U.S.: Epic Fail?
This past week marked a sad day on the calendar for the United States. For those individuals focuses on sustainable living and making a difference, kudos to you for pursueing this despite a lack of national leadership. The United States failed to pass Climate Legislation, the most favored was a cap-and-trade system, this year. After Copenhagen’s Climate Summit left emotions reeling, there are a few trends to note. First, the business portion of the Summit was bombarded with signatures and declarations. Second, there was a distinct difference in the way Kyoto signers and Non-Kyoto Signers approached the conversation. Lastly, there is now a lasting sentiment of disappointment and in some cases international disdain for the United States’ lack of nation-wide action onClimate Change on a Federal level.
Is the U.S. A Climate Villain?
Yes and No. The United States is responsible for 25% of thegreenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis. This past month marked the first time China has surpassed the U.S. in energy usage, of course they also have a population that would morph the U.S. so it doesn’t keep them off the hook. The most proactive forces in the U.S. on Climate Change outside of advocacy groups have been state and local governments who inividually passed the Kyoto protocol and created the Chicago Climate Exchange as well as Government Agencies who are working to address the issue with or without legislative action. For instance the weatherization of homes that is being undertaken is going to significantly reduce energy usage nationwide, and since building inefficiencies are the single largest contributor to the U.S.’s emissions, this is important.
The real villain’s in this case are the politicians themselves.
With little to no discussion about climate issues, and more uncivilized cattiness surrounding the “debate” or lack there of, the true leaders had quite a road ahead of them. The fact that a few bills were formed is impressive given the concerted effort to continue to deny climate change’s anthropogenic source and to be accountable and responsible for the piece of the pie the U.S. makes up. No piece of U.S. legislation is perfect. It is touched by so many hands, special interests, and ‘deals’ that are irrelevant to the real legislation that the water-downed and battered version of a bill is at times utterly disgusting. Politicians who are supposed to be Civil Servants seem to have completely evaded that responsibility to pursue personal interests and gains.
The unfortunate part about this is two-fold.
First, the United States has once again failed to be a leader in the Climate Change arena, despite being its biggest negative contributor. Second, the United States will not feel, understand, nor suffer the consequences of climate change to the same extent as third world nations who minimally contribute to anthropogenic sourced climate change.
What we do know is that each of us through our personal actions, our professional life, and our political decisions can help guide better and more ethical decision-making into the future. Hopefully the disagreement next legislative term won’t be “if” something should be done on a national-scale, but instead “how” and “how soon”. If those questions come from a more honest place of understanding what sustainable living truly means and what being part of a global society really requires, then there is all the hope in the World to be had.
If not, then we better each use our individual voices and decisions to help create that world and environment if those representing us haven’t the sense, ethics, nor respect for all life on Earth to do so.
Photo Credit: Chris Madden.
Canned Food Have BPA?
A small study recently conducted determined that we may be consuming BPA, a chemical that was deemed of concern by the EPA, on a regular basis because of the canned food that we eat. After the release of this study, consumer advocates were outraged and pushing Congress to create a food safety bill to remove this chemical from our cans.
The study involved the testing of cans found in 50 grocery stories. Out of the 50, 46 stores had cans that contains detectable levels of BPA in them. It was determined that the lining normally found in cans may be leaching the chemical into our foods.
We already knew that aluminum water bottles were found to contain levels of BPA, but now even our canned foods contain them. This study is extremely alarming and something needs to be done to ensure that BPA is not in any of our food, not just canned goods. Our laws need to change to start requiring companies to show that BPA and other dangerous chemicals are not present in food items that we consume everyday.
Phone(y) Health
With all this talk about health care, toxicity, and who knows ‘the facts’, it seemed only appropriate to shed a little bit of light on a lesser recognized health issue, our cell phones. It is estimated that 4.6 Billion individuals use cell phones on a regular basis. An astounding number that attests to the epidemic that is cell phone use. So what of these electromagnetic wonders?
SARs for Phones
The most major concern is about “SAR”, or Specific Absorption Rates that have been loosely tied to various negative human health issues including cancer. Governments have regulated the maximum SAR level in the US to 1.6 W/kg over 1 gram of tissue on the head. You can check your phone’s SAR rating online. Phones with more features, like camera’s and the internet typically produce significantly more radiation than the older phones that work for calls and text only.
Science on the Hazards: Can you hear us now?
