I had fun with this
The holiday season calls for peace on Earth, so why not add a couple of peas as well? They are good for you AND for the environment!
Did you know? Some Interesting/Disconcerting Facts about Animal Agriculture December 12, 2009
enVeg Facts about Meat & the Environment
enVeg is a UF organization that tries to spread awareness about the impacts of the meat & dairy industries on the environment, as well as global hunger.
Check us out at enveg.org!
The Future of Food is Up to Us! December 11, 2009
Ever since reading The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, in which poor Oklahoma farmers are forced off their land after the take-over of industrial farming, I have been bothered by the idea of large, agro-businesses bankrupting the small farmer trying to eke out a living. In The Future of Food documentary, one protestor put it well: “Endangered species: Family farmer.” I thought that our government was against monopolizations of sectors; that our government was supposed to ensure Americans are eating safe foods; and that our government is “of the people, for the people, and buy the people.” Now, I’m not so convinced.
In The Future of Food, I found many facts startling. For example, it was stated that “ninety-seven percent of vegetables grown in the beginning of the 20th century are now extinct.” This, I learned, is because a few huge companies, such as Monsanto, are patenting almost every seed ever stored at the United States Seed Bank to control what is produced, and essentially, to control food in totality. Since when has the U.S. Patent Office allowed the patenting of life? How can a company own a seed, an organism of its own entity? Apparently, Monsanto spent eight billion dollars buying up seed companies as well. I am quite surprised this practice has yet to be overturned, but then, Monsanto is generously funding the political campaigns of many, including Attorney General John Ashcroft. I thought law and justice were supposed to be blind? Do monetary bribes not count anymore? Can our legal system really be influenced by dollars? This is scary, people. If only a few select companies own all of the seeds, grown all around the world, technically they have the right to sue anyone who grows or eats any seed or any plant owned by them without paying fees to the patent-holding companies. There was a farmer in the documentary, Percy Schmeiser, who was sued by Monsanto after some of their genetically modified canola seeds blew into Schmeiser’s field. Because of this invasion by a few seeds, Percy had to destroy over 100,000 pounds of seeds he had been saving his whole life for they now might be contaminated with Monsanto’s patented seed. The worst part of this situation, I think, is that the judge ordered that no matter how a patented seed gets on to someone’s property, whether it be dropped by a bird, a storm, wind, it is the farmer’s responsibility to destroy his small crop and payout to Monsanto.
How is this justice? Why are we letting these huge agro-businesses take over our governments? Monsanto has sent out 9,000 letters to farmers. Most farmers choose to pay to avoid lawsuits. They have to agree to never discuss their settlements. Farmers should be able to save and reuse their own seeds. They should be able to buy seeds from their neighbors without having to worry about whether they are infringing on somebody’s patent.
According to The Future of Food, “The Green Revolution has become the Gene Revolution.” There are three government agencies that are supposed to monitor genetically modified foods. The USDA is charged with the duty of ensuring the safety of these engineered foods, but companies with genetically modified products are not made to label. If the genetic modification of food is supposedly such a good thing, why aren’t companies perfectly happy to include labels of ingredients and modifications? Because the people don’t want to eat them! In fact, all fifteen countries of the European Union set strict regulations for labeling GM foods, and have refused to import any more food from the United States since its contaminants are not labeled. In 1999, the “GM Food Right to Know Act” was introduced to Congress, but it is still waiting to be voted on. Agro-businesses have won out over the American people for ten years already, and who knows how much longer before any legislation is even considered. The documentary featured the story of an American woman who had a severe allergic reaction after eating food she was not allergic to. Tests showed that the chicken quesadillas she had eaten were made with GM corn. There was no label. This happens to people every day, for they have no idea what they are eating! If someone eats a tomato that has been injected with a flounder gene to better survive cold weather, and they are allergic to fish, what is to tell them not to eat it? Also, genes that are deposited into GM organisms are essentially viruses that can disrupt naturally-existing cells. What happens when these genes and cells mutate to the human species from plant species? We have seen the jumping of viruses to different host species, as in the H1N1 virus. Also, some GM foods are considered to be toxic because of all the pesticides necessary for them to grow, including Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” herbicide. For example, when caterpillars of monarch butterfly were fed GM corn pollen, a high percentage died unexpectedly. After 2002 Bush legislation, every American taxpayer pays a subsidy to biotechnology crops, even though the majority of people don’t want to eat something constructed in a lab or something that is hazardous to their health. Also, hardly any of the subsidies pumped into agriculture are accrued by smaller farmers; it all goes to big business.
