Search results

These troubled economic times call for fresh approaches to asset management. Executives have to pay more attention to cash flows, dividend policies, returns, investment selection, and asset monitoring.

The author contends that shareholder wealth creation should be the primary thrust of corporate strategy. But something more than excellent operations is required to provide excellent returns to shareholders. For one, revising the corporation's financial structure can strategically position a company to have dramatic, high‐stake, wealth‐creating results.

Inflation is here to stay. That hard truth has important implications for strategic planning and financial reporting. Managers who want to thrive in the 1980s will have to find new ways of turning inflation to their advantage.

With the view of obtaining reliable first‐hand information as to the nature and efficacy of the food laws in Great Britain, France, and Germany, Mr. ROBERT ALLEN, the Secretary of the Pure Food Commission of Kentucky, has recently visited London, Paris, and Berlin. He has now published a report, containing a number of facts and conclusions of very considerable interest and importance, which, we presume, will be laid before the great Congress of Food Experts to be held on the occasion of the forthcoming exposition at St. Louis. Mr. ALLEN severely criticises the British system, and calls particular attention to the evils attending our feeble legislation, and still more feeble administrative methods. The criticisms are severe, but they are just. Great Britain, says Mr. ALLEN, is par excellence the dumping‐ground for adulterated, sophisticated, and impoverished foods of all kinds. France, Germany, and America, he observes, have added a superstructure to their Tariff walls in the shape of standards of purity for imported food‐products, while through Great Britain's open door are thrust the greater part of the bad goods which would be now rejected in the three countries above referred to. Whatever views may be held as to the imposition of Tariffs no sane person will deny the importance of instituting some kind of effective control over the quality of imported food products, and, while it may be admitted that an attempt—all too restricted in its nature—has been made in the Food Act of 1899 to deal with the matter, it certainly cannot be said that any really effective official control of the kind indicated is at present in existence in the British Isles. We agree with Mr. ALLEN'S statement that our food laws are inadequate and that, such as they are, those laws are poorly enforced, or not enforced at all. It is also true that there are no “standards” or “limits” in regard to the composition and quality of food products “except loose and low standards for butter and milk,” and we are compelled to admit that with the exception of the British Analytical Control there exists no organisation—either official or voluntary —which can be said to concern itself in a comprehensive and effective manner with the all‐important subject of the nature and quality of the food supply of the people. In the United States, and in some of those European countries which are entitled to call themselves civilised, the pure food question has been studied carefully and seriously in recent years—with the result that legislation and administrative machinery of far superior types to ours are rapidly being introduced. With us adulteration, sophistication, and the supply of inferior goods are still commonly regarded as matters to be treated in a sort of joking spirit, even by persons whose education and position are such as to make their adoption of so foolish an attitude most astonishing to those who have given even but slight attention to the subject. Lethargy, carelessness, and a species of feeble frivolity appear to be growing among us to such an extent as to threaten to become dangerous in a national sense. We should be thankful for outspoken criticism—if only for the bracing effect it ought to produce.

In The Changing Body (Cambridge University Press and NBER, 2011), we presented a series of estimates showing the number of calories available for human consumption in England and Wales at various points in time between 1700 and 1909/1913. We now seek to correct an error in our original figures and to compare the corrected figures with those published by a range of other authors. We also include new estimates showing the calorific value of meat and grains imported from Ireland. Disagreements with other authors reflect differences over a number of issues, including the amount of land under cultivation, the extraction and wastage rates for cereals and pulses and the number of animals supplying meat and dairy products. We consider recent attempts to achieve a compromise between these estimates and challenge claims that there was a dramatic reduction in either food availability or the average height of birth cohorts in the late-eighteenth century.

This introduction provides an overview of the discourse on alternative agrifood movements (AAMs) to (1) ascertain the degree of convergence and divergence around a common ethos of alterity and (2) context the chapters of the book. AAMs have increased in recent years in response to the growing legitimation crisis of the conventional agrifood system. Some agrifood researchers argue that AAMs represent the vanguard movement of our time, a formidable counter movement to global capitalism. Other authors note a pattern of blunting of the transformative qualities of AAMs due to conventionalization and mainstreaming in the market. The literature on AAMs is organized following a Four Questions in Agrifood Studies (Constance, 2008) framework. The section for each Question ends with a case study to better illustrate the historical dynamics of an AAM. The literature review ends with a summary of the discourse applied to the research question of the book: Are AAMs the vanguard social movement of our time? The last section of this introduction provides a short description of each contributing chapter of the book, which is divided into five sections: Introduction; Theoretical and Conceptual Framings; Food Sovereignty Movements; Alternative Movements in the Global North; and Conclusions.

The Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Order, 1925.—This Order, framed under Section 12 of the Act, and applying to Scotland as a whole, was issued along with the model dairy byelaws. It prescribed the form of register of dairies and dairymen, and contained provisions for the ascertainment of infectious disease at dairies, for the prevention of contamination of milk at railway stations, on the street, by means of unsuitable conveyances or unsuitable surroundings, or through insulticient protection from dust or exposure. The colouring or thickening of cream was prohibited by the Order; me use of wooden vessels, except for buttermilk, was prohibited; milk vessels for transit were required to nave marked on them the name and address of the owner, to have a proper lid, and to be locked or sealed. The Order also filled a gap in the administrative provisions of the Act by requiring every person about a dairy, if he became aware that any person in his household was suffering from an infectious disease, to notify the dairyman immediately. The dairyman must then notify the medical officer of health.