How hazardous are our new gadgets? There is a large debate, with very little consistent (or funded) scientific evidence that directly links cell phone use to cancer, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and heart palpitations. The World Health Organization declared the studies ‘inconclusive’ and are scheduled to product their own report this year on the issue. The National Radiation Advisory Authorities on the other hand recommend the Precautionary Principle. By avoiding use and exposure to cell phone radiation, you can avoid waiting for an “Uh Oh” response, like DDT in the 1960s.
Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle appears to be the smartest option. There is a large vested interest in the spread of cell phones, from building towers in African deserts with the assumption of future markets to coming out with a new ‘must have gadget’ every two years. With this type of investment, it is difficult to evaluate the scientific studies that have been conducted. Similar to the Genetically Modified Organism debate, the science investigating the health effects of cell phones has been muted.
The general agreed upon studies request that studies are conducted for 10 years, more time than I myself have even used a cell phone, with new technology evolving constantly modifying the reliance on cell phones. So instead of waiting for a report, it may be helpful to adhere to these guidelines suggested by various radiation, cell phone, and health organizations.
Cell Phone Use Safety Tips
Here are some helpful hints to reduce your exposure:
- Use handsets & headsets
- Text instead of voicemail
- Limit children’s exposure and use of cell phones
- Do not sleep with your phone near you, for instance on your bedside table
- Do not use your phone in low to no coverage areas. They require more radiation to gain the signal.
Photo by Chris Jordan.
If you learn that your phone is above the regulated and/or suggested limits and need a new phone, please be sure to recycle your cell phone. In 2007, it was estimated that 426,000 cell phones are thrown out in the US every year! So close the loop, recycle or donate your phone when needed and see what the Precautionary Principle can do for you!
Ban The Phone Book
Just this past week, I received not one or two, but four different phone books. The bag part is that I simply put all of those books right into the recycling bin because I do not use them.
Just to think that over 5 million trees to produce these books that many of us don’t even look at. On top of just the environmental impact, we are spending over $17 million as well as the environmental impact to have those books recycled. Seeing that so many people would rather use online resources instead of a thick, often hard to navigate book, why do we continue to receive them?
Now it’s your turn to do something about it. BanThePhoneBook.org is pushing to make a difference by promoting an opt-in program. Instead of trying to get everybody to opt-out of receiving phone books, they would like to have a program in which individuals have to request to receive a white pages phone. This plan makes so much sense. It still allows individuals who want to receive a phone book, while keep the rest of us from receiving these useless books.
So how can we help? Visit their site to sign their petition to get local governments to institute an opt-in program. You can also support the cause by becoming a fan of their Facebook page. I have done both and hope you do the same.
EPA Study on BPA in Plastics
The Environmental Protection Agency is set to begin a study to determine the environment and health risks of BPA. There will also be a set of actions that include adding BPA to a list of chemicals of concern as well as determine the levels of the chemical in our environment. This includes surface and ground water as well as our drinking water.
If you are not already familar with BPA, it is a plastic that is heavily used in many of the products we buy, in particular drinking bottles. The FDA declared that it had concerns over the potential negative health impacts it could be having on us. There has also been an outrage in recent years over the use of BPA in plastic and even aluminum water bottles we drink from.
This concern about BPA is not new and in my opinion should be avoided at all costs, now more than ever…
USDA: Friend or Genetically Modified Foe?
Bear with me, this is long but informative…read on if you dare.
It is do or let GMOs die time at the United States Department of Agriculture, and they are letting you weigh in on their decision. The USDA’s mission is to utilize public policy, science, and management to provide leadership on food agriculture, and natural resources. Yet organizations like the Center for Food Safety have not been satisfied with their leadership, as is the European Union among other large entities. The current debate revolves around Genetically Engineered (GE) crops that were previously approved by the USDA as safe. But after being sued in 2006 by the Center for Food Safety and with pressure from a multitude of organizations and farmers, they are reviewing their approval of Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa. Now is your time to send them your thoughts on GE crops and their process for approval, but your time to act ends tomorrow, March 3rd!
Genetically Engineered Crops aka “Frankenfood”
Genetically modified organisms have been growing exponentially in the United States since the early 2000s in the field of agriculture. Some argue that Mendel, who originally discovered hybridization and gene characteristics in plants, was in fact creating GE crops. Yet the majority of scientists in the field disagree, they suggest it is when laboratories started manipulating the specific genes within a plant and injecting foreign genetic material. For example, scientists input salmon DNA into tomato plants to increase their cold weather resistance. This type of gene manipulation is what the European Union has banned from their food system and US food exports, calling it “Frankenfood.” While in the US very little of this seething debate was heard and companies such as Monsanto were privately patenting a large variety of seeds they claim as their own.
