Ag Secretary brushes aside Y2K concerns

[Guest guest]

FEBRUARY 05, 1999

 

GLICKMAN: Y2K WON'T HURT FOOD SUPPLY

 

By Janelle Carter

AP Farm Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who go grocery shopping at the start of the

new year aren't likely to find any food shortages due to the Year 2000

computer problem, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said Friday.

 

``The basic foods Americans expect to be in their grocery stores will be

there,'' Glickman told a Senate panel. ``An interruption in the food

supply so severe as to threaten the well-being and basic comfort of the

American public is highly unlikely.''

 

Glickman further warned that consumers doing ``needless and frivolous

stockpiling of supplies can create isolated shortages.''

 

The Agriculture Department is working with the Federal Emergency

Management Agency on a contingency plan should an emergency arise at the

start of the new year.

 

``Our goal is to do whatever we can to prevent disruption,'' Glickman

said. He said because fewer than 3 percent of U.S. farmers use automated

systems for feeding, ventilation, heating or cooling animals, producers

here are less susceptible to problems.

 

Still, one farm leader says disruption is very possible in a food

network that is so interconnected.

 

``We are dependent on so many people,'' said Ken Evans, president of the

Arizona Farm Bureau. ``I've got to have the entire infrastructure from

me until it gets to say, an inner city wife in Philadelphia.''

 

For instance, farmers are especially dependent on telecommunications to

do everything from ordering supplies to scheduling shipments, Evans

said. ``We are particularly vulnerable because of our remoteness and the

lack of technical support in many rural communities.''

 

The government established a Food Supply Working Group to ensure the

food system runs smoothly on Jan. 1. Friday's hearing was part of a

series by the Senate Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, led

by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

 

Many computers originally programmed to recognize only the last two

digits of a year will not work properly beginning Jan. 1, 2000, when

machines will assume it is 1900. The government has estimated its cost

to fix the problem at $6.4 billion.

 

Glickman and other agency officials said the entire Agriculture system

may not be ready for a government readiness check in March but promised

the kinks would be resolved soon.

 

One area of concern is the readiness of U.S. trade partners. The United

States imports about 40 percent of its fruit, mostly bananas, and 60

percent of its seafood.

 

Some countries, like Japan, have had a hard time preparing a new

computer system because of the large number of small stores involved in

the country's food supply system, officials said.

 

U.S. officials also stressed that the nation's food system is extremely

reliant on the readiness of other areas such as transportation and

utilities.

 

``Smaller companies, such as independent truck owners ... are further

behind in addressing the Year 2000 problem,'' Glickman said.

 

****************************

 

Hare Krsna dasi comments:

 

To me this is just stupendous. It's just the height of irresponsibility

for the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to tell people they don't need to

save any food to prepare for Y2K interruptions. "The farmers have it

all under control, don't worry," he says in so many words. That's what

all these officials are doing. They look at the Y2K problem from the

narrowest possible terms and say, "We've got it under control."

 

Even if there are only a few computing problems with farm equipment and

farm systems (which I doubt), he does not really take into account all

the different systems it takes to get food from a field in Kansas to

your kitchen cupboard. He admits that the truckers are having

problems. Well, guess what: Without truckers, you don't have any food.

When was the last time you saw an airplane or a ship or a train

unloading food at your local grocers?

 

If these people had any compassion at all, they could at very minimum

encourage people to have just 2 weeks of food on hand. Somewhere,

someone will need that.

 

But they are full of fear. If they say, Y2K may be a problem, take

steps to prepare for it -- if they just say that -- it's as if they fear

that the stock market may crash and they'll lose all their money.

 

If people put aside a couple weeks of canned beans, they may not buy

hamburger next January and February when farmers have to slaughter their

cows because feed prices have spiked up due to gasoline shortages.

 

Agribusinesses are hoping for a few shortages. In those shortages, they

are hoping that the prices of local goods will spike up. Therefore,

they don't want anyone to save any food, because then they would lose

out on the windfall profits they hope to reap. The Ag Secretary is no

doubt in the pocket of big agribusiness foods like Tyson chicken and

others. Therefore, they are discouraging people, because these big

producers do not want their consumers to be stockpiling at today's

(relatively) cheap prices. They are hoping that people will get into a

crisis and have to buy their overpriced goods.

 

At the bottom line it boils down to scandalous irresponsibility. I can

only think of Prabhupada's statement, (SB 8.16.19) that the Krsna

consciousness movement will save people "from the risky life of

irresponsibility."

 

Glickman is in the government. He is supposed to be a ksatriya. Ksat -

triya "Ksat" means hurt. "Triya" means to protect from hurt. The

ksatriya segment of society is supposed to protect the citizens from

hurt. But he cannot bear to have them put aside even 2 weeks of food --

for that might hurt the profits of the businessmen. Instead of taking

steps to protect the citizens, his priority is to take steps to protect

the profits of big business.

 

And, he's not at all the only one. Practically the whole government is

doing the same thing, with the same motivation. "No problem, we've got

it all under control," they say. People ask the Secretary of Health

about what to do if they can't get their prescription medication come

January 2000, "Don't worry about it. Don't stockpile medicine." She's

asked, "What if something happens to the insurance or shipping so that

people can't get their medication?" Answer, "That's really not our

responsibility." A risky life of irresponsibility.

 

And on the local level, our state of Maine power company proclaims,

"We'll have all the Y2K bugs fixed by July, nothing to worry about."

But 40% of the power comes from out of state. And then they admit that

the Arabs who supply the petroleum that fires some fuel plants may not

be ready -- but that's not their responsibility. It's not their

responsibility to tell people to prepare themselves for the possibility

of some problems. A risky life of irresponsibility.

 

Srila Prabhupada uses the phrase "life of risky irresponsibility."

These people are actually taking the taxpayers money to be responsible

for protecting the taxpayers. But if they accept taxes but refuse to

protect people, then they are simply stealing the money. This is risky

because there is going to be a karmic reaction for them, since they have

done absolutely nothing to protect the people from suffering. They may

be sorry when they find that they are the ones who are least prepared.

 

***********************

 

The final question is: Can the Krsna consciousness movement actually do

any better than our present government? Can it provide the security and

protection in which people can peacefully pursue spiritual life? If it

were we who were in power, would we be responsible for maintaining

everyone's well-being? Or would we also be guilty of leading a "life of

risky irresponsiblity"?

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

> If these people had any compassion at all, they could at very minimum

> encourage people to have just 2 weeks of food on hand. Somewhere,

> someone will need that.

 

Just last night on a broadcast the Red Cross was advising people to have

their pantries full (if you even have such an old fashioned thing as a

pantry) just in case. Since they are the ones who will end up being

involved in disaster relief, they know if everyone is just a little

prepared, just in case, it can save them a huge headache in a short term

problem, or if nothing else buy them some reaction time if it is more long

term.

 

It is true, that the food is there, but if there are shortages, will the

decentralized farmers really have the clout to get resources allocated to

them compared to the profit motivated centralized money men?

 

50% of oil is imported. Do you think New York will want to shut off the

lights if some farmer can't get fuel to do spring work? The crisis will be

imperceptible untilharvest to most city folks.