This is an EXCELLENT article from Grain!!
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Monday, October 3, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Proving It Can Be Done
A food system in harmony with nature? How crazy is this?
From Magicvalley.com:
A Hollister dairyman uses a vast network of interlocking pastures to monitor what goes into the cows that make his organic dairy run.
Grass Fuels Organic Dairy
By Cindy Snyder - For the Times-News | Posted: Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Dairyman Sean Mallett began planting pastures around his Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy near Hollister in 2006. Grasses grown at the location play a vital role in the dairy’s functions.
It’s past 10 a.m. as cows ready to move to their new pasture mill impatiently through a delay in their routine.
But Sean Mallett, one of the owners of Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy, wants to demonstrate how easy it is to move dairy cows from one paddock to another in an intensive grazing management system. First, he explains to a group of more than 50 visitors how he began organizing pastures and the barn at his dairy near Hollister five years ago.
It’s all part of a tour held last Thursday to show how strict grazing requirements for organic dairies are met, and how they benefit both producers and cattle. But the cows are only interested in their new pasture, and as Mallett finally lets loose a wire gate, about 500 of them move to a fresh paddock in less than three minutes.
“Even if we were a conventional dairy, I would still graze,” Mallett said. “I love what it does for the cows.”
The layout of Mallett’s dairy conforms to rules that at the time were pending for organic dairies but didn’t go into effect until this year.
Mallett — along with his stepfather and mother, John and Susan Reitsma — bought the former hog farm in 2005, intent to use it as a heifer feeding facility. But Mallett’s research showed the site had potential for organic dairy use.
In 2006, they began planting a pasture mix of alfalfa, perennial rye, fescue and orchard grass. Lately, white clover has been added to the mix. According to pasture rules for organic production, animals must graze pasture at least 120 days per year. Animals must also take in a minimum of 30 percent dry matter from grazing pasture.
“We knew in 2006 that the pasture rules that went into effect this year were coming,” Mallett said. “We wanted to exceed them.”
Because they had the luxury of starting the dairy from essentially bare ground, the owners located the milking barn as close to the plot’s middle as possible. Pastures were seeded near the barn, and gravel lanes allow cows easy pasture access.
Cows graze paddocks of 3 or 6 acres for between 12-24 hours before they’re moved to the next section. Each paddock is rested for about 30 days before it is grazed again.
A 35-acre feed yard is about a half mile from the milking barn, different from most conventional dairies that locate the feed yard closer. Mallett said he’s willing to spend a bit more to move feed than to force cows to walk longer distances.
“The farther the cows walk, the more energy they burn and the less milk they produce,” he said.
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
From Magicvalley.com:
A Hollister dairyman uses a vast network of interlocking pastures to monitor what goes into the cows that make his organic dairy run.
Grass Fuels Organic Dairy
By Cindy Snyder - For the Times-News | Posted: Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Dairyman Sean Mallett began planting pastures around his Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy near Hollister in 2006. Grasses grown at the location play a vital role in the dairy’s functions.
It’s past 10 a.m. as cows ready to move to their new pasture mill impatiently through a delay in their routine.
But Sean Mallett, one of the owners of Nature’s Harmony Organic Dairy, wants to demonstrate how easy it is to move dairy cows from one paddock to another in an intensive grazing management system. First, he explains to a group of more than 50 visitors how he began organizing pastures and the barn at his dairy near Hollister five years ago.
It’s all part of a tour held last Thursday to show how strict grazing requirements for organic dairies are met, and how they benefit both producers and cattle. But the cows are only interested in their new pasture, and as Mallett finally lets loose a wire gate, about 500 of them move to a fresh paddock in less than three minutes.
“Even if we were a conventional dairy, I would still graze,” Mallett said. “I love what it does for the cows.”
The layout of Mallett’s dairy conforms to rules that at the time were pending for organic dairies but didn’t go into effect until this year.
Mallett — along with his stepfather and mother, John and Susan Reitsma — bought the former hog farm in 2005, intent to use it as a heifer feeding facility. But Mallett’s research showed the site had potential for organic dairy use.
In 2006, they began planting a pasture mix of alfalfa, perennial rye, fescue and orchard grass. Lately, white clover has been added to the mix. According to pasture rules for organic production, animals must graze pasture at least 120 days per year. Animals must also take in a minimum of 30 percent dry matter from grazing pasture.
“We knew in 2006 that the pasture rules that went into effect this year were coming,” Mallett said. “We wanted to exceed them.”
Because they had the luxury of starting the dairy from essentially bare ground, the owners located the milking barn as close to the plot’s middle as possible. Pastures were seeded near the barn, and gravel lanes allow cows easy pasture access.
Cows graze paddocks of 3 or 6 acres for between 12-24 hours before they’re moved to the next section. Each paddock is rested for about 30 days before it is grazed again.
A 35-acre feed yard is about a half mile from the milking barn, different from most conventional dairies that locate the feed yard closer. Mallett said he’s willing to spend a bit more to move feed than to force cows to walk longer distances.
“The farther the cows walk, the more energy they burn and the less milk they produce,” he said.
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
A Bright Future for the Heartland
All too often I find myself posting about the negative side of an issue, so here's a positive spin:
A Bright Future for the Heartland
Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy
From the manufacturing centers and corn and soybean fields to the major finance hubs and leading research universities, Midwest states have long served as an economic engine for the United States.
Yet the region is still struggling to fully recover from a recession that has made it difficult for families to pay bills and for businesses to prosper and sustain job growth.
The region’s unsustainable energy system exacerbates these economic pressures.
The Midwest power system is dominated by coal—largely imported from outside the region—which poses serious risks to public health and the environment, and leaves consumers vulnerable to volatile energy prices.
With abundant resources, revitalization is possible.
The good news is that practical and affordable ways are available to help revitalize the Midwest economy and ensure a clean, safe, and reliable power supply.
The Midwest is home to some of the best renewable energy resources in the world.
The region is also endowed with a strong industrial base and leading research universities, where a tradition of hard work and innovation has long made the Midwest an economic engine for the entire nation.
Few areas of the world have this ideal mix of resources, industrial capacity, and knowledge base.
These advantages give the Midwest the tools to turn the challenges of a stalled economy and an unsustainable, polluting energy system into an opportunity for economic prosperity, job growth, and a healthy environment.
UCS’s new report, A Bright Future for the Heartland, shows how we can get there.
Clean energy: a wise investment for a bright future.
Energy efficiency technologies and renewable electricity resources, such as wind, bioenergy, and solar energy, offer a cost-effective and responsible path away from polluting fossil fuels toward an innovation-based twenty-first-century economy.
Investing in these solutions would deliver new jobs and other economic development benefits, save consumers money, diversify the region's energy mix, and cut heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
Boosting investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency would also help keep the Midwest competitive in the growing global clean energy industry.
A roadmap for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In A Bright Future for the Heartland, UCS based its analysis on the renewable energy and energy efficiency goals of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA)—a collaboration of 10 states working on key public policy issues.
These goals call for producing 30 percent of the Midwest's electricity supply from renewable energy by 2030, and for investing in energy efficiency technologies to reduce growth in power consumption at least 2 percent annually by 2015 and thereafter.
Two key solutions: renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards.
In 2009 an MGA advisory group released the Midwestern Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Roadmap (or Energy Roadmap), a set of policy recommendations for transitioning to a clean energy economy (MGA 2009).
Our analysis focuses on two of the highest-priority recommendations in the Energy Roadmap, which we model as a renewable electricity standard (RES) and an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS). Our report shares what would happen if the entire Midwest region enacted the standards.
An RES is a flexible, market-based policy that requires electricity providers to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy used to produce the power they supply.
An EERS similarly requires utilities to meet specific annual targets for reducing the use of electricity.
While the region will need other policies to overcome specific market barriers to clean energy, the RES and EERS have proven to be effective and popular tools for advancing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and can play a key role in ensuring that the Midwest meets the targets in the Energy Roadmap.
