "I miss you," and "I need you," can be therapeutic, Brown said.
If you're in a treatment program, engaging more substantially will provide you with even greater protection. If you have a history of mental illness or substance abuse, take advantage of any prior resources to help you through this stressful time, Brown said.
If you can't go to a meeting or counseling session in-person, find out if there are other options such as tele-mental health or other distance counseling.
Many employers are offering resources to help people cope when working from home, and many states are offering additional mental health services to help people cope with the stress of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders, Brown noted.
The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website has information about mental health providers in every state.
If you do slip, don't think of it as a failure. Rather, strive to identify what triggered the slip and, most importantly, forgive yourself, Brown said.
Masking power in the age of contagion: China in the wake of coronavirus
China has gradually emerged out of its shadow of despair as the epicenter where the coronavirus pandemic started. Now, there is face saving required—as well as agenda-setting in the global power play.
China played a decisive role in combating the invisible enemy. Chinese officials and academics are taking this opportunity to rescript the narrative and place China as the new world leader.
In the quest for this leadership, China seems to be playing the game of "white face" (friendly face) and "red face" (hostile face). Similar to the Western concept of good cop/bad cop, white face and red face uses seemingly opposing actions to achieve a singular goal.
The red face is Zhao Lijian, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman who suggested the virus originated in the US and was brought to Wuhan by American soldiers.
The white face is providing medical supplies to countries now battling the pandemic, gestures of goodwill described as "mask diplomacy" or "medical diplomacy".
By understanding the context for these donations, we can understand a lot about how China embeds symbolism within its soft power diplomacy.
Guarding life
Chinese people have a long history of wearing masks as protection from disease, chemical warfare, pollution, and severe weather. As early as the 13th century, court servants would cover their noses and mouths with a silk cloth when bringing food to the emperor.
As China increasingly encountered foreign powers through Treaty Ports at the turn of the 20th century, disease control became a critical concern. Despite the long legacy of traditional medicine, China was seen as an unhygienic place by the Western occupiers of these ports.
China's opening to the West in 1978 led to a greater awareness of hygiene. The Chinese word for hygiene weisheng (literally "guarding life") was incorporated by health reformers in numerous applications, from wooden disposable chopsticks to toilet paper.
In China, not wearing masks in the current health crisis is seen as unhygienic, irresponsible, and even transgressive. Punitive measures are taken by authorities, with non-mask-wearers publicly shamed and humiliated on Chinese social media.
In the West, masks have been widely viewed with suspicion. The official advice from Australian health authorities is if you are not sick, don't wear masks.
This has lead to anxiety and discontent among Chinese Australians, frustrated by what they see as bad advice. The general public attitude toward mask wearers compounds the problem as Chinese Australians are unfairly targeted with racist slurs.
International diplomacy
At the height of the Wuhan outbreak, government, private companies and individual citizens in Japan donated thousands of masks. But more significant than the masks was the symbolism. Emblazoned on cargo boxes from the Japan Youth Development Association were Chinese characters reading "Lands apart, sky shared," a line from an ancient Chinese poem.
A month later, the Jack Ma Foundation reciprocated with a large donation of masks to Japan, with a quote from the same poem: "Stretching before you and me are the same mountain ranges; let's face the same wind and rain together."
Millions of masks and thousands of testing kits are being sent overseas, coordinated and endorsed by Chinese government organisations and taking place at the government-to-government level; by the private sector through companies and charity foundations; and by individuals helping their overseas friends.
Mask diplomacy is part of China's new dual level power play: aiding to foreign countries to regain face and demonstrate its role as a responsible global power; and sharing conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus to attack the opponent.
China is being aided in this messaging by inefficiency of the US in handling the crisis. By finger pointing at the US, some say China is hoping to "distract from domestic government incompetence."
This effort to rewrite the virus narrative through mask diplomacy is a strategic gambit to claim the moral high ground and assert international power.
Changing faces
Perhaps a clue to what is now unfolding comes from the world of theatre.
In Chinese Sichuan opera, the performer magically changes masks. A skilled performer can accomplish ten mask changes in 20 seconds. This is one of the great accomplishments of Chinese culture, part of its soft power arsenal. The term used in Chinese, bianlian (literally "changing face"), however, is also a synonym for suddenly turning hostile.
China may have dodged a bullet. But if the pandemic spirals further out of control, China will have a lot more work to do to deliver its charm offensive.
The next few months will be crucial. Much of the global leadership in this global warfare will depend on the US, with its own president appearing to change face at any moment.
Power in the age of global contagion requires more than the dual faces of white and red. The world needs healing, and so the Chinese government will need to carefully moderate its propaganda. Triumphalism over the success of its own military-style control strategies and finger pointing at others may evoke blowback in the theatre of geopolitics.