The final report of the Butter Regulations Committee has now been published and it is earnestly to be hoped that Regulations based on the Committee's Recommendations will at once be framed and issued by the Board of Agriculture. It will be remembered that in an Interim Report the Committee recommended the adoption of a limit of 16 per cent. for the proportion of water in butter, and that, acting on this recommendation, the Board of Agriculture drew up and issued the “Sale of Butter Regulations, 1902,” under the powers conferred on the Board by Section 4 of the Food Act of 1899. In the present Report the Committee deal with the other matters referred to them, namely, as to what Regulations, if any, might with advantage be made for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter other than water, should raise a presumption until the contrary is proved that the butter is not “genuine.” The Committee are to be congratulated on the result of their labours—labours which have obviously been both arduous and lengthy. The questions which have had to be dealt with are intricate and difficult, and they are, moreover, of a highly technical nature. The Committee have evidently worked with the earnest desire to arrive at conclusions which, when applied, would afford as great a measure of protection—as it is possible to give by means of legislative enactments—to the consumer and to the honest producer. The thorough investigation which has been made could result only in the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived, namely, that, in regard to the administration of the Food Acts, (1) an analytical limit should be imposed which limit should determine what degree of deficiency in those constituents which specially characterise butter should raise a presumption that the butter is not “genuine”; (2) that the use of 10 per cent. of a chemically‐recognisable oil in the manufacture of margarine be made compulsory; (3) that steps should be taken to obtain international co‐operation; and finally, that the System of Control, as explained by various witnesses, commends itself to the Committee.

In this chapter we discuss the dynamics of convergence-divergence between organic and non-organic farming systems. We are specifically interested in how and in what ways organic systems emerge into a new system that synthesizes the diverse qualities of competing systems. Or, will these systems continue to diverge because of their path dependencies and contradictory, unresolvable logics? Alternatively, are we confronted with conversion? Following a discussion of the origin of organic agriculture and the IFOAM Principles, we explore differentiation of two agricultural paradigms that was developed more than 20 years ago before the rise of GMOs. This comparison identifies the key features of both systems and a first interpretation on the potential of convergence-divergence. Third, we take a macro-look at agro-food chain that offers insights on the convergence-divergence potential in the context of global, economic, market, political, and societal dynamics. Fourth, we discuss convergence-divergence at the production level comparing the four agricultural systems. Finally, we reflect and assess on the explanatory potential of our study for the future development of organic and non-organic agriculture/farming. We conclude that there is more evidence for conversion than for convergence.

The action taken by the Council of the British Medical Association in promoting a Bill to reconstitute the Local Government Board will, it is to be hoped, receive the strong support of public authorities and of all who are in any way interested in the efficient administration of the laws which, directly or indirectly, have a bearing on the health and general well‐being of the people. In the memorandum which precedes the draft of the Bill in question it is pointed out that the present “Board” is not, and probably never was, intended to be a working body for the despatch of business, that it is believed never to have met that the work of this department of State is growing in variety and importance, and that such work can only be satisfactorily transacted with the aid of persons possessing high professional qualifications, who, instead of being, as at present, merely the servants of the “Board” tendering advice only on invitation, would be able to initiate action in any direction deemed desirable. The British Medical Association have approached the matter from a medical point of view—as might naturally have been expected—and this course of action makes a somewhat weak plank in the platform of the reformers. The fourth clause of the draft of the Bill proposes that there should be four “additional” members of the Board, and that, of such additional members, one should be a barrister or solicitor, one a qualified medical officer of health, one a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and one a person experienced in the administration of the Poor‐law Acts. The work of the Local Government Board, however, is not confined to dealing with medical, engineering, and Poor‐law questions, and the presence of one or more fully‐qualified scientific experts would be absolutely necessary to secure the efficient administration of the food laws and the proper and adequate consideration of matters relating to water supply and sewage disposal. The popular notion still exists that the “doctor” is a universal scientific genius, and that, as the possessor of scientific knowledge and acumen, the next best article is the proprietor of the shop in the window of which are exhibited some three or four bottles of brilliantly‐coloured liquids inscribed with mysterious symbols. The influence of these popular ideas is to be seen in the tendency often exhibited by public authorities and even occasionally by the legislature and by Government departments to expect and call upon medical men to perform duties which neither by training nor by experience they are qualified to undertake. Medical Officers of Health of standing, and medical men of intelligence and repute are the last persons to wish to arrogate to themselves the possession of universal knowledge and capacity, and it is unfair and ridiculous to thrust work upon them which can only be properly carried out by specialists. If the Local Government Board is to be reconstituted and made a thing of life—and in the public interest it is urgently necessary that this should be done—the new department should comprise experts of the first rank in all the branches of science from which the knowledge essential for efficient administration can be drawn.