A bright future, together.
Midwest states can benefit from enacting these policies individually, but will benefit even more by acting together.
Many Midwest states have already taken important steps to promote clean energy, and there must be no retrenchment in those efforts.
Instead, each state can go further to strengthen or enact policies that at least match the Energy Roadmap’s clean energy targets, and to support local, regional, federal, and international efforts to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cuts in carbon emissions.
With each state doing its part to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, the region will reap many vital benefits today while building a clean and sustainable energy economy for future generations.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE -- WITH SOME GREAT SIDEBARS -- HERE]
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Hoh River Trail and Mercury in Fish
I went backpacking up the Hoh River Trail earlier this week. We made it 14.8 miles up to Martin Creek -- quite a bit further than I had been previously. The weather was beautiful and, other than deciding to hike all the way out on the third day rather than stay one more night as originally planned (not the best decision), it was a near-perfect trip.
There were an unusual number of people on the trail. While the Hoh River Trail is one of the more traveled trails in the park, this week there were even more hikers than usual. We stopped and spoke with one of the rangers at the Olympic Ranger Station along the trail and he commented on the high level of traffic. It's no surprise, the weather was still cold and wet right up until August. The ranger said that he didn't recommend climbers try to make the climb up Mt. Olympus (the end of the Hoh River Trail) this year as the snow still obscured the route. Even those familiar with the area were having difficulty staying to the "path".
Another interesting thing I discovered at the Olympus Ranger Station was a sign posted with fishing information. At the bottom of the sign was a warning that fish from the Hoh River have been found to contain high levels of mercury. It got me thinking, how do fish in a river sourced solely from snow and ice in a National Park of over 900,000 acres become contaminated to the degree of needing a warning posted?
I understand that pollution in the air travels into the park and that fish have the ability to swim beyond the borders of the park and then back upstream. But the park takes up much of the Olympic Peninsula and is surrounded by a very small population (probably the largest town around the park would be Port Angeles, with a population of around 19,000), an ocean, and the Puget Sound. It seems like it should be safely isolated. Granted, it is surrounded by National Forest areas where much industrial logging takes place, but the water is flowing out from the park, not into it.
So I got online when I got home. From Wikipedia:
"Much of the mercury that eventually finds its way into fish originates with coal-burning power plants and chlorine production plants. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions. Chlorine chemical plants use mercury to extract chlorine from salt, which in many parts of the world is discharged as mercury compounds in waste water, though this process has been replaced for the most part by the more economically viable membrane cell process, which does not use mercury. Coal contains mercury as a natural contaminant. When it is fired for electricity generation, the mercury is released as smoke into the atmosphere. Most of this mercury pollution can be eliminated if pollution-control devices are installed."
Here's my point, the Olympic National Park is one of the largest National Parks (the eighth largest, not counting Alaska's Parks) and it is situated in a relatively isolated corner of the U.S. It should be one of the cleanest places on earth and still, it isn't safe to eat the fish.
What the hell are we doing?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Food Safety In The 21st Century
This article make a great argument for food safety. It is obviously written by someone in government and not agriculture because it focuses on government agencies, seems to blindly accept the factory farming practices that make food-bourne issues huge problems, and no where suggests that how we manufacture food be changed.
In the last paragraph, Dr. Blumenthal writes, "Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection."
I contend that we can reduce food-related infections by moving from industrial food manufacturing where these pathogens thrive and spread, to a more diverse, small-scale, locally-focused agricultural system. Such systems are better for the environment, better for the soil, have the potential to produce better food, would create more jobs in real farming, has reduced incidents of food-borne pathogens, and affects fewer people when there is an issue.
Of course, there are no lobbyists in Washington for real agriculture.
Here's the article:
Food Safety In The 21st Century
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.Public Health Editor at HuffPost and Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General
Written in Collaboration with Alison Gocke
It sounds like a story right out of science fiction: A microscopic killer that shuts down the food supply, cripples a nation's exports, and leaves scores of people dead and thousands more ill. Such an event would seem unthinkable in the modern world of advanced agriculture and medical practice. But it did unfortunately occur several months ago as a result of an outbreak in Germany caused by a deadly, rare strain of E. coli bacteria that sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50.
The strain, whose genome was just recently sequenced by scientists at the University of Maryland, is particularly virulent, carrying a combination of both Shiga toxin (which causes severe gastrointestinal illness like bloody vomiting, diarrhea, and sometimes, kidney failure) and a unique ability to adhere to the intestinal wall. The bacteria -- part of the serotype 0104:H4 -- is thus one of the most rare, deadly E. coli lines in existence. [1]
Over the past five years, from the E. coli scare found in California spinach to the recent outbreak of salmonella in ground turkey, serious and sometimes fatal illnesses resulting from contaminated food have occurred more frequently than expected. Since 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued 39 warnings of multi-state foodborne illness occurrences. [2]
It is estimated that 48 million people are infected by foodborne diseases in the United States each year [3], resulting in $152 billion in medical costs annually. [4] And these outbreaks show no sign of abating; the incidence of salmonella infections alone has increased 20 percent since 1997. [5] With 170 countries exporting food to the U.S., and more than 70,000 food safety violations on food that is imported into America reported from 1998 to 2004 alone, the E. coli outbreak in Germany -- with additional cases reported in France and the U.S. -- shines a spotlight on why the issue of food safety is an international concern. [6]
According to the World Bank, more than two-thirds of countries globally are net importers (i.e., imports exceed exports) of food. [7] The devastating European E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May illustrates the interconnectedness of the global food supply. From the beginning, the E. coli incident created an international chain reaction: Confusion early on in the investigation of the source of the outbreak led to erroneous warnings about Spanish cucumbers, tomatoe, and leafy greens as the source of infection. [8] As a result, Russia suspended food imports from all member countries of the European Union. [9]
However, upon further investigation, public health officials from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) now believe the source of infection to be sprouted seeds (a category of germinated seeds that includes fenugreek, lentil and bean sprouts) imported from Egypt and purchased by a German company. [10] The infected seeds were then sold to Britain, which in turn sold them in France, where reports of infections from the same strain of E. coli as that found in Germany surfaced a month ago. [11] The outbreak even reached the United States, with six confirmed cases of Americans infected by the German strain. [12] According to the European Food Safety Authority, the Egyptian seeds -- more than 11 tons in total -- were shipped around the world, purchased by 54 companies in Germany and disseminated among at least a dozen other European countries. [13] Investigators are now working to locate the remaining shipments of Egyptian seeds to prevent further disease outbreaks.
This incident highlights the fact that agriculture in the 21st century involves industrial-sized farms and corporations harvesting their products from all corners of the earth, and selling them across the globe, crossing national borders. This makes the issue of food safety much more complex. The good news is that many serious foodborne illness outbreaks are preventable; an efficient and effective food safety agency that monitors farms and factories, maintains an effective epidemiological and emergency response team, and provides up-to-date, accurate information to the public in the face of an outbreak can go a long way in reducing the spread of disease and its related costs. Unfortunately, this type of agency is the exception rather than the rule, including in America.