The new coronavirus emerged from the global wildlife trade – and may be devastating enough to end it by George Wittemyer, The Conversation Coat made of pangolin scales, on display at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. The coat was given to King George III in 1820, along with a helmet also made with pangolin scales. Credit: Gaius Cornelius/WikipediaCOVID-19 is one of countless emerging infectious diseases that are zoonotic, meaning they originate in animals. About 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, accounting for billions of illnesses and millions of deaths annually across the globe.
When these diseases spill over to humans, the cause frequently is human behaviors, including habitat destruction and the multibillion-dollar international wildlife trade—the latter being the suspected source of the novel coronavirus.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments to impose severe restrictions, such as social distancing, that will have massive economic costs. But there has been less discussion about identifying and changing behaviors that contribute to the emergence of zoonotic diseases. As a conservation biologist, I believe this outbreak demonstrates the urgent need to end the global wildlife trade.
Markets for disease
As many Americans now know, the COVID-19 coronavirus is one of a family of coronaviruses commonly found in bats. It is suspected to have passed through a mammal, perhaps pangolins – the most-trafficked animal on the planet—before jumping to humans.
The virus's spillover to humans is believed to have occurred in a so-called wet market in China. At these markets, live, wild-caught animals, farm-raised wild species and livestock frequently intermingle in conditions that are unsanitary and highly stressful for the animals. These circumstances are ripe for infection and spillover.
The current outbreak is just the latest example of viruses jumping from animals to humans. HIV is perhaps the most infamous example: It originated from chimps in central Africa and still kills hundreds of thousands of people annually. It likely jumped to humans through consumption of bushmeat, or meat from wildlife, which is also the likely origin of several Ebola oubreaks. PREDICT, a U.S.-funded nonprofit, suggests there are thousands of viral species circulating in birds and mammals that pose a direct risk to humans.
Smuggled leopard skin and ivory seized at New Orleans International Airport, Feb. 17, 2017. Credit: USFWS
Decimating wildlife and humans
Trade in wildlife has decimated populations and species for millennia and is one of the five key drivers of wildlife declines. People hunt and deal in animals and animal parts for food, medicine and other uses. This commerce has an estimated value of US$18 billion annually just in China, which is believed to be the largest market globally for such products.
My own work focuses on African and Asian elephants, which are severely threatened by the wildlife trade. Demand for elephant ivory has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 elephants in the last 15 years.
Conservationists have been working for years to end the wildlife trade or enforce strict regulations to ensure that it is conducted in ways that do not threaten species' survival. Initially, the focus was on stemming the decline of threatened species. But today it is evident that this trade also harms humans.
For example, conservation organizations estimate that more than 100 rangers are killed protecting wildlife every year, often by poachers and armed militias targeting high-value species such as rhinos and elephants. Violence associated with the wildlife trade affects local communities, which typically are poor and rural.
The wildlife trade's disease implications have received less popular attention over the past decade. This may be because bushmeat trade and consumption targets less-charismatic species, provides a key protein source in some communities and is a driver of economic activity in some remote rural areas.
Will China follow through?
In China, wild animal sales and consumption are deeply embedded culturally and represent an influential economic sector. Chinese authorities see them as a key revenue generator for impoverished rural communities, and have promoted national policies that encourage the trade despite its risks. Basketball star Yao Ming has campaigned for over a decade to dissuade Chinese consumers from buying wildlife products.
In 2002-2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS—a disease caused by a zoonotic coronavirus transmitted through live wildlife markets—emerged in China and spread to 26 countries. Then as now, bats were a likely source.
In response, the Chinese government enacted strict regulations designed to end wildlife trade and its associated risks. But policies later were weakened under cultural and economic pressure.
Conservation scientists are hearing rumors that wildlife markets on China's borders—which often sell endangered species whose sale is banned within China—are collapsing as the spread of coronavirus cuts into tourism and related commerce. Similarly, there are reports that in Africa, trade in pangolin and other wildlife products is shrinking in response to coronavirus fears.
However, I worry that these changes won't last. The Chinese government has already stated that its initial bans on medicinal wildlife products and wildlife products for non-consumption are temporary and will be relaxed in the future.
This is not sufficient. In my view, terminating the damaging and dangerous trade in wildlife will require concerted global pressure on the governments that allow it, plus internal campaigns to help end the demand that drives such trade. Without cultural change, the likely outcomes will be relaxed bans or an expansion of illegal wildlife trafficking.
Africa has borne the greatest costs from the illegal wildlife trade, which has ravaged its natural resources and fueled insecurity. A pandemic-driven global recession and cessation of tourism will drastically reduce income in wildlife-related industries. Poaching will likely increase, potentially for international trade, but also for local bushmeat markets. And falling tourism revenues will undercut local support for protecting wild animals.
