RE: V1 #44

["Christian Murray" <cmurray@murtek.com>]

Here is an email I sent to Dan Glickman.  It includes the text from a
page on the www.y2ksantacruz.org web site in which I comment on his
recent statement before the congressional subcommittee.  I addressed
it to dan.glickman@usda.gov and did not receive an error message back.

Dear Mr. Glickman,

Please excuse the abrupt, cynical tone of this email.  There simply is
no time to beat around the bush, and massage this into something more
indirect. Here is the recent AP article and my (rude) comments in
brackets.  I run a Y2K information clearinghouse web site for Santa
Cruz County. www.y2ksantacruz.org

Being very conservative, I actively search for specific Y2K news that
sheds positive light on the problem, because there is plenty of
specific bad news available.  Your vague comments are not helpful.  In
fact, they push me farther away from "noncommital" into the "worried"
category, as far as the food supply issue is concerned.  Since you
don't address the REAL issues, I assume you don't have the answers to
the hard questions.  I hope I'm wrong.

So below are my specific questions and comments. (posted on our web
site)


The vagueness of the following article is worrisome.  This is
information from the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman.  He
should have a FAR MORE specific understanding of the situation than it
appears he has.  Editors comments in brackets. [cm]

Friday February 5 3:02 AM ET
Y2K Food Shortages Said Unlikely
By TED BRIDIS Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman says it is
unlikely the Year 2000 computer problem will cause widespread food
shortages, partly because few U.S. farmers use high-tech systems that
might be susceptible.

["Unlikely"??   How unlikely?  What does "widespread" mean?  How many
is "few"?  And what percentage of the output do these "few farmers"
produce?]

``The American public can be confident that the major domestic
companies, which provide most of the key foods, will continue to
operate,'' Glickman wrote in prepared testimony for his appearance
today before a Senate committee.

[Who are the "major domestic companies"?  What percentage of the total
food supply do they produce?   And what are "key foods".  Just because
THEY are operating doesn't mean that the food will get to the market. 
Mr. Glickman, are you familiar with potential problems in "supply
chain", i.e. transportation?]

Instead, Glickman warned consumers against ``needless and frivolous
stockpiling of supplies.''

[It's vague, seemingly uninformed, statements like yours that have so
many of us worried.]

He promised his agency would work with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to distribute food if there were shortages.

[That's great to hear.   How will you distribute the food?  What's the
plan?]

The hearing was the first this congressional session by the Senate
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, led by Robert Bennett,
R-Utah. There are 329 days until Jan. 1.

The committee also was expected to hear testimony from executives with
Cargill Inc. of Wayzata, Minn., the nation's largest grain exporter,
and Suiza Foods Corp. (NYSE:SZA - news) of Dallas, which produces
milk, fruit drinks and plastic packaging.

Glickman said results from a survey being released today show that
only about one-third of the nation's farmers use computer systems,
mostly for record-keeping.

``The Year 2000 news from America's farms and ranches appears to be
very good,'' Glickman said.

[What about the farmer's vendors and customers?]

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.

Some computers can be reprogrammed, but many devices have embedded
microchips that must be replaced.

One expert, Wendy Wintersteen of Iowa State University, testified last
fall before a House panel that poultry and livestock producers often
rely on computer chips that regulate temperatures in environmentally
controlled buildings. She called the threat a ``fundamental concern''
and urged farmers to prepare emergency backup systems.

But Glickman said his survey results show that fewer than 3 percent of
farmers use automated systems for feeding, ventilation, heating or
cooling animals.

[These 3 percent are probably the largest producers.  Again, what
percentage of the total output do these farmers with automated systems
represent?]

``Most of those who do use such systems have inventoried their systems
for Year 2000 problems and are in the process of fixing any
problems,'' he said.

[OK. So are they on schedule to complete fixes on time?]

Glickman said some exporting countries are failing to prepare for the
problem, which could result in short-term disruptions of mostly
perishable fruits and vegetables.

``Should there be a disruption of imports, domestically grown fresh
fruits and vegetables will continue to be available, although with
less variety and possibly at somewhat higher prices than usual,'' he
said.

>
> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:05:00 -0700
> From: "Laurence J.Victor" <nuu@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: [interdoc-y2k 231] Fire Glickman
>
> Is our Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, not criminally liable
> of releasing dangerously misleading information.  There is no way that
> his conclusion
> <http://flash.al.com/cgi-bin/al_nview.pl?/home1/wire/AP/
> Stream-Parsed/FINANCIAL/f0015_PM_Year2000 > that Y2K will not disrupt
> food supplies and that people should not stockpile food can have any
> factual backing. This is equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded
> theatre, or announcing to those in a coastal city being approached by
> a hurricane that it will not come ashore. Minimally, Clinton should
> fire Glickman -- and use the act to announce to the public that Y2K
> should be of concern to everyone.  Is a letter/email campaign to
> Clinton appropriate?  Are there any lawyers who might make a case
> against Glickman -- possibly to bring focus on the irresponsible
> statements of our leaders -- to force the issue to courts where the
> evidence (or lack of evidence) could be presented and debated?
>
> - --------------------------------------------------------
> Laurence J. Victor / Larry / et
> <http://azstarnet.com/~nuu>http://azstarnet.com/~nuu
> NUU / ABC_EARTH_2002
>