Until recently, the food safety mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was focused on response rather than prevention. The FDA had little authority to inspect food production at all levels of the supply chain, issue guidelines for proper cultivation of produce (thus reducing outbreaks at their source) or verify that food imports came from reliable growers. The agency could only suggest that infected foods be recalled -- it had no powers to require companies to remove their products, even if they were found to carry diseases. [14] And for three years now the FDA has been requesting additional funds to increase inspections of foreign foods, claiming that the agency does not have the resources to meet the demand. [15]
Furthermore, the creation of a seamless system of food safety programs is impeded by the split functions between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, eggs and poultry under the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has had its own issues with implementation of food safety procedures. Approval of regulations for the inspection of six strains of E. coli found in beef -- known as the "Big Six" -- have stalled in the White House Office of Management and Budget, leaving some experts wondering whether the U.S. meat industry is vulnerable to E. coli outbreaks. Consequently, a number of ground beef businesses have begun testing for E. coli at their plants. This is possible because tests created and used by the USDA have recently become commercially available. Scientists are now working to develop a new kit that would test for the German E. coli strain as well. [16]
The FDA does not have procedures in place to test regularly for the Big Six strains of E. coli either, which can also be found in produce. [17] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the USDA and the FDA often overlap in their duties. For instance, although the USDA's mission is confined to inspecting meat, poultry and some eggs, with the FDA regulating all other foods and drugs in the U.S., a simple frozen pepperoni pizza would fall under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a result, almost 1,500 food establishments are inspected by both the USDA and the FDA. The overlap creates inefficiencies in the system and could delay responses in the case of a serious foodborne illness outbreak. [18]
Fortunately, steps forward in fixing life-threatening problems in food safety prevention and response in America were taken this year with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in January of 2011. The legislation, the first serious reform for U.S. food safety since 1938, brings the FDA's food safety authorities into the 21st century [19], with new powers for the agency to require prevention-based checks across the food supply; standardize inspections for food producers; mandate food recalls in the case of an outbreak; and improve coordination among the FDA and other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the CDC. [20]
The FSMA also addresses the international component of food safety: Under the FSMA, the FDA is given the authority to require importers to verify the quality standards of their suppliers, to refuse admission to imported food if the foreign facility refuses to allow an FDA inspection and to require certification that imported food is in compliance with food safety requirements. The legislation also mandates more frequent inspections of foreign food suppliers, with inspection quotas increasing each year after the FSMA is implemented. [21]
Additionally, the FSMA aims to harmonize some of the shared responsibilities between the FDA and the USDA. The legislation calls for increased coordination between the two agencies under the categories of food vulnerability assessments, private sector coordinating councils for agriculture and food defense, laboratory networks and data sharing, and decontamination and disposal standards. Although the legislation does not change the jurisdiction of either agency, it requires that the USDA and FDA, along with other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collaborate on a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. [22] The FSMA is a much-needed step forward in protecting Americans from foodborne illnesses and, hopefully, reducing the costs of outbreaks in terms of productivity loss and economic impact.
But now the FSMA faces a whole new hurdle: the movement in Washington to tighten the reins on federal spending. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut the 2012 FDA budget by $87 million dollars -- that's $87 million less than the FDA received last year, and $226 million short of what's needed to enact FSMA. [23] The House also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [24] The proposed cuts mean that the FDA will struggle to keep up with its inspections as well as maintain a coordinated and speedy response system in the case of an outbreak. It also reduces the likelihood that the FDA will have the resources to establish the new FSMA system to inspect imported foods. That means that foreign suppliers may not have to meet the same food safety standards as do domestic farmers. [25]
The FDA is not the only agency involved with food safety to face budget reductions this year. The House of Representatives has also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [26] In addition, all funds were cut for the national foodborne pathogen monitoring program overseen by the USDA, known as the Microbiological Data Program. This program is considered by many public health officials as one of the first lines of defense against foodborne illnesses in the United States, because it screens fruits and vegetables for common pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. [27] The Microbiological Data Program has regularly screened around 15,000 produce samples a year for the past ten years, as compared to the 1,000 samples spot-checked annually by the FDA. In the past two years alone, the program's screenings have led to 19 product recalls. [28]
The looming budget cuts have prompted a warning from the FDA. Recently, the agency released a special report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. The document underscores that the current food safety infrastructure is simply unable to support the inspections required to keep contaminated foods from entering the U.S. market. This is in part due to the fact that imports of food and drugs to the United States have increased six-fold over the last ten years. Almost 80 percent of medication ingredients,75 percent of seafood, and 60 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States come from other countries. And though FSMA takes these statistics into account -- requiring the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign food suppliers over the course of a year -- the report says implementing the task will be impossible without additional funding. [29]
The FDA report also emphasizes that food-borne illnesses result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. [30] A recent nationwide outbreak of Salmonella sickness (resulting in the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey produced in an Arkansas meat plant) underscores the seriousness of food poisoning as a public health threat in America.
Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a long-awaited step towards improving our country's food safety system. The recent E. coli outbreak in Europe, the high incidence of food-borne illnesses in the United States as illustrated by the latest Salmonella outbreak and the FDA's report highlight why adequate resources are urgently needed to fully implement the FSMA, and why food safety must be made a national priority in the United States and around the world.
For more information, visit foodsafety.gov.
Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She serves as Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. She served for more than 20 years in health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, and as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the U.S. Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide and was the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association. Admiral Blumenthal has been named by the National Library of Medicine, The New York Times and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine and as a Rock Star of Science by GQ by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation.
Alison Gocke, an undergraduate at Princeton University, serves as a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington D.C.
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106920#t=article
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-04/food-safety-funding-battle-looms-as-obama-prepares-to-sign-reform-bill.html
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
[5] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[6] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[7] http://www.google.com/url?
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64d387da-912e-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1P6QnmIE4
[9] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960846-5/fulltext?rss=yes#
[10] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/naming-names-in-eu-e-coli-outbreak-fair-game/
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/europe/27ecoli.html?scp=2&sq=e.%20coli&st=cse
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irpE8YEZQLrnnhmdwxTN-VWlZuqg?docId=41ebabe49fe243e1a4331b5ccd2ac0b0
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/business/06seeds.html?_r=1&hpw
[14] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm
[15] http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-import-alarm-keeps-sounding.htm
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/food-companies-act-to-protect-consumers-from-e-coli-illness.html
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05Benedict.html
[18] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-213
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-12-03-foodsafetyQA03_ST_N.htm
[20] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm#records1
[21] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm
[22] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-111-2-57.html
[23] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[24] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[25] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/food-safety-advocates-decry-fda-cuts/2011/05/27/AGzY7yEH_story.html
[26] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/microbiological-data-program-e-coli-screening_n_890165.html
[28] http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-pathogen-program-20110704,0,2683563.story
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/policy/21food.html?scp=2&sq=fda&st=cse
[30] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
In the last paragraph, Dr. Blumenthal writes, "Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection."
I contend that we can reduce food-related infections by moving from industrial food manufacturing where these pathogens thrive and spread, to a more diverse, small-scale, locally-focused agricultural system. Such systems are better for the environment, better for the soil, have the potential to produce better food, would create more jobs in real farming, has reduced incidents of food-borne pathogens, and affects fewer people when there is an issue.
Of course, there are no lobbyists in Washington for real agriculture.
Here's the article:
Food Safety In The 21st Century
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.Public Health Editor at HuffPost and Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General
Written in Collaboration with Alison Gocke
It sounds like a story right out of science fiction: A microscopic killer that shuts down the food supply, cripples a nation's exports, and leaves scores of people dead and thousands more ill. Such an event would seem unthinkable in the modern world of advanced agriculture and medical practice. But it did unfortunately occur several months ago as a result of an outbreak in Germany caused by a deadly, rare strain of E. coli bacteria that sickened more than 4,000 people and killed more than 50.