On top of this, if COVID-19 spreads across the continent, Africa could also suffer major losses of human life from a pandemic that could have started in an illegally traded African pangolin.
Like other disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to implement solutions that will ultimately benefit humans and the planet. I hope one result is that nations join together to end the costly trade and consumption of wildlife.
'Lived poverty' has increased in Africa for the first time in a decade, according to an international study led at the University of Strathclyde.
The Afrobarometer survey found that a decade of steady improvement in the living conditions of the average African person came to a halt between 2016 and 2018.
Lived poverty—measured as the frequency with which people are without basic necessities such as food, clean water, health care, heating fuel and cash income—was more likely to occur in rural areas and less likely in nations which had seen long periods of democratic government and had established infrastructure.
The study identifies commitment to democracy as a key to tackling poverty.
Professor Robert Mattes, of Strathclyde's School of Government & Public Policy, co-founder and senior adviser of Afrobarometer, produced a report on its latest study.
He said: "People who live in countries that have institutionalised, free and fair, multiparty elections and provide a wide matrix of rights and liberties are less likely to experience destitution. People who live in communities where the state has installed key development infrastructure such as paved roads, electricity grids, and piped-water systems are also less likely to go without basic necessities.
The study conducted interviews with more than 45,000 people in 34 African nations. They were asked how often, if at all, in the past year they had gone without: enough food to eat enough clean water for home use medicines or medical treatment enough fuel to cook food a cash income.
Responses options offered were: "never"; "just once or twice"; "several times"; "many times" and "always."
More than half of the respondents—53% - had faced shortages of medicine or medical services at least once in the previous year, while just under half had been short of clean water or food (47%). More than three-quarters—79% - faced a lack of access to cash income, the most commonly reported form of deprivation.
The survey found that people rarely experienced deprivation in Mauritius but the average person had gone without several basic necessities several times in the preceding year in Guinea and Gabon. In general, lived poverty was found to be highest in Central and West Africa and lowest in North Africa.
Lived poverty also varied widely within societies, endured far more frequently than those who live in suburbs and cities.
Afrobarometer is a pan-African, non-partisan survey research network that provides reliable data on African people's experiences and evaluations of quality of life, governance, and democracy. Seven rounds of surveys have been completed since 1999.
"I'm trying to work out what to do before I end up in a body bag but that seems unavoidable right now."
This was one of the first replies this month to my research questionnaire on domestic violence. The participant is a young lawyer in regional Australia who has escaped a coercively controlling relationship, during which she received several murder threats and survived two murder attempts.
In the next six months, as coronavirus lock-down regulations bite, she is more terrified of her ex than of COVID-19. This is because she is required to hand over their child weekly to him in order to comply with Family Court orders.
There is no longitudinal research on what happens when families are required by government regulation to stay at home for six months, because it has not happened in living memory.
Victims and their children who live with the perpetrator will be at constant risk.
Victims who have escaped but who have children with the perpetrator, are reporting perpetrators are using COVID-19 as an extra weapon in their arsenal, fearing that the family law system will be hard-pressed to protect them.
Every other person I have surveyed in the past four weeks has reported living in fear of their life—a fear exacerbated enormously under coronavirus isolation regulations. Coercive control generates this fear in victims.
Living with constant threat
Following the publication of my article on Hannah Clarke and her children in The Guardian last month, a dozen women have already contacted me indicating they believe they are at imminent risk of being murdered.
Using the UK Home Office's definition of coercive control - which is a crime in the UK—I have constructed a questionnaire to determine the degree of coercion being exerted on a person. (Coercive control is not a crime in Australia.)
The dozen women I have interviewed so far liken their situation to domestic terrorism, in which they are hostages who will spend the next six months trying to protect themselves and their children.
The women report previous threats to kill them by strangulation, shooting or burning. Several have already survived murder attempts by partners or former partners.
In a sinister early finding, one man has disclosed the method by which he plans to commit the murder, including how he intends to escape culpability.
Where the police come in
The usual timeline for research leading to findings and then to forming the basis for evidence-based policy will be far too slow to prevent domestic violence deaths in the COVID-19 crisis.
The danger levels already assessed are so high that I am asking them to forward a copy of their completed questionnaires directly to the relevant police commissioner, police minister and shadow minister in their state.
Federal government responses to COVID-19 have broken all previous expectations for government intervention in order to save lives.
Further intervention could be implemented now to protect families in isolation. The need for safe housing for domestic violence victims who escape has never been more urgent.
Waiting for the evidence of a spike in intimate partner deaths and the deaths of children—especially now that we could copy UK legislation to criminalise coercive control—could be at the cost of too many lives.
How governments can help
A possible solution is for people who own a second home that is standing empty to make them available via police for emergency safe houses, with subsidised rental.