Luckily, only a small percentage of our food produced is genetically modified. There has also been a countermovement to the biotechnology industry: organic farmers’ markets. Since 1994, the number of farmers’ markets in the U.S. has increased seventy-nine percent. In 1990, Americans spent only one billion dollars on organic food. In 2003, it was up to thirteen billion, and I’m sure the upward trend has continued to 2009. People are becoming more aware of the importance of where a food comes from and how it is grown. The average crop travels 1,500 miles to a supermarket. By eating locally, we can support smaller farmers and cut pollution. Eating organically and locally is a sure way to combat the “Gene Revolution”; we must make it known that we are not lab rats to be experimented on with tampered food. We are people who deserve what nature intended: no pesticides and no genetic engineering. We should not have to worry how safe the food we eat is and we should never let big business influence the justice of our political system. As stated in the last words of The Future of Food: “It’s up to you.”
enVeg hosts Bruce Friedrich at UF December 11, 2009
One might say Bruce Friedrich is a controversial figure. In his free time, he regularly protests outside of KFCs and McDonald’s, debates figures like Glenn Beck on national television, and works for a little organization you may have heard about: PETA. Yep, that’s right. Our man of the hour is the Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; well, until recently. Bruce stepped down from this highly esteemed position to teach high school in Baltimore and tour the country on the weekends to continue his lecture circuit. That’s where the University of Florida comes in. As the Vice President of enVeg, a UF organization that spreads awareness about the environmental impacts of the meat industry, I was a bit weary to bring a speaker from PETA. However, the reason we decided to invite him is because before he worked for PETA, Bruce was vegan for political reasons such as global hunger and the environment, not animal rights. In the end, I am glad we brought Bruce to our campus. He ended up speaking to around 80 people on a Saturday night in October, and he opened his lecture with a quote from Socrates: ”The unexamined life is not worth living.” His lecture continued on to revolve around the three best reasons to adopt a vegan diet: the environment, global hunger, and animals (of course).
Vegetarians consume 1/10 of the resources meat-eaters do and use-up about 1/20 of the fossil fuels a meat-filled diet uses. About half of the water in the entire United States goes to feeding livestock. Two hundred and sixty million acres of forest have been chopped down for harvested animals. Where does the degradation stop, and all for a brief palate preference? I have a forestry professor whose class is based on conservation, yet he talks about Checkers burgers in the middle of a lecture. Sometimes I want to raise my hand and say, “You are aware that for every quarter-pound hamburger, 55 square feet of rainforest is clear-cut? And you say you care about saving trees?” It is also irks me when people talk about how “green” they are because they bring reusable shopping bags to Publix where the buy pesticide-laden produce from 3,000 miles away, or because they use LED light bulbs. Yes, these little things help, but if you want to call yourself and environmentalist and actually make a significant impact, stop eating meat. Animal agriculture, according to the World Watch Institute, contributes up to 51% of greenhouse gases. Meat is the catalyst of our climate change crisis. Bruce was very convincing about the environment; he used an example that compared eating meat (the most inefficient process in the world) to making 20 plates of pasta and throwing away all but one. This comparison is based on the fact that to receive just one calorie from meat, it takes 20 calories of plants and grains. So why not just eat the plants?
This wasting of pasta led into the second installment of his lecture: global hunger. In summary, Bruce claimed that by eating meat, we are stealing food out of the mouths of the poor, which is true. It takes up to 15 pounds of grains to make just one pound of beef (the inefficient process again). This grain could be feeding the one billion starving people on our planet instead of fattening up cows and ultimately, fattening up people. Bruce gave the audience some advice inspired by Gandhi; he asked up to picture the face of the world’s poorest person every time you make a decision or act, and ask yourself if that action or decision would benefit them. If not, a conscious being probably wouldn’t want to do it. One hundred million metric tons of grain and corn end up in the bellies of livestock each year while the bellies of the global poor remain emp
ty and bloated. Where are all the people now with their “Save Darfur” t-shirts and their proclamations of aid? Better not be at the nearest Burger King, or I might just call you a hypocrite.