The strain, whose genome was just recently sequenced by scientists at the University of Maryland, is particularly virulent, carrying a combination of both Shiga toxin (which causes severe gastrointestinal illness like bloody vomiting, diarrhea, and sometimes, kidney failure) and a unique ability to adhere to the intestinal wall. The bacteria -- part of the serotype 0104:H4 -- is thus one of the most rare, deadly E. coli lines in existence. [1]
Over the past five years, from the E. coli scare found in California spinach to the recent outbreak of salmonella in ground turkey, serious and sometimes fatal illnesses resulting from contaminated food have occurred more frequently than expected. Since 2006, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued 39 warnings of multi-state foodborne illness occurrences. [2]
It is estimated that 48 million people are infected by foodborne diseases in the United States each year [3], resulting in $152 billion in medical costs annually. [4] And these outbreaks show no sign of abating; the incidence of salmonella infections alone has increased 20 percent since 1997. [5] With 170 countries exporting food to the U.S., and more than 70,000 food safety violations on food that is imported into America reported from 1998 to 2004 alone, the E. coli outbreak in Germany -- with additional cases reported in France and the U.S. -- shines a spotlight on why the issue of food safety is an international concern. [6]
According to the World Bank, more than two-thirds of countries globally are net importers (i.e., imports exceed exports) of food. [7] The devastating European E. coli outbreak that began in Germany in May illustrates the interconnectedness of the global food supply. From the beginning, the E. coli incident created an international chain reaction: Confusion early on in the investigation of the source of the outbreak led to erroneous warnings about Spanish cucumbers, tomatoe, and leafy greens as the source of infection. [8] As a result, Russia suspended food imports from all member countries of the European Union. [9]
However, upon further investigation, public health officials from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) now believe the source of infection to be sprouted seeds (a category of germinated seeds that includes fenugreek, lentil and bean sprouts) imported from Egypt and purchased by a German company. [10] The infected seeds were then sold to Britain, which in turn sold them in France, where reports of infections from the same strain of E. coli as that found in Germany surfaced a month ago. [11] The outbreak even reached the United States, with six confirmed cases of Americans infected by the German strain. [12] According to the European Food Safety Authority, the Egyptian seeds -- more than 11 tons in total -- were shipped around the world, purchased by 54 companies in Germany and disseminated among at least a dozen other European countries. [13] Investigators are now working to locate the remaining shipments of Egyptian seeds to prevent further disease outbreaks.
This incident highlights the fact that agriculture in the 21st century involves industrial-sized farms and corporations harvesting their products from all corners of the earth, and selling them across the globe, crossing national borders. This makes the issue of food safety much more complex. The good news is that many serious foodborne illness outbreaks are preventable; an efficient and effective food safety agency that monitors farms and factories, maintains an effective epidemiological and emergency response team, and provides up-to-date, accurate information to the public in the face of an outbreak can go a long way in reducing the spread of disease and its related costs. Unfortunately, this type of agency is the exception rather than the rule, including in America.
Until recently, the food safety mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was focused on response rather than prevention. The FDA had little authority to inspect food production at all levels of the supply chain, issue guidelines for proper cultivation of produce (thus reducing outbreaks at their source) or verify that food imports came from reliable growers. The agency could only suggest that infected foods be recalled -- it had no powers to require companies to remove their products, even if they were found to carry diseases. [14] And for three years now the FDA has been requesting additional funds to increase inspections of foreign foods, claiming that the agency does not have the resources to meet the demand. [15]
Furthermore, the creation of a seamless system of food safety programs is impeded by the split functions between the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, eggs and poultry under the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), has had its own issues with implementation of food safety procedures. Approval of regulations for the inspection of six strains of E. coli found in beef -- known as the "Big Six" -- have stalled in the White House Office of Management and Budget, leaving some experts wondering whether the U.S. meat industry is vulnerable to E. coli outbreaks. Consequently, a number of ground beef businesses have begun testing for E. coli at their plants. This is possible because tests created and used by the USDA have recently become commercially available. Scientists are now working to develop a new kit that would test for the German E. coli strain as well. [16]
The FDA does not have procedures in place to test regularly for the Big Six strains of E. coli either, which can also be found in produce. [17] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the USDA and the FDA often overlap in their duties. For instance, although the USDA's mission is confined to inspecting meat, poultry and some eggs, with the FDA regulating all other foods and drugs in the U.S., a simple frozen pepperoni pizza would fall under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a result, almost 1,500 food establishments are inspected by both the USDA and the FDA. The overlap creates inefficiencies in the system and could delay responses in the case of a serious foodborne illness outbreak. [18]
Fortunately, steps forward in fixing life-threatening problems in food safety prevention and response in America were taken this year with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in January of 2011. The legislation, the first serious reform for U.S. food safety since 1938, brings the FDA's food safety authorities into the 21st century [19], with new powers for the agency to require prevention-based checks across the food supply; standardize inspections for food producers; mandate food recalls in the case of an outbreak; and improve coordination among the FDA and other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the CDC. [20]
The FSMA also addresses the international component of food safety: Under the FSMA, the FDA is given the authority to require importers to verify the quality standards of their suppliers, to refuse admission to imported food if the foreign facility refuses to allow an FDA inspection and to require certification that imported food is in compliance with food safety requirements. The legislation also mandates more frequent inspections of foreign food suppliers, with inspection quotas increasing each year after the FSMA is implemented. [21]
Additionally, the FSMA aims to harmonize some of the shared responsibilities between the FDA and the USDA. The legislation calls for increased coordination between the two agencies under the categories of food vulnerability assessments, private sector coordinating councils for agriculture and food defense, laboratory networks and data sharing, and decontamination and disposal standards. Although the legislation does not change the jurisdiction of either agency, it requires that the USDA and FDA, along with other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), collaborate on a National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. [22] The FSMA is a much-needed step forward in protecting Americans from foodborne illnesses and, hopefully, reducing the costs of outbreaks in terms of productivity loss and economic impact.
But now the FSMA faces a whole new hurdle: the movement in Washington to tighten the reins on federal spending. This year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut the 2012 FDA budget by $87 million dollars -- that's $87 million less than the FDA received last year, and $226 million short of what's needed to enact FSMA. [23] The House also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [24] The proposed cuts mean that the FDA will struggle to keep up with its inspections as well as maintain a coordinated and speedy response system in the case of an outbreak. It also reduces the likelihood that the FDA will have the resources to establish the new FSMA system to inspect imported foods. That means that foreign suppliers may not have to meet the same food safety standards as do domestic farmers. [25]
The FDA is not the only agency involved with food safety to face budget reductions this year. The House of Representatives has also proposed cuts to the Food Safety Inspection Service of the USDA, which is responsible for the inspection of meat, poultry and eggs. [26] In addition, all funds were cut for the national foodborne pathogen monitoring program overseen by the USDA, known as the Microbiological Data Program. This program is considered by many public health officials as one of the first lines of defense against foodborne illnesses in the United States, because it screens fruits and vegetables for common pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. [27] The Microbiological Data Program has regularly screened around 15,000 produce samples a year for the past ten years, as compared to the 1,000 samples spot-checked annually by the FDA. In the past two years alone, the program's screenings have led to 19 product recalls. [28]
The looming budget cuts have prompted a warning from the FDA. Recently, the agency released a special report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality. The document underscores that the current food safety infrastructure is simply unable to support the inspections required to keep contaminated foods from entering the U.S. market. This is in part due to the fact that imports of food and drugs to the United States have increased six-fold over the last ten years. Almost 80 percent of medication ingredients,75 percent of seafood, and 60 percent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States come from other countries. And though FSMA takes these statistics into account -- requiring the FDA to inspect at least 600 foreign food suppliers over the course of a year -- the report says implementing the task will be impossible without additional funding. [29]
The FDA report also emphasizes that food-borne illnesses result in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. [30] A recent nationwide outbreak of Salmonella sickness (resulting in the recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey produced in an Arkansas meat plant) underscores the seriousness of food poisoning as a public health threat in America.
Greater attention to reducing food-related infections would save lives and contribute to reducing health care costs as well. The report underscores that today's world of agricultural practices in a global food supply chain require a modern system of food safety inspection. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is a long-awaited step towards improving our country's food safety system. The recent E. coli outbreak in Europe, the high incidence of food-borne illnesses in the United States as illustrated by the latest Salmonella outbreak and the FDA's report highlight why adequate resources are urgently needed to fully implement the FSMA, and why food safety must be made a national priority in the United States and around the world.
For more information, visit foodsafety.gov.
Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She serves as Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. She served for more than 20 years in health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, and as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the U.S. Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide and was the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association. Admiral Blumenthal has been named by the National Library of Medicine, The New York Times and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine and as a Rock Star of Science by GQ by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation.