Early indicators are that one consequence is a "pressure-cooker" effect that is already being observed as a 40% spike in the number of counsellors who are reporting increased demand for help.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison responded on March 29 with a promise of A$150million in the form of support for telephone counselling services who address domestic violence, including to 1800 Respect and Mensline.
Forensic criminologist Jane Monckton-Smith, who analysed 372 cases of intimate partner homicide, found that 100% of the relationships involved coercive control by the murderer of their eventual victim.
In many cases, the first physical violence was the murder itself, as exemplified in the murder of Hannah Clarke and her children Aaliyah, 6, Laianah, 4, and Trey, 3 in Brisbane on February 19 this year.
The offender, Rohan Baxter, had controlled his wife—who she could see, what she could wear and every other aspect of her life—for ten years. But it was only when she finally left that Baxter began being physically violent. Within months he killed her and all of their children, and himself.
Monckton-Smith has also identified an eight-stage pattern in intimate partner homicides. They always begin with coercive control.
This finding could potentially save lives in Australia if they are applied to our policing methods, our child safety departments and our family law system.
The eight stages begin with a pre-relationship history of abuse by the perpetrator. The second stage is a new relationship that becomes serious very quickly. In stage three, the perpetrator dominates the victim using coercive control.
Stage four is the first signal of danger—this is when there is a trigger that threatens the perpetrator's control—for example, the relationship ends or the perpetrator gets into financial difficulty.
The final four stages may occur over months but sometimes they develop rapidly—within days or even hours.
This is why police should be far more focused on the history of relationships and the degree of coercive control within a relationship than with physical violence.
Stage five is an escalation in the intensity or frequency of the partner's control tactics, such as by stalking or threatening suicide.
Stage six begins when the perpetrator's thinking changes and he or she decides either to move on to another relationship or to take revenge by injuring or killing.
Stage seven is a red flag that could be detected via electronic surveillance in a similar way to the methods being used by counter-terrorism police. Potential domestic terrorists could be detected searching online for particular key words or for weapons.
Stage eight is the homicide itself.
Where to from here?
In my preliminary questionnaire with women who have escaped abusive relationships, all of the participants so far have disclosed a variety of murder threats and/or murder attempts.
In several cases, the women stayed in the relationship despite the murder threats in order to protect their children. But it was the murder attempts that finally precipitated them to leave with the children.
All the women were subsequently pursued by the perpetrator via the Family Court and were granted access, thus enabling the perpetrator to maintain contact with their intended victim.
Under the coronavirus regime, leaving violent relationships is likely to become far more difficult and dangerous.
The prime minister has acknowledged that for many families, home is not a safe place and more needs to be done to counter the threat.
The problem for all of the women surveyed so far is that current policing that focuses on an incident-based response primarily to physical assaults misses the main driver of intimate partner homicide.
The quiet revolutions in response to the medical and economic threats of COVID-19 at federal level, indicate a similarly determined and focused response to domestic abuse might yield a solution.
Citation: How to stop domestic and family violence under lockdown (2020, April 1) retrieved 1 April 2020 from https://phys.org/news/2020-04-domestic-family-violence-lockdown.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
The gap between children with the highest and lowest socio-emotional skills has increased over the past three decades, and the socio-economic status of mothers is a significant contributing factor, according to a new UCL study.
The study, published in the Journal of Public Economics, compares the socio-emotional skills of two cohorts of children born in England 30 years apart, and shows for the first time that inequality in these early skills has increased.
Researchers from UCL Economics analyzed data from 9,545 people born in 1970 from the British Cohort Study (BCS) and 5,572 people born in 2000-2002 from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). The data was collected at the UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies, part of UCL Institute of Education.
Associate Professor Gabriella Conti (UCL Economics, UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies and IFS), corresponding author on the study said: "We found that inequality in socio-emotional skills at five years of age was lower among children born in the 1970s than among those born in the 2000s. For example, the difference between children of more and less educated mothers, or of mothers who smoked during pregnancy and those who didn't, was greater among those born in the 2000s compared to those born in the 1970s."
The researchers also show that these socio-emotional skills measured at age five, an earlier age than in most of the existing literature, are significant predictors of unhealthy behaviours later in life, such as smoking or having a higher BMI.
Socio-emotional skills are defined as 'internalising' and 'externalising' skills, the former relating to the child's ability to focus their drive and determination and the latter relating to interpersonal skills. A child with high externalising skills exhibits less restless and hyperactive behaviour, and has less anti-social conduct, while a child with better internalising skills is less solitary, neurotic, and worried.
Professor Conti added: "Our findings highlight the role of inequalities in the early years for the process of individual development and health outcomes across someone's life. For example, we find that children with better externalizing skills are less likely to smoke in adolescence. Showing that these early skills are predictive of different outcomes later provides a key rationale for the role of early intervention in reducing life course inequalities."