Last, Bruce said if we have compassion for the poor, why don’t we have compassion for the smart, sentient beings that are essentially our evolutionary cousins? Mr. Friedrich pointed out that is it wholly arbitrary what creatures humans decided to eat. He showed a picture of a cat next to a chicken and posed the question of why one is better to consume than the other. Next he showed a dog and a pig. Why do we eat pigs and are horrified by eating dogs? Pigs are actually the fifth smartest animal, yet they know so much torture and pain, and are stuck inside standing in their own feces for months on end. Many livestock’s longest walk is to the slaughterhouse, literally. The actions taken upon animals in slaughterhouses would be felonies if the victims were cats or dogs; however, slaughterhouse owners are exempt from animal cruelty laws, and PETA has yet to find an attorney willing to represent these poor animals. It is hard for me to hear someone call themselves an animal lover if there is bound to be an animal on their plate later. No, we do not need to eat animals to be healthy; meat and dairy actually wreak havoc on our bodies. Vegans are nine times less obese than meat-eaters and have significantly lower chances of cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Anyone willing to take the time to look this information up or to consult a logical and well-informed vegan or vegetarian will find it to be true. All the nay-sayers just want to continue to eat meat like their mom taught them and have not a care. How can one totally ignore our planet, the global poor, and animals that are conscious of the tortures they endure? And like I said before, all of this for a brief palate preference.
The Ogiek Forest Dwellers of Kenya in Danger December 11, 2009
Kenya is home to one of the last hunter-gatherer peoples, the Ogiek, and to some of the most corrupt politicians in Africa. The Ogiek are ancient forest dwellers who harvest honey and live in harmony with the Mau Forest in East Africa. They hunt with bow and arrows, make medicine, and generally practice sustainable community resource management.
Recently, Kenya experienced a harsh drought (amplified by climate change) in which water taps went dry and power from hydroelectricity disappeared. Focus shifted to the Mau Forest, a critical area where rains are captured and lakes and rivers are fed, to sustain the water supply of Kenya. Unfortunately, many indigenous peoples call the Mau Forest home, including the Ogiek. Kenyan officials are insisting on “ejecting all settlers” from the forest so the government can plant millions of trees and ensure water supplies.
Some are skeptical of this recently found “environmental altruism” considering 25% of the Mau Forest was cleared after officials handed out large tracts to “cronies,” and that forest dwellers have little impact on the forest that would justify their expulsion. Several Ogiek leaders feel that the Kenyan government wants the Mau Forest solely for economic reasons, and that no tree-plantings will ever occur. The government controls many aspects of Kenya’s economy, including the timber companies and it is thought the forest peoples are simply wanted out of the way for logging and farming.
The diminishing forest is already showing signs of its destruction: flash floods, micro-climate change, soil erosion, a decrease in wildlife, and dried up water supplies.
The Ogiek people have managed to survive for many centuries even under harsh persecution, so hopefully they and their crucial, beautiful forest can make it through this as well.
Reducing CO2 and Deforestation in Brazil December 11, 2009
Brazil is finally taking action against climate change by tackling deforestation, the country’s main source of greenhouse gas emissions, and has announced a plan to lower carbon dioxide by 36% or more of projected 2020 levels. Brazil is among the world’s top ten emitters, so it is very significant that the country’s deforestation rate is down 46% from just last year and that as of July 2009, has the lowest rate since deforestation monitoring began in 1988. Beef-cattle ranches and soybean and sugar farms are the main culprits of recent deforestation, so the Brazilian government is employing tactics to discourage the purchase of meat, sugar, and soy from areas of mass deforestation. A moratorium has even been placed by major Brazilian supermarkets on beef from deforested land. According to the New York Times Article, about one-third of Brazil’s ranches are owned by huge slaughterhouses and it is thought they will comply with the deforestation monitoring program. However, there are some concerns that clandestine deforestation will still take place on periphery lands with little enforcement; also, the fact that beef producer’s ownership is very “diffuse,” with more than 10,000 ranches in the country’s Amazon, is another worry.