Alison Gocke, an undergraduate at Princeton University, serves as a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington D.C.
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1106920#t=article
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/outbreaknet/outbreaks.html
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-04/food-safety-funding-battle-looms-as-obama-prepares-to-sign-reform-bill.html
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
[5] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[6] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[7] http://www.google.com/url?
[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64d387da-912e-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1P6QnmIE4
[9] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960846-5/fulltext?rss=yes#
[10] http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/naming-names-in-eu-e-coli-outbreak-fair-game/
[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/europe/27ecoli.html?scp=2&sq=e.%20coli&st=cse
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irpE8YEZQLrnnhmdwxTN-VWlZuqg?docId=41ebabe49fe243e1a4331b5ccd2ac0b0
[13] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/business/06seeds.html?_r=1&hpw
[14] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm
[15] http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-import-alarm-keeps-sounding.htm
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/food-companies-act-to-protect-consumers-from-e-coli-illness.html
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05Benedict.html
[18] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-213
[19] http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-12-03-foodsafetyQA03_ST_N.htm
[20] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247559.htm#records1
[21] http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm237934.htm
[22] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-111-2-57.html
[23] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[24] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[25] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/food-safety-advocates-decry-fda-cuts/2011/05/27/AGzY7yEH_story.html
[26] http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/as-europe-reels-from-e-coli-problems-with-food-safety-in-the-u-s/
[27] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/microbiological-data-program-e-coli-screening_n_890165.html
[28] http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-pathogen-program-20110704,0,2683563.story
[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/policy/21food.html?scp=2&sq=fda&st=cse
[30] http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-55.html
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Four Things Republicans Used To Believe
Four things Republicans used to believe
Commentary: The party used to be conservative, but not extreme
By Rex Nutting
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The Republican Party used to be a center-right party, conservative but mainstream. Now it's the home of extreme views.
Just how extreme have Republican leaders become? Here are four things mainstream Washington Republicans used to believe in, but no longer do.
Taxation: The Republican Party has long favored low tax rates as a way to encourage economic efficiency, but its leaders have always recognized that some taxation is necessary and good. Under the old Republican philosophy, the purpose of taxation is to raise the revenues needed by the government. They believed, in theory, that the government shouldn’t spend money it didn’t have, so sufficient revenues were needed.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically in his first year in office, but when the deficits rose, he smartly agreed to raise taxes 12 times, including a broad tax-reform bill that eliminated many loopholes and removed many provisions of the tax code that distorted economic incentives.
Today’s Republican Party has abandoned the principle that some taxation is necessary. The party has fully bought into the “starve-the-beast” rhetoric espoused by Grover Norquist and other anti-tax zealots. It has adopted a rigid libertarian philosophy that equates taxation to tyranny, which argues that the government has no right to your money. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean all taxes are immoral.
For today’s Republicans, the proper level of taxation is no longer a question of paying for needed services in the most efficient manner, but is strictly a moral and political matter. The proper level is zero, and only political obstacles stand in the way of achieving that goal.
The current Republican Party pretends to care about deficits, but it clearly doesn’t. It refuses to even consider raising taxes to reduce the deficit, even by closing inefficient loopholes that distort the economy. The Republican-controlled House passed the Ryan budget plan, which cuts taxes and spending by trillions of dollars but does almost nothing to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years
A strong presidency: Republicans have long favored a strong presidency, especially in foreign affairs. Under the administration of George W. Bush, high officials even promoted an extreme theory of a “unitary executive” that claimed that the president was largely above the law, and could do pretty much what he wanted, including ignoring national and international laws banning torture and unlawful imprisonment.
That’s a far cry from today, when Republicans in the House rushed to approve a resolution to condemn President Barack Obama’s involvement in Libya’s civil war, saying he didn’t consult with Congress enough. That was the same complaint some Republicans had about Democratic President Bill Clinton’s decision to fight in Kosovo.
The Libyan crisis put the Republicans in a terrible jam. Generally, they like a good fight, especially against a cartoonish bully like Moammar Gadhafi. When the rebellion first broke out, many Republicans demanded that the U.S. get involved in the civil war. But then Obama ordered a no-fly zone over Libya, just as Republicans had demanded. Nothing infuriates Republicans more than when Obama agrees with them.
It seems as if the Republicans do have a consistent principle when it comes to the president’s war-making powers: Republican presidents are the unquestioned commander-in-chief of the armed services and may start wars wherever they please, but Democratic presidents aren’t even qualified to order lunch, much less boss the troops around.
Protecting our planet: Republicans used to be conservatives in the truest sense of the word. They favored sensible laws to conserve the water, air and land. The Environmental Protection Agency was created by Republican President Richard Nixon.
For years, Republicans favored market-based solutions to environmental problems, rather than relying on government regulations and bureaucrats. For instance, many Republicans, including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, favored a plan to give businesses an incentive to reduce greenhouse gases by giving them the right to sell their rights to emit carbon dioxide — what’s known as the cap-and-trade plan to combat climate change.
Cap and trade is a Republican idea through and through; it was modeled on the successful cap-and-trade acid-rain program initiated by the White House under Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Read the Political History of Cap and Trade.
Today’s Republicans reject almost all government actions to protect the environment, saying they kill jobs. They want to drill for oil and gas everywhere, they want the EPA to stop regulating pollution, and they categorically reject all scientific evidence for climate change. They are so dead-set against conservation that they voted to kill a regulation (approved under Republican President George W. Bush) requiring that Americans use light bulbs that actually emit more light than heat.
Universal health coverage: It’s no secret that today’s Republican Party loathes the idea of universal health-care coverage. It believes requiring Americans to buy coverage is unconstitutional and immoral. One of its most cherished goals is to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
But did you know that the Affordable Care Act — derisively known as ObamaCare — is essentially a Republican plan, modeled after a 1993 Republican health-care bill and the Massachusetts state law signed by Mitt Romney?
The ambition of the 1993 bill introduced by Rhode Island Republican John Chafee was to provide universal coverage, with all Americans required to buy insurance. The bill would have subsidized coverage for those with low incomes. It would have prohibited denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. And it would have fined employers who did not offer a qualified health-care plan. Sound familiar?
It was sponsored by 19 Republican senators, including Bob Dole, Pete Domenici, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Dick Lugar, Alan Simpson and Ted Stephens.
You may not recognize all those names, but you should know this group was the Republican establishment in 1993. And that Republican establishment was far to the left of today’s Republican Party.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Commentary: The party used to be conservative, but not extreme
By Rex Nutting
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The Republican Party used to be a center-right party, conservative but mainstream. Now it's the home of extreme views.
Just how extreme have Republican leaders become? Here are four things mainstream Washington Republicans used to believe in, but no longer do.
Taxation: The Republican Party has long favored low tax rates as a way to encourage economic efficiency, but its leaders have always recognized that some taxation is necessary and good. Under the old Republican philosophy, the purpose of taxation is to raise the revenues needed by the government. They believed, in theory, that the government shouldn’t spend money it didn’t have, so sufficient revenues were needed.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically in his first year in office, but when the deficits rose, he smartly agreed to raise taxes 12 times, including a broad tax-reform bill that eliminated many loopholes and removed many provisions of the tax code that distorted economic incentives.
Today’s Republican Party has abandoned the principle that some taxation is necessary. The party has fully bought into the “starve-the-beast” rhetoric espoused by Grover Norquist and other anti-tax zealots. It has adopted a rigid libertarian philosophy that equates taxation to tyranny, which argues that the government has no right to your money. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean all taxes are immoral.
For today’s Republicans, the proper level of taxation is no longer a question of paying for needed services in the most efficient manner, but is strictly a moral and political matter. The proper level is zero, and only political obstacles stand in the way of achieving that goal.