The research shows that the gap in the socio-emotional skills of children between the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile has increased substantially in thirty years; the increase is particularly pronounced for boys, for whom the gap has increased by 19% for externalizing skills and by 30% for internalizing skills.
While maternal education and behavior is an important determinant of children socioemotional skills in both cohorts, the benefit of having a mother with higher levels of education and are in employment is significantly larger for both boys and girls in the most recent cohort. The inequality has also increased between children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy and those who didn't.
The researchers suggest that significant societal changes account for the increases inequality. The average age of women having children has increased by approximately three years from 26 to 29 years old, the proportion of women in employment has increased from 42% to 62%, and the proportion of unmarried mothers has increased dramatically, from 5% in the BCS to 36% in the MCS.
Co-author on the study, Professor Orazio Attanasio (Yale University and IFS, formerly UCL Economics) commented: "Different factors explain the rise in inequality of children's socio-emotional skills. For example, mothers are having children at an older age, when they are more engaged in the labor market which we find matters for socio-emotional skills. But mothers are also more likely to be unmarried at birth, which might be associated with a more stressful lifestyle. Changes in these factors explain about half of the cross-cohort increase in inequality when it comes to a child's externalizing skills."
Co-author on the study, Professor Richard Blundell (UCL Economics and IFS), said: "The methodology that we apply in this paper is likely to be relevant in many other settings, for example when measuring trends in inequality in other dimensions (such as satisfaction, mental health or well-being) whose measurement might have changed over time.
"The ultimate goal of such research would be to uncover how much inequalities in early human development contribute to income, wealth and health inequalities later in life. The present paper constitutes a first step towards such an endeavor."
Edna Hershman paints a mural in the 1930s as part of a Works Progress Administration Program. Credit: Sol Horn/Archives of American Art
The coronavirus pandemic has the United States facing a social and economic crisis with businesses shutting down, financial markets tumbling, and millions of Americans losing their jobs.
The downturn has some economists wondering if the U.S. will face another depression, and even the president has compared the $2.2 trillion bailout package to the New Deal.
History professor Brent Cebul's current book project, tentatively titled "Illusions of Progress: Business, Poverty, and Liberalism in the American Century," is a history of how liberals from Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to the New Democrats of Bill Clinton's administration tried to create a foundation for progressive governance by stimulating economic growth.
Cebul spoke to Penn Today about lessons contemporary politicians can take from the Great Depression and the New Deal and how disasters like the current pandemic can change politics.
How did FDR react to the Great Depression, as compared to how this administration is managing the current crisis so far?
One of the things that's really important to think about the New Deal as compared to the relief package Congress just passed, is that the package is a bailout, it's not a long-running agenda to implement a variety of different policies over time, which is what the New Deal was. The New Deal was many different policy ideas and agendas that unfolded and cohered over the course of a decade.
The depression started in October of 1929, so there were three solid years of worsening economic conditions before voters turned the keys of the White House over to Roosevelt, making the New Deal possible. Something the pandemic is doing is showing how interconnected the world is, and that was actually something Roosevelt featured prominently in his first inaugural, that the depression laid bare how deeply interconnected Americans were. That was one of Roosevelt's strengths; he was the narrator-in-chief. He was able to fit the crisis into a framework for active and collective government.
How was FDR's reaction different than the approach to the crisis by his predecessor, Herbert Hoover?
To a certain degree, Hoover approached the depression in a similar way to how the Trump administration is approaching this crisis, but Hoover was far more sophisticated. Hoover didn't want the government to have to step in and mandate things. He worked with business leaders and voluntary associations, who would then set prices and determine what was needed in a given market through associational and voluntary decision-making rather than through government directive.
Hoover had used those strategies and tactics to great effect in World War I and rebuilding efforts in Europe afterwards when he created really robust voluntary and associational solutions for ensuring the food supply and fighting hunger. He was an exceedingly competent broker of private actors. But when he was trying to get volunteers to stand in for the government during the depression, it couldn't work because the scale of the crisis was far beyond what private actors could carry out.
Was the New Deal a tough sell to lawmakers and the public?
It's important to situate the New Deal at the end point of a variety of labor movements, where people were looking for a more active government in terms of moderating capitalism and securing workers against powerful corporations. There was a hunger for bold experimentation.
Some 5,000 banks failed between 1929 and 1933, and what that meant was that everyone's savings in those banks went poof. The FDIC, which insures our savings accounts, was a product of the New Deal; it had to be invented, and that was one of the first things FDR did. He shut down the national system of banking and when it reopened the federal government began insuring savings in banks and even became a shareholder in many banks to ensure they had enough capital on hand to resume regular operations.