What are the risks of GE Crops?
For the average consumer, first and foremost your health is at risk. Next is the integrity of our food system as a whole. And of course the larger underlying threat is our ecological system and the long-term irreversible impact GE crops have already had in North America. If you are a farmer, the risks are a hundredfold.
Health
Human health issues always get a great deal of attention, and are often the primary reason action is taken when ecological disaster arises. For GE crops, this is a sensitive issue in the United States. Scientific research originally studying the long-term health impacts of GE crops was put under intense scrutiny by GE crop companies, and ultimately their funding has been revoked or minimized. Their decisive response has been to align themselves with highly respected Universities across North America (since GE crops are not allowed in the majority of developed nations) and fund only GE crop research that would shed a positive light on its nutritional and ecological ‘value’ as the company deems appropriate and favorable. This type of controlled science is unlikely to produce a result that will benefit the general public’s knowledge base and health. The original studies and those conducted in Europe prior to banning GE crops demonstrated an increase in allergies, carcinogens and cancer rates, and an overall increase in chemical build-up in the body’s fatty tissue leading to a variety of health issues.
Food System
Our food system is and has been in great peril since the 1970s food crisis. The major issues such as intensive chemical dependency, unsustainable land use, and unjust farmer-company relationships have sprouted up in literature by Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, and Francis Moore Lappe and movies like Food Inc. Movements revolting against this system, that cry for something more just, such as Slow Food and Slow Money, are only seedlings relative to the extensive power the major corporations hold over our food system in the United States.
History of our Food System
Let’s take a quick look at history to help put the unraveling of our food system into context. In the 1970s the price of oil flew sky high, demolishing the savings of farmers across the Midwest, America’s breadbasket. Their reliance on petroleum to run their machinery and utilize pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers left many families broken and in debt. Major corporations took advantage of their downfall by purchasing their land and designing a deal that would lure debt-ridden farmers under the company’s control. The main strategy was to purchase the land, and then allow the farmer to stay on the land and ‘lease’ it from the company. In return, the farmer would grow the crops the company demanded in the method the company deemed appropriate. The seeds, machinery, and upkeep of the land were all on the farmer and still are today. The United States transformed from a land of opportunity filled with small and medium-sized farms to a privately-owned land that could be yours (partially via lease) for a price.
Manipulation of our Food System
The food system that these companies have manipulated to their best profit margin is dependent upon their crops, their specialized fertilizers, their herbicides, and their desired management practices. GE crops made the monopolization of agriculture all the easier for these companies. Now a company, for example Monsanto, designs a seed that has a special mutation to fight disease and pests. They also design a special herbicide that will kill everything except that special seed. The farmer is now locked into part of the company’s system. They must purchase Monsanto seed, as Monsanto has dictated or aligned with land owners to dictate, and then purchase the Monsanto herbicide since it is the only product on the market that will work with their seed. Did I mention that Monsanto has designed the majority of these seeds to be “terminator” seeds, meaning they only last one season and cannot be saved to be replanted the next summer? This fact alone led to a revolt across all of India. They were outraged that they could not practice seed saving. A practice in the US that gets you on Monsanto’s notorious “Blacklist”, where they block you from customers, other farmers, and buyers of your crop, not a pleasant place to be for farmers who work with large risks of debt in their business.
Profiteers of our Food System Hint: its not you.
These companies also failed to mention two other major factors that will determine a farmer’s profit margin, other than the requirement to be locked into purchasing their products. First, the farmer’s relationship with the land is permanently altered. The companies will dictate the seeds based on desired stocks, their own Research and Development (which they test on farmers, not at their own testing facilities), among other ‘confidential’ factors. Meaning a farmer may be required to grow soy for 10 years straight with no regard to the land’s natural nutrient cycle or capacity. Soy, the one of the largest monocultures in the United States, requires a 5 year replenishment cycle for soil. If you have ever driven through Iowa, you will see miles and miles of soy, year after year. This requires the farmer to pay for large quantities of fertilizer to simulate the land’s nutrient cycle every year. So farmers have not escaped from their main source of vulnerability in the 1970s; the price of oil.
The second major factor is the power companies hold over the grain silos and the price of a crop on particular days. The unethical nature of this initially sounds like a conspiracy theory, but after speaking with farmers in company-infested farm towns, it turns out that it is more than true, it is deeply disturbing. They will purposefully manipulate the price of a crop based on the farmer and their relationship or lack their of with the company, a collaboration among industry giants that keeps farmers out of the marketplace who do not concede to their ‘rules of the game’.