The current Republican Party pretends to care about deficits, but it clearly doesn’t. It refuses to even consider raising taxes to reduce the deficit, even by closing inefficient loopholes that distort the economy. The Republican-controlled House passed the Ryan budget plan, which cuts taxes and spending by trillions of dollars but does almost nothing to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years
A strong presidency: Republicans have long favored a strong presidency, especially in foreign affairs. Under the administration of George W. Bush, high officials even promoted an extreme theory of a “unitary executive” that claimed that the president was largely above the law, and could do pretty much what he wanted, including ignoring national and international laws banning torture and unlawful imprisonment.
That’s a far cry from today, when Republicans in the House rushed to approve a resolution to condemn President Barack Obama’s involvement in Libya’s civil war, saying he didn’t consult with Congress enough. That was the same complaint some Republicans had about Democratic President Bill Clinton’s decision to fight in Kosovo.
The Libyan crisis put the Republicans in a terrible jam. Generally, they like a good fight, especially against a cartoonish bully like Moammar Gadhafi. When the rebellion first broke out, many Republicans demanded that the U.S. get involved in the civil war. But then Obama ordered a no-fly zone over Libya, just as Republicans had demanded. Nothing infuriates Republicans more than when Obama agrees with them.
It seems as if the Republicans do have a consistent principle when it comes to the president’s war-making powers: Republican presidents are the unquestioned commander-in-chief of the armed services and may start wars wherever they please, but Democratic presidents aren’t even qualified to order lunch, much less boss the troops around.
Protecting our planet: Republicans used to be conservatives in the truest sense of the word. They favored sensible laws to conserve the water, air and land. The Environmental Protection Agency was created by Republican President Richard Nixon.
For years, Republicans favored market-based solutions to environmental problems, rather than relying on government regulations and bureaucrats. For instance, many Republicans, including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, favored a plan to give businesses an incentive to reduce greenhouse gases by giving them the right to sell their rights to emit carbon dioxide — what’s known as the cap-and-trade plan to combat climate change.
Cap and trade is a Republican idea through and through; it was modeled on the successful cap-and-trade acid-rain program initiated by the White House under Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Read the Political History of Cap and Trade.
Today’s Republicans reject almost all government actions to protect the environment, saying they kill jobs. They want to drill for oil and gas everywhere, they want the EPA to stop regulating pollution, and they categorically reject all scientific evidence for climate change. They are so dead-set against conservation that they voted to kill a regulation (approved under Republican President George W. Bush) requiring that Americans use light bulbs that actually emit more light than heat.
Universal health coverage: It’s no secret that today’s Republican Party loathes the idea of universal health-care coverage. It believes requiring Americans to buy coverage is unconstitutional and immoral. One of its most cherished goals is to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
But did you know that the Affordable Care Act — derisively known as ObamaCare — is essentially a Republican plan, modeled after a 1993 Republican health-care bill and the Massachusetts state law signed by Mitt Romney?
The ambition of the 1993 bill introduced by Rhode Island Republican John Chafee was to provide universal coverage, with all Americans required to buy insurance. The bill would have subsidized coverage for those with low incomes. It would have prohibited denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. And it would have fined employers who did not offer a qualified health-care plan. Sound familiar?
It was sponsored by 19 Republican senators, including Bob Dole, Pete Domenici, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Dick Lugar, Alan Simpson and Ted Stephens.
You may not recognize all those names, but you should know this group was the Republican establishment in 1993. And that Republican establishment was far to the left of today’s Republican Party.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Economists find flaws in federal estimate of climate damage
Economists find flaws in federal estimate of climate damage
July 13, 2011
A new report concludes that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted in the atmosphere inflicts as much as $900 in environmental harm - almost 45 times the amount the federal government uses when setting regulations. The gap, advocates say, disguises the true value of emissions reductions.
By Douglas Fischer
Uncle Sam's estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide is fundamentally flawed and "grossly understates" the potential impacts of climate change, according to an analysis released Tuesday by a group of economists.
The study found the true cost of those emissions to be far beyond the $21 per ton derived by the federal government.
The figure, commonly known as the "social cost of carbon," is used by federal agencies when weighing the costs and benefits of emissions-cutting regulations, such as air conditioner efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions limits for light trucks.
A truer value, according to the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network, an organization of economists who advocate for environmental protection, could be as high as $900 per ton - equivalent to adding $9 to each gallon of gas. Viewed another way, with the United States emitting the equivalent of close to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the higher figure suggests that avoiding those emissions could save the nation $5.3 trillion annually, one-third of the nation's economic output.
'Dramatic simplifications'
A second, separate report released Tuesday buttressed the argument, finding that the government routinely underestimates the benefits of avoiding climate change when conducting cost-benefit analysis on regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This second report, published jointly by the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, and the Environmental Law Institute, found that government models on climate impacts often contain "dramatic simplifications and assumptions" - such as when calculating the social cost of carbon - that underplay the benefits society gains by curbing emissions.
Together, the two reports suggest policy makers are looking at a distorted picture as they assess the economic impacts of climate regulations.
The issue has gained urgency as efforts to create a cap-and-trade system or impose a carbon tax have stalled in Congress and federal rules - via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - become the primary vehicle for reducing emissions.
"Based on what we know today, the government's current range of social costs is very likely a serious underestimation of what we think those costs will be," said Kristen Sheeran, executive director of the E3 Network.
"It does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis," she added. "It could lead to a degree of inaction on climate change that frankly is not supported by either the economics or the science at this point."
Costly impacts missed
A lower social cost of carbon - particularly when combined with an underestimate of the benefits of reducing emissions - makes justifying expensive emissions-cutting regulations much harder, advocates say.
But how to value the cost of climate change has proven to be a contentious issue.
Computer models attempting to assess the economic impacts of climate change are, in many cases, streamlined affairs that can only look at impacts broadly - at a scale of hundreds of miles, instead of, say, at a particular watershed, township, or even state.
Economists at the E3 Network, an umbrella group of about 200 economists, contend many potentially costly impacts are missed: Sweltering inland temperatures are averaged with cooler coastal weather. Or an intense, deadly rainstorm never shows up in a monthly average rainfall tally.
That leads to considerable uncertainty about the severity of the damages. For example, a global model used in part by the federal government to derive the $21-per-ton price finds that a 4.5ºF (2.5ºC) temperature rise will cost 1.8 percent of the world GDP. But University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann, conducting a detailed review of that estimate as it applies just to the United States, found it should be four times as large.
Inflated assumptions
The point, say E3 economists, is that when the latest science on cost of climate extremes, the pace of global change, and how to account for those damages in the future are incorporated into the federal government's mathematics, the picture changes dramatically.
"Now that we know how much we could end up paying to endure the impacts of climate change, investing in reducing our emissions is clearly the prudent option," Frank Ackerman, an economist with the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the report's two authors, said in a statement. "It's the difference between servicing your car, or waiting for it to break down on the highway."
Officials at the EPA were unavailable for comment Tuesday evening. Michael Greenstone, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor who led the federal effort to price the cost of climate impacts (pdf), was similarly unavailable.
In an interview earlier this year, however, Greenstone said the federal panel charged with pricing impacts did consider several studies that pegged the social cost of carbon closer to $3,000 per ton of carbon dioxide. But those higher values were based on unlikely assumptions, Greenstone said. When the panel held those assumptions and variables constant, the picture changed dramatically, and the federal estimate fell within the mid-range of the published literature, he said.
The federal panel published its $21-per-ton figure in February 2010 with a promise to reassess its work within two years. Sheeran noted 18 months have passed, with no evidence the estimate is being revised.
"It does not appear to be a priority within the administration," she said.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
July 13, 2011
A new report concludes that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted in the atmosphere inflicts as much as $900 in environmental harm - almost 45 times the amount the federal government uses when setting regulations. The gap, advocates say, disguises the true value of emissions reductions.
By Douglas Fischer
Uncle Sam's estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide is fundamentally flawed and "grossly understates" the potential impacts of climate change, according to an analysis released Tuesday by a group of economists.