Another stat that gets at the scale of the crisis: Around 1,200 cities and counties went bankrupt during these years. In industrial cities like Cleveland and Philadelphia, the number working-age adults out of work approached 40 to 50% at times. Charitable approaches to poverty and hunger just were devastated. One of the really poignant stories from the era was in Detroit, where they decided that they could no longer run the zoo, so all the edible animals were killed to provide for the hungry. The scale boggles the mind today.
The baseline American standard of living had just been devastated, and so Roosevelt had a strong mandate coming in 1932, when he got nearly 60% of the vote. All this expressed a real appetite for bold policy change and a tolerance for stumbles.
Would such social programs ever be possible in today's political environment?
I do believe we are at a similar point especially given that we are more than a decade removed from the 2008 financial crisis, and we didn't get bold changes then. We got a bailout and Obamacare, which is significant certainly but not the kind of paradigm shifting policies that the New Deal brought.
The good news is where this crisis comes in, which is late in Trump's presidency. The depression started in 1929, and Hoover had a lot of runway ahead of him. There is a real opportunity to have a change of administration. But even if Trump is voted out, there's the question of whether the Democrats will have the interest, stomach, and fortitude to build a real sustained program, which is far different than a bailout or a single policy. Could they really implement a vision, a paradigm shift in Americans' relationship with government? Certainly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were campaigning on such ideas and they were resonating.
One major challenge facing any sustained agenda today is how short our news and political cycles are and how quickly people sour on agendas. The question would be how to sustain something like this.
In this regard, one of the real strengths of the New Deal was it harnessed the self-interest of members of Congress. Some of the classic programs, like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration, were profoundly local programs. While they were crucially important to delivering wages to out-of-work Americans, they were also a robust form of pork barrel spending. If a member needed a bridge or public library built, the New Deal was happy to subsidize that.
One challenge any president will have in the current environment is that the earmark system in Congress, which enabled members to use local pork projects as part of negotiations over broader bill, has been significantly curtailed in recent years. I think that is an overlooked cause of paralysis in Congress. Without these sorts of bargaining chips, members of Congress are forced argue about abstract ideologies and principles rather than material interests.
What lessons can today's politicians take from the Great Depression?
Make no small plans. When you have conservatives readily agreeing to a $2 trillion bailout package, now is not the time for anybody to be negotiating against themselves. There is a window of opportunity here where politicians can make big asks. It's become apparent that service workers deserve to be paid better, that there's something peculiar about tying health insurance to a person's ability to hold down a steady job. We have very live and tragic object lessons right now of just how porous and privatized the American system of social provision is.
It was just proven by the bailout that we can afford these things, and you can look at Vermont and Minnesota which have already said child care providers, firefighters, and nurses, doctors, and others are essential employees and are entitled to state-subsidized child care. We see renewed calls for more universal health care and insurance, for government to not simply offer unemployment insurance but to guarantee that private sector employees aren't laid off in a time of crisis and continue to receive wages from government. Emergencies and emergency measures like these invite Americans to ask why wasn't that the case before? Can it be in the future?
As the climate warms, the land we use for growing energy-intensive crops such as wheat and corn is becoming less productive. We need to find ways to feed the earth's growing population that isn't so burdensome on the environment.
One potential solution is to cultivate microalgae—microscopic aquatic organisms that are packed with nutrients. Microalgae are single-celled organisms that look like tiny pills and taste a bit like grass.
They are relatively easy to cultivate and have several advantages over animal and plant protein.
1. Less environmental impact
Algae don't require pesticides to sustain their productivity. Algae can also be grown in wastewaters (water that has been used in the home or in some industrial process), taking up nutrients and other dissolved substances into their biomass. This results in fewer contaminants being released into the environment and less pollution in our waterways.
2. It can be grown year-round
High growth and reproduction rates mean microalgae can double their biomass in as little as one to three days, depending on the time of the year. While their growth rate is slower in winter, they are not limited to a growing season, such as plants, or a long maturation period, such as animals.
This means microalgae produce more biomass on a given area of land per year, than animals or plants.
High growth rates also mean frequent harvesting. This makes microalgal cultures more resilient to sudden or extreme weather events, where production losses may be only several days of growth rather than the entire annual crop.
3. It has more protein
Algae produce more protein than plant-based foods, including soybean and pulse legumes. While algae produce 3.5-13 tonnes of protein per hectare per year, soybean and pulse legumes produce 0.5-1.8 tonnes of protein per hectare per year.
The higher growth rate of microalgae and ability to produce their own food from the sun, means microalgal protein yields are more than 100 times greater than animal-basedproteins, including beef, eggs and dairy (0.01—0.23 tonnes per hectare per year).
Microalgae tastes a bit like grass. Credit: CSIRO
4. Farms can be built anywhere
Algae production systems don't require arable land. They comprise either open ponds or closed vessels with a light source, known as photobioreactors. The systems can be built almost anywhere, including non-productive land or in the sea.