The American environmental group the Nature Conservatory is helping the Brazilian government establish the aforementioned monitoring system in which ranchers/landowners have their current perimeters recorded using GPS coordinates with coordinates updated annually to track and control deforestation. A satellite is also being developed to monitor clear-cutting across the entire Amazon. The cost of this project is estimated to be $15-20 million, but the benefits much outweigh the costs in terms of soil integrity, water supply, clean air, and a more stable environment with continued biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy is also working to set up a $150 million “Forest Compensation Fund” that would finance the purchasing of land to keep it ecologically intact and to aid farmers with their “deforestation debt.” Brazil is taking a stand against an anthropogenically-caused warming environment, and other countries, especially the U.S., should follow in its steps.
Hopefully we can do better than this! October 22, 2009
Hopefully we can do better than this!
Funny, but not really :/. Photo courtesy No Impact Man Colin Beavan @ noimpactman.typepad.com
Six sustainable eating tips from no impact man October 22, 2009
No Impact Man Colin Beavan (noimpactman.typepad.com) blogs about what each of us can do to end our “environmental crisis,” and one of the issues he addresses is food. Here are some helpful tips he provides throughout his No Impact Challenge for shopping and eating more sustainably:
1. Find your nearest local, sustainable, and organic bakery and farmer’s market in the Eat Well Guide (eatwellguide.org)
2. Giving up meat is the single greenest step you can take. Find recipes and resources at meatlessmonday.com or enveg.org
3. Find out what is in your shopping cart and where it came from with The Global Grocer (foodandwaterwatch.org/food/green-grocer
4. Eat the freshest food and take the worry out of eating locally by joining a community-supported agriculture program (localharvest.org/csa)
5. Thanksgiving is just around the corner. Enjoy a vegan meal or take the 100-Mile Thanksgiving Challenge at 100milediet.org/thanksgiving
6. Put down the burger and check out the anti-fast food movement, Slow Food at slowfoodusa.org
FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH DIET CHANGE
Patriarchy & Environment: an ecofeminist stance October 22, 2009
Environmentalist Rachel Carson said, “Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species — man — acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world.” This quote ties in nicely with the subject of patriarchy (gender bias, androcentrism) and the environment, or rather, how the ill treatment of women correlates with environmental degradation. While Carson used “man” to refer to all of modern humanity, in reality, as last Friday’s lecture confirmed, it is the patriarchal structure of our society that has industrialized and polluted the globe, and that will leave more women than men affected by climate change. In rural communities, resources are “gendered”; women make up the largest percentage of the poor; and the “gentle sex” is still undervalued and discriminated against, and thereby less likely to influence policy.
Women, in general, are domestic laborers. In lesser developed countries, resources are managed by rural populations, specifically women. The ladies of a community have managed seeds and natural resources for generations, and mainly allot them for home use and for sale. When a corporation buys the land a people have been managing for centuries, it also steals years’ worth of respect, knowledge, and value from women. A small community that relies heavily upon a resource, such as timber for fuel and income, will be adversely impacted by the sudden privatization and loss of an important commodity. Also, since global warming will affect everything from crops to water levels, resources are bound to become even more scarce and precarious. It seems to be a direct hit upon women whenever male-dominated industry (one in which the majority of CEOs and shareholders are men) privatizes a rural lifeline for “productive” use, as in women managing it was not productive before. And what happens when the industry moves out of the area after depleting the resources? Who is to compensate or help the wronged natives? This situation strips women of their ability to feed their families, generate money for their community, and be of overall value as “secondary citizens.”
Next, because women account for about seventy percent of the poor, they will be deeply affected as climate change negatively impacts lower-income demographics. The underprivileged are more likely to be poorly affected by global warming since they have less ability to escape natural disasters, have limited access to food as in developed countries, and usually don’t have capital to move to a safer area or invest in technology. On top of the aforementioned limitations of the poor, women have the added burdens of subjection to husbands and familial responsibility, and will thereby bear the brunt of climate change. From my perspective, women were essentially put in danger of droughts and food scarcity, rising sea levels and floods, etc. by male-dominated multinational, polluting, resource-intensive corporations that have little regard for damages to the people or the environment they exploit, for the only concern is profit profit profit.