The study found the true cost of those emissions to be far beyond the $21 per ton derived by the federal government.
The figure, commonly known as the "social cost of carbon," is used by federal agencies when weighing the costs and benefits of emissions-cutting regulations, such as air conditioner efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions limits for light trucks.
A truer value, according to the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network, an organization of economists who advocate for environmental protection, could be as high as $900 per ton - equivalent to adding $9 to each gallon of gas. Viewed another way, with the United States emitting the equivalent of close to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the higher figure suggests that avoiding those emissions could save the nation $5.3 trillion annually, one-third of the nation's economic output.
'Dramatic simplifications'
A second, separate report released Tuesday buttressed the argument, finding that the government routinely underestimates the benefits of avoiding climate change when conducting cost-benefit analysis on regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This second report, published jointly by the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, and the Environmental Law Institute, found that government models on climate impacts often contain "dramatic simplifications and assumptions" - such as when calculating the social cost of carbon - that underplay the benefits society gains by curbing emissions.
Together, the two reports suggest policy makers are looking at a distorted picture as they assess the economic impacts of climate regulations.
The issue has gained urgency as efforts to create a cap-and-trade system or impose a carbon tax have stalled in Congress and federal rules - via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - become the primary vehicle for reducing emissions.
"Based on what we know today, the government's current range of social costs is very likely a serious underestimation of what we think those costs will be," said Kristen Sheeran, executive director of the E3 Network.
"It does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis," she added. "It could lead to a degree of inaction on climate change that frankly is not supported by either the economics or the science at this point."
Costly impacts missed
A lower social cost of carbon - particularly when combined with an underestimate of the benefits of reducing emissions - makes justifying expensive emissions-cutting regulations much harder, advocates say.
But how to value the cost of climate change has proven to be a contentious issue.
Computer models attempting to assess the economic impacts of climate change are, in many cases, streamlined affairs that can only look at impacts broadly - at a scale of hundreds of miles, instead of, say, at a particular watershed, township, or even state.
Economists at the E3 Network, an umbrella group of about 200 economists, contend many potentially costly impacts are missed: Sweltering inland temperatures are averaged with cooler coastal weather. Or an intense, deadly rainstorm never shows up in a monthly average rainfall tally.
That leads to considerable uncertainty about the severity of the damages. For example, a global model used in part by the federal government to derive the $21-per-ton price finds that a 4.5ºF (2.5ºC) temperature rise will cost 1.8 percent of the world GDP. But University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann, conducting a detailed review of that estimate as it applies just to the United States, found it should be four times as large.
Inflated assumptions
The point, say E3 economists, is that when the latest science on cost of climate extremes, the pace of global change, and how to account for those damages in the future are incorporated into the federal government's mathematics, the picture changes dramatically.
"Now that we know how much we could end up paying to endure the impacts of climate change, investing in reducing our emissions is clearly the prudent option," Frank Ackerman, an economist with the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the report's two authors, said in a statement. "It's the difference between servicing your car, or waiting for it to break down on the highway."
Officials at the EPA were unavailable for comment Tuesday evening. Michael Greenstone, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor who led the federal effort to price the cost of climate impacts (pdf), was similarly unavailable.
In an interview earlier this year, however, Greenstone said the federal panel charged with pricing impacts did consider several studies that pegged the social cost of carbon closer to $3,000 per ton of carbon dioxide. But those higher values were based on unlikely assumptions, Greenstone said. When the panel held those assumptions and variables constant, the picture changed dramatically, and the federal estimate fell within the mid-range of the published literature, he said.
The federal panel published its $21-per-ton figure in February 2010 with a promise to reassess its work within two years. Sheeran noted 18 months have passed, with no evidence the estimate is being revised.
"It does not appear to be a priority within the administration," she said.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
FDA Approves Genetically Modified Grass
FDA Approves Genetically Modified Grass: A Blow to the Organic Movement
Esther Farin, July 10, 2011
Just as sneakily as it approved genetically modified corn, soy, and various other plants, the FDA cleared the way for genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass made by Scotts Miracle-Gro on Friday, July 1st. Like other genetically modified plants, genes of foreign materials (in this case corn, rice, and other plants) were inserted into the seeds to create Kentucky bluegrass. The intent of this lab-created grass is to withstand copious amounts of Round-Up weedkiller, brought to us by Monsanto, that this nation's soil could stand to do without. This modified grass would be used and sold as lawn grass.
GM Kentucky bluegrass could have a devastating impact to the organic movement if it grows wild, because it will contaminate fields. And because genetically modified seeds are patented for growing, organic farmers may also face unwarranted lawsuits as a result. Coupled with the fact that this grass is actually considered a "noxious weed" due to its glysophate resistance, its approval should leave most scratching their heads.
Although genetically modified crops have been used as food for well over a decade, sold in fast food, frozen meals, and processed foods to hundreds of millions of unknowing Americans, it is only within the past few years that their controversy has come to light. People are concerned both with the health implications of genetically modified plants as well as their impact on the environment, That a lawn grass can withstand unlimited amounts of pesticide does not necessarily translate for healthy living and the impact of usage of this grass in people's homes could lead to damage to the soil that will leave them unable to plant much else.
Approval of GM Kentucky bluegrass also paves the way for other plants to pass through the FDA's approval system without any scientific testing, further disrupting the U.S.'s damaged environment and food supply while going unregulated.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Esther Farin, July 10, 2011
Just as sneakily as it approved genetically modified corn, soy, and various other plants, the FDA cleared the way for genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass made by Scotts Miracle-Gro on Friday, July 1st. Like other genetically modified plants, genes of foreign materials (in this case corn, rice, and other plants) were inserted into the seeds to create Kentucky bluegrass. The intent of this lab-created grass is to withstand copious amounts of Round-Up weedkiller, brought to us by Monsanto, that this nation's soil could stand to do without. This modified grass would be used and sold as lawn grass.
GM Kentucky bluegrass could have a devastating impact to the organic movement if it grows wild, because it will contaminate fields. And because genetically modified seeds are patented for growing, organic farmers may also face unwarranted lawsuits as a result. Coupled with the fact that this grass is actually considered a "noxious weed" due to its glysophate resistance, its approval should leave most scratching their heads.
Although genetically modified crops have been used as food for well over a decade, sold in fast food, frozen meals, and processed foods to hundreds of millions of unknowing Americans, it is only within the past few years that their controversy has come to light. People are concerned both with the health implications of genetically modified plants as well as their impact on the environment, That a lawn grass can withstand unlimited amounts of pesticide does not necessarily translate for healthy living and the impact of usage of this grass in people's homes could lead to damage to the soil that will leave them unable to plant much else.
Approval of GM Kentucky bluegrass also paves the way for other plants to pass through the FDA's approval system without any scientific testing, further disrupting the U.S.'s damaged environment and food supply while going unregulated.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Saturday, July 9, 2011
It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something
Our garden is about two months behind last year, which was a horrible growing season. Yesterday I was able to hang the laundry outside for the first time this year -- that's about two months behind the norm. It's not just the Puget Sound. While in Nebraska, every time I commented on how beautiful it was (it really is) I was told how wet and cold it had been and generations of folks would say, "It's never this green this time of year".
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Report Warns Of Mass Extinction From Current Rate Of Marine Distress
From HuffingtonPost.com:
Travis Donovan
First Posted: 06/20/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 06/21/11 09:09 AM ET
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Travis Donovan
First Posted: 06/20/11 05:19 PM ET Updated: 06/21/11 09:09 AM ET
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Friday, June 3, 2011
Climate Change
This article appeared this morning. I'm going to tie it and article I posted a couple days ago because I think it's important to point out just how tragically our government is dropping the ball on this one.
See: Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy To Stall Projects
Here's today's article from climate scientist Heidi Cullen:
The C-Word
Posted: 06/ 3/11 09:06 AM ET
My phone tends to ring a lot more when the weather is bad. I often get calls from reporters and producers who usually ask me the same question a bunch of different ways. "Is this global warming?" "Is climate change to blame?" "Is the weather getting worse?"