Open ponds are shallow (between 10 and 50 cm deep), and the algae culture is gently circulated by a paddlewheel. Closed photobioreactors consist of an array of tubes or flat panels, through which algae is circulated. Both types of production systems can be modified to suit the environment.
5. It doesn't require fresh water
Thousands of marine and estuarine microalgal species grow best in seawater rather than freshwater. This would reduce our reliance on fresh water for food production.
6. It's nutritious
Algae have long been recognised for their nutritional properties, forming a vital food source in human diets since as early as 14,000 BC. Over the last few decades, microalgae have been used in vitamin supplements and health food products, including protein bars and powders, green smoothies and Omega-3 capsules.
Microalgae contain proteins, fats, carbohydrates and other nutritional components that have wide potential application in the food industry. For example, algae have a broad array of amino acids that support human growth and development; some are comparable with the levels in egg, soy and wheat protein.
To date, microalgae have successfully been incorporated into a range of edible products to increase their nutritional value, including yogurts, biscuits, bread and pasta. Manufacturers have been able to swap plant for algal-protein by simply introducing it as a powder into production streams.
Apart from adding nutrients, microalgae have other properties that facilitate their incorporation into foods, including emulsifying, foaming, gelation, and absorption of fat and water.
Using microalgae in emulsions allows for a decrease in the percentage of oil, showing promise for their potential use in low-fat products. When added to desserts as colouring agents, the cell structure in microalgae protects pigments from thermal degradation during processing, enabling foods to maintain their vibrancy. Microalgae is commercially produced at Hutt Lagoon in Western Australia. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
7. It's cruelty-free
Algae can be harvested by sedimentation, flotation or filtration, with not an abattoir or live exporter in sight.
8. It can be used in sustainable products
Microalgae are increasingly being used as sustainable components of other products, including cosmetics, nutraceuticals, industrial enzymes and bioplastics, and as a biofuel to replace fossil fuels in niche markets.
Many microalgae have high levels of palmitic acid. This acid is also the principal component of palm oil—a widely used oil in food production which drives mass deforestation and loss of animal habitat. Replacing palm oil with microalgae would reduce reliance on this unsustainable industry.
9. An opportunity for developing regions
The low-tech, basic infrastructure needed for microalgal farming could provide economic opportunities for developing regions. For example, research has shown a number of African nations have suitable land, labor and climatic conditions to grow microalgae as a source of bioenergy.
Where to now?
Microalgae are being produced commercially in Australia, including at Hutt Lagoon in Western Australia, the world's largest microalgae production plant. There, the alga Dunaliella salina is grown to produce beta-carotene, a food pigment and source of vitamin A.
Elsewhere in Australia, microalgae is grown to produce Spirulina, which is marketed as a health food. Researchers are developing the use of microalgae further, including as a feed supplement for beef cattle.
But the current range of microalgae products grown in Australia is limited. The nation has a suitable climate and the technology; now it needs growers and manufacturers.
Government support is required to enable the agricultural and manufacturing sectors to create algae-based products—current stimulus spending provides such an opportunity. This would not only create new jobs, but enable Australian businesses to become more resilient into the future.
Microgreens. They're leafy green vegetables that are relatively new to the dining room, but a study by a Colorado State University team indicates that they will be welcome company at the table.
"You've probably heard of sprouts and baby greens," said lead researcher and registered dietitian nutritionist Sarah Ardanuy Johnson, an assistant professor and director of the Functional Foods & Human Health Laboratory in CSU's Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. "These are somewhere in the middle."
Microgreens are young and tender leafy greens of most vegetables, grains, herbs and flowers that are harvested when their first leaves appear. Their rapid maturity of a few weeks and affinity for controlled-environment agriculture (also known as indoor farming) means they use very little water and can be harvested quickly. It makes them a model of sustainability: They can be grown indoors, year-round, in cities and rural communities, in greenhouses, warehouses, vertical farms and even homes.
"I came across microgreens and had never heard of them before," said Johnson, who initially studied environmental science and ecology as an undergraduate before realizing her true academic passion was in nutrition and food science. "The need for our food to be more sustainable is greater than ever. I love the idea that they can be grown in an urban environment, indoors in big cities and smaller towns. We can't just grow everything in the soil outside anymore, and we need to conserve what natural resources we still have."
Nutritional benefits
Johnson described them as leafy greens that pack a punch. They carry fewer food safety concerns than sprouts because they are grown in an environment with less moisture and, unlike sprouts, the roots of microgreens are removed during harvest. Nutritionally, they have been shown to have higher concentrations of phytochemicals and nutrients like beta-carotene (which can be converted to Vitamin A) than mature plants.
"Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of blindness worldwide," Johnson said, explaining that microgreens may become a key food source for preventing nutrient deficiencies and promoting global health and environmental sustainability. "That potential is pretty cool."