Ecology
GE crops impact on the environment is not understudied, despite companies such as Monsanto’s best efforts. GE crops have been proven to mate with other plants, are not contained by 15 foot high wind barriers (previously deemed suitable by Monsanto, Dupont, and after closed door discussions the USDA), and leave an array of chemicals, unusual residue and genes in the soil beyond conventional agriculture’s significant impact on the land. The most important fact to keep aware of is that GE crops are capable of contaminating organic agriculture, meaning unless every plant is tested there is no way to determine if certified organic food in the US is free from GE crops. Farmer’s have sued Monsanto for contamination and Monsanto has sued farmers claiming patent infringement, every case to date Monsanto has won. Most often because the legal fees and barrage that they throw at the farmers literally put them out of business. The US has not determined sufficient containment procedures, resulting in the contamination of an entire portion of an island in Hawaii. This also means that GE crop seeds are spreading to plants in the wild. Since not all of their seed are terminator seeds, it is an unseen and unknown issue that is slowly creeping through our road ditches and grain spills.
This article’s intent is not to scare you, it is to make you aware of a major issue within our food system. Unfortunately, the budgets of large companies has consistently overridden the concern for the well-being of the general public. GE crops were originally touted as the cure for world hunger and a source for alternative fuel sources to eliminate the need for oil. To date, they have accomplished neither, and in the majority of cases made each issue worse. Mexico’s farmers did not appreciate the US’s ‘aid’ of goodwill terminator seeds when their rural communities tried to harvest their corn crop the following year. Farmer’s to date are more reliant on oil as is their supply chain, than in the 1970s.
The wonder and awe of our scientific games is long gone in the world of GE crops.
Current Debate – Act by March 3rd
If this has you concerned, than I encourage you to review and decide if you would like to take action. You may do so by telling the USDA that you support the Center for Food Safety’s position that GE crops, specifically Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa should not be grown in the United States. Please review the True Food Network’s write-up and sign by tomorrow, March 3rd if you would like to support their efforts. Their website has an overview of the debate and a pre-written letter that you can email through their website.
Shopping Tips
For those of you who would still like to eat your food in good conscience here are some important shopping tips for selecting food.
1) Numbers matter! Check for these hints on your produce at the grocery store:
If it begins with a…
9 = Organically Grown
4 = Conventionally Grown
8=Genetically Engineered
2) The EU has banned GE crops, so although I encourage you to shop locally, seasonally, and to get to know your farmers and food system, EU products outright state that they are not made with GE crops. So feel free to use this as a good guideline. Many companies based in the US have different EU and US brands, selling the GE crops to US markets, so finding EU approved companies isn’t enough. Check the product for information.
3) The Shop non-GMO App for IPhones and consumer guides can be found at The Institute for Responsible Technology
Of course local, organic, seasonal food choices will always help, but you may be surprised (possibly horrified) to learn how GE crops have infiltrated your diet. So I encourage you to read about it, speak out about it, and continue to take an educated stand on this issue. Please note that the US had a national discussion about labeling GE food, but after significant publicity efforts and closed door discussions, the government decided there were no additional dangers. The opposite conclusion the EU reached after their extensive scientific research into the issue.
The United States Department of Agriculture is in the midst of a discussion that will ultimately determine its stance on food safety. What will be your role?
California Plans To Have Green Building Standards
California is proposing statewide green building standards, the first of its kind throughout the country. These new standards would require green practices to be implemented when building new homes, schools and other commercial buildings.
The new green code would require that the materials used in buildings be more environmentally friendly. This includes recycling a large portion of the construction waste and using energy efficient materials throughout the building.
There is both praise and anger of the new green code. On the one side, some feel that there are no standards today and that providing it provides a basic standard for which buildings can be made. Many environmental groups on the other side feel that the standards may not be strict enough and fall short of the popular third-party LEED rating. Some cities within California already enforce green building standards which are much stricter than the ones proposed in this bill.
I am not a huge fan of enforcing policies like this, but I can see its value. Though it will cost businesses and consumers more upfront, the energy savings will reimburse some of those costs down the road. It should really be on consumers to stop allowing builders to use cheap materials that are substandard just so that a house can be built bigger and cheaper than they really should be.
Regardless, this is at least a step in the right direction and hopefully will improve the quality and how green our newer homes are.