These are big -- almost existential -- questions. I suspect they are a polite way of asking, "Is this our fault?"
Climate scientists approach the question a little differently. We want to test how global warming shifts the odds of a severe weather event. Just like medical researchers do with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, this line of climate research comes straight out of epidemiology. In essence, we're doing autopsies on extreme weather events to find out what made them so bad-ass.
Depending on the type of extreme weather event, my answer can be short or long, straightforward or complicated. Keep in mind, all weather is now born into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man-made greenhouse gas pollution. But we don't always know what influences (man-made or natural) will win out on any given day.
Events like droughts, wildfires, heat waves and heavy downpours get my short answer. We know they are going to become more frequent, more intense, and last longer. In fact, we can already see this playing out in historical data. (For a complete overview, check out the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US", as well as some newly published research summarized here.)
Tornadoes get the long answer. Will they become more frequent, more intense? Will Tornado Alley get bigger? Will the season last longer? Jeff Masters and Andrew Freedman have both done a great job laying out the state of the research.
The bottom line is that two of the key ingredients that go into making a tornado are expected to change as a result of global warming -- water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) and wind shear (changing wind speed and direction with height). Thanks in part to warmer oceans, water vapor has already increased about 4% and it will continue to increase as the planet warms -- providing more fuel for storms. But wind shear may decrease and that could mean fewer tornadoes. So which influence wins out -- increasing water vapor or decreasing wind shear? We don't know yet.
But even though we don't have all the answers -- and maybe never will -- we do know enough to act. And that is really the bigger point, the one I try to bring home when the phone rings. The recent National Research Council's "America's Climate Choices" report advised Congress that we know enough to get started on preparing for climate change and preventing the most severe consequences, and we need to get started right away. Almost anything we do to protect ourselves in the future from this hotter world we're creating, will also protect us right now from many of the extremes Mother Nature throws at us. We can't afford to wait.
Yet, despite this recent report, and despite all we do know about climate change, the topic has become the C-word in Washington, D.C. Just as the term "global warming" fell out of favor, the term "climate change" is now one that few in our nation's capital dare bring up in conversation, much less in legislation. Budgets for climate research have been threatened and now a nominee for Commerce Secretary is garnering opposition in large part because of his stance on environmental issues, including global climate change.
As the people of Joplin, Missouri begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding their lives -- a new wave of extremes is making headlines. A state of emergency was declared in Massachusetts on Wednesday after rare and powerful tornadoes ripped through the city of Springfield and smaller towns nearby. At the same time, long-standing temperature records fell as a wall of heat blanketed the eastern half of the country -- Washington, D.C. set a new daily record high of 98°F -- busting the old record that dated back to 1895. Hurricane season also started this week and forecasters expect it to be busier than usual. And I'm here ready for the phone to ring again, so that I can tell you one more time that if we do nothing to adapt and reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, things will only get worse... and yes, it will be our fault.
Heidi Cullen is a climate scientist at Climate Central (www.climatecentral.org) -- an independent, non-profit journalism and research organization. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University and the author of The Weather of the Future.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Check out the page Heidi referenced in paragraph five. It's worth a look.
Contact President Obama
Contact your representatives
Contact the senate
See: Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy To Stall Projects
Here's today's article from climate scientist Heidi Cullen:
The C-Word
Posted: 06/ 3/11 09:06 AM ET
My phone tends to ring a lot more when the weather is bad. I often get calls from reporters and producers who usually ask me the same question a bunch of different ways. "Is this global warming?" "Is climate change to blame?" "Is the weather getting worse?"
These are big -- almost existential -- questions. I suspect they are a polite way of asking, "Is this our fault?"
Climate scientists approach the question a little differently. We want to test how global warming shifts the odds of a severe weather event. Just like medical researchers do with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, this line of climate research comes straight out of epidemiology. In essence, we're doing autopsies on extreme weather events to find out what made them so bad-ass.
Depending on the type of extreme weather event, my answer can be short or long, straightforward or complicated. Keep in mind, all weather is now born into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man-made greenhouse gas pollution. But we don't always know what influences (man-made or natural) will win out on any given day.
Events like droughts, wildfires, heat waves and heavy downpours get my short answer. We know they are going to become more frequent, more intense, and last longer. In fact, we can already see this playing out in historical data. (For a complete overview, check out the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US", as well as some newly published research summarized here.)
Tornadoes get the long answer. Will they become more frequent, more intense? Will Tornado Alley get bigger? Will the season last longer? Jeff Masters and Andrew Freedman have both done a great job laying out the state of the research.
The bottom line is that two of the key ingredients that go into making a tornado are expected to change as a result of global warming -- water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) and wind shear (changing wind speed and direction with height). Thanks in part to warmer oceans, water vapor has already increased about 4% and it will continue to increase as the planet warms -- providing more fuel for storms. But wind shear may decrease and that could mean fewer tornadoes. So which influence wins out -- increasing water vapor or decreasing wind shear? We don't know yet.
But even though we don't have all the answers -- and maybe never will -- we do know enough to act. And that is really the bigger point, the one I try to bring home when the phone rings. The recent National Research Council's "America's Climate Choices" report advised Congress that we know enough to get started on preparing for climate change and preventing the most severe consequences, and we need to get started right away. Almost anything we do to protect ourselves in the future from this hotter world we're creating, will also protect us right now from many of the extremes Mother Nature throws at us. We can't afford to wait.
Yet, despite this recent report, and despite all we do know about climate change, the topic has become the C-word in Washington, D.C. Just as the term "global warming" fell out of favor, the term "climate change" is now one that few in our nation's capital dare bring up in conversation, much less in legislation. Budgets for climate research have been threatened and now a nominee for Commerce Secretary is garnering opposition in large part because of his stance on environmental issues, including global climate change.
As the people of Joplin, Missouri begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding their lives -- a new wave of extremes is making headlines. A state of emergency was declared in Massachusetts on Wednesday after rare and powerful tornadoes ripped through the city of Springfield and smaller towns nearby. At the same time, long-standing temperature records fell as a wall of heat blanketed the eastern half of the country -- Washington, D.C. set a new daily record high of 98°F -- busting the old record that dated back to 1895. Hurricane season also started this week and forecasters expect it to be busier than usual. And I'm here ready for the phone to ring again, so that I can tell you one more time that if we do nothing to adapt and reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, things will only get worse... and yes, it will be our fault.
Heidi Cullen is a climate scientist at Climate Central (www.climatecentral.org) -- an independent, non-profit journalism and research organization. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University and the author of The Weather of the Future.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Check out the page Heidi referenced in paragraph five. It's worth a look.
Contact President Obama
Contact your representatives
Contact the senate
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harbinger
Seriously? The U.S. Senate needed sixty votes to proceed with a bill to reduce the deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes and there were 48 Senators willing to vote against it?!? We are fighting two foreign wars, global climate change, an economic crisis, and we desperately need to curb the American appetite for petrol, but 48 U.S. Senators wanted to be sure big oil companies don't have to pay their fair share?!?
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
| Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 940; A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes | ||
05/17/2011 Senate Roll Call No. 72 112nd Congress, 1st Session Rejected: 52-48 (see complete tally) | ||
| By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 72), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. | ||
| Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 72 |
| 52 |
| ||
| 48 |
|
|  |
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
Monday, May 16, 2011
Obama's Energy Plan for Dummies
Here's the "plan" from whitehouse.gov in jpg form. I really don't mean to criticize...
BUT...
when faced with the question of tipping the balance not for a better life for our children...
or even a life as good...
but just for their survival...
What happened to,
"Yes we can"
?
BUT...
when faced with the question of tipping the balance not for a better life for our children...
or even a life as good...
but just for their survival...
What happened to,
"Yes we can"
?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)