Last, women are still viewed as less than men. It seems to me that the “women have smaller brains” school of thought is still around today, even if it resides in one’s subconscious. It is a fact that women sometimes are paid less than men for performing the same job, and not in instances of educational backgrounds. More women than men are now attending institutions of higher education, so why aren’t women viewed as complete equals yet? I am currently referring to women in developed countries who are privileged enough to receive an education or have a quality job. Women in developing countries are another story all together. How can a woman without schooling or monetary influence ever be heard by a state legislature, or even a community council? Women especially should be heard about their opinion/solutions/concerns regarding climate change, for they will be the most affected by it. If industry and the machine that controls lobbyists and politics were dominated by women, I’m sure much more care would be taken to hear out and protect women around the world.
In conclusion, women experience discrimination across the globe, whether small or large. The patriarchal structure of the world has demeaned women as industry, and its male subjects, reigned King. Women’s ancient jobs as community resource managers are stripped from them each time a corporation privatizes a resource, including their abilities to provide for families and local economies; women will be more affected by a warming world than men for they compose seventy percent of the poor; and women have a tough time making themselves heard since they are generally viewed as “second-class” citizens, usually formally uneducated, and typically financially lacking. Hopefully, females learn how to exert some influence on climate change legislation, spread the sustainability movement, and rid industry of environmental and social malpractices.
Global Warming more important than some may think… October 22, 2009
From the melting of the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro to the loss of coral reefs as oceans become warmer, the effects of global warming are clear. It is not a distant and currently irrelevant phenomenon, for evidence of climate change has already been documented with earlier spring seasons, 2005 becoming hottest year recorded, increases in desertification of arid land, and stronger, more frequent natural disasters worldwide. I can’t imagine an argument against the importance of global warming, because humans, though some may not realize, rely on and are just as much a part of Earth’s ecosystems as any other organism.
Global warming’s most direct impact on humans will probably be the spread of disease with facilitating higher temperatures. Climate change affects the occurrence and spread of disease by impacting the population size and range of hosts and pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks (McMichael et al., 1996). In general, warmer temperatures and greater moisture will favor extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms such as insects, rodents, and snails. This in turn leads to an expansion of the zone of potential transmission for many vector-borne diseases, among them malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and some forms of viral encephalitis (Epstein et al., 1998). Extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or droughts often trigger disease outbreaks, especially in poorer regions where treatment and prevention measures may be inadequate. The Wildlife Conservation Society has included avian influenza, Ebola fever, Rift Valley fever, and plague on a list of 12 diseases and pathogens that it believes may spread to new regions as a result of climate change (Roos, 2008). As a result of global climate change, humans will have to worry more about the aforementioned diseases on top of health risks from existing air and water pollution, such as lung cancer and skin cancer from the thinning ozone layer.
Changes in weather patterns across the globe are highly expected as a consequence of global warming; it is predicted that dry climates will become dryer and wet climates wetter. According to the Planet Earth documentary, forty percent of food comes from irrigated land and about 70 percent of Earth’s water supply is used to sustain crops. Human induced desertification generates a feedback in which great quantities of dust increase degrees of desertification by further reducing rainfall. South Asia and southern Africa are two hot spots where higher temperatures and drops in rainfall could cut yields of the main crops people grow there. About a 30 percent drop in corn yields is predicted in Africa, along with a 15 percent drop in wheat yields, and smaller drops for soybeans and sugarcane. In South Asia, on the other hand, almost every major crop would suffer a decline of about 5 to 10 percent, with only soybeans experiencing a slight gain in yields (Inman, 2008).
In the last century Earth’s average temperature has climbed about 0.6 degrees Celsius, and thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches (Lovgren, 2004). According to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, if Greenland’s massive ice sheet were to melt entirely a 3 foot rise would swamp cities all along the U.S. eastern seaboard and a 20 foot sea level rise would submerge a large part of Florida.
With the combined effects of weather pattern changes, increased rates of vector-borne diseases, food shortages, and continued land degradation on the planet and its people, global warming is nothing if not an imperative issue to address and resolve as best as possible. Luckily for Earth and its almost 7 billion inhabitants, most of the problems presented by global warming are solvable if governing bodies and individual people finally own up to their devastating mistakes and take responsibility for the endangered lifeline of every existing species.