But she and her fellow researchers wanted to find out if microgreens are acceptable to consumers, and possible factors in how much consumers like or dislike them. They sought to understand if microgreens' appearance, taste and other considerations make them an appealing addition to people's plates. The answer? Signs point to more and more people exhibiting a microgreen palate.
Results of the study were published in March in the Journal of Food Science. Johnson's team surveyed 99 people about their reactions to six different types of microgreens: arugula, broccoli, bull's blood beet, red cabbage, red garnet amaranth and tendril pea. The microgreens were grown in the CSU Horticulture Center. The participants, who didn't know in advance what they would be trying, answered a variety of questions about things like flavor, aroma, texture and appearance.
Images of the microgreens species evaluated in the consumer acceptability and sensory perception test: arugula (A), broccoli (B), bull’s blood beet (C), red cabbage (D), red garnet amaranth (E), and tendril pea (F). Credit: Colorado State University
"Funfetti'
"Some people call them 'vegetable confetti' or 'funfetti' because they're small, colorful and flavorful," Johnson said, adding that they have historically been used as a garnish or topping in restaurants.
The red-colored ones—beet, cabbage and amaranth—received top marks for appearance, but broccoli, red cabbage, and tendril pea got the highest grades overall. Arugula was ranked lowest, on average, likely due to its somewhat spicy and bitter flavor, although many people did like the taste. Overall, microgreens that rated highly for appearance, flavor and texture also scored lower on factors like astringency, bitterness, heat and sourness. Food neophobia, or the fear of trying new foods, was found to also be an important factor driving consumer acceptability.
"But they were all liked well enough that people said they would consume them and purchase them," Johnson said. "I feel like they should be used more as a vegetable and not just a garnish. That's part of the reason why I wanted to do this study."
Increasing demand
In fact, that was one of her key goals in launching the research: Can the appeal of microgreens lead to more popularity, more demand, more production and more grocery stores carrying them? Such products can be expensive due to markup and packaging.
"But people's mindsets are changing," Johnson said. "People don't want to buy something that's going to just end up in the landfill. They are looking for something that can benefit their health and the environment."
Participants said factors they would consider in buying microgreens included familiarity and knowledge, cost, access/availability and freshness/shelf-life.
For the research project, Johnson teamed up with Steven Newman, a professor and greenhouse crops specialist in CSU's Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Johnson found him online in her quest to find a collaborator with expertise in greenhouse crops; Newman has provided leafy greens grown in the Horticulture Center to campus dining halls. Newman's team grew the microgreens used in the study with help from Johnson's team, in a classic example of the type of cross-disciplinary research that's on the rise at CSU.
"This has been a fun project with fruitful outcomes," Newman said. "This is how transdisciplinary research is supposed to work."
Credit: Colorado State University
Other partners
Study co-author Marisa Bunning, a food science professor and Extension food safety specialist, has become a microgreens fan and now grows them at home. Laura Bellows, an associate professor with expertise in public health and health behaviors, helped assess factors contributing to consumer acceptability, such as food neophobia.
Other members of Johnson's team included Hanan Isweiri, Newman's former postdoctoral fellow; first author Kiri Michell, one of Johnson's graduate students; graduate student Michelle Dinges; undergraduate Lauren Grabos; Associate Professors Michelle Foster and Tiffany Weir of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition; Assistant Professors Adam Heuberger and Mark Uchanski, Associate Professor Jessica Prenni, and Professor Henry Thompson of the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture; and Assistant Professor Sangeeta Rao of the Department of Clinical Sciences.
Experts say that by 2050, there will be more than 10 billion people in the world to feed, making it more important than ever to think about ways to produce and grow nutritious food, as well as diversify the food supply in a sustainable way.
"Small but mighty'
"This was a very exciting, interdisciplinary study, and I am glad I was able to take part and help lead it," Michell said. "I look forward to more research regarding these small but mighty greens and their role in our food supply and on human health."
"I don't know that we could have done the advanced interdisciplinary research without Kiri's hard work and leadership," Johnson said. "But this was truly a team effort."
Michell noted that The Foundry dining hall on the CSU campus has started using microgreens in some of its dishes, and even has a viewing window where students can see them being grown.
The large collaboration aims to advance research on microgreens, and to increase knowledge of microgreens and their integration into the global food system. The group is conducting additional research, such as examining the feasibility, tolerability and potential health impacts of daily microgreen consumption at a higher dose (two cups per day, which is a typical serving size for leafy green vegetables), and comparing the nutritional value of microgreens to that of their more mature counterparts.
More information: Kiri A. Michell et al. Microgreens: Consumer sensory perception and acceptance of an emerging functional food crop, Journal of Food Science (2020). DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.15075 Journal information: Journal of Food Scienc
This article is republished from 
Microalgae is commercially produced at Hutt Lagoon in Western Australia. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
