Food Production and Antibiotic Resistance

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/11/080811fa_fact_groopman

Above is a link to a relatively comprehensive article published in the New Yorker on antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria dubbed 'superbugs'. The article was the cover story for that issue of the publication. It begins by describing the overwhelming problem facing physicians who are finding that the antibiotics that they have relied upon for decades to combat infection, fight illness, cure diseases, and hasten recovery, are increasingly ineffective against new forms of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The article goes on to describe how the use of antibiotics by the meat and poultry industry in the United States has largely contributed to the growing medical issues surrounding antibiotic resistance found in many modern strains of dangerous pathogens and bacteria. Antibiotics had proven especially useful in the factory farming industry. Fueled partly by the fast-food industry, skyrocketing demands for inexpensive meat products helped create an ideal market for the modern factory farm. Unfortunately, the over-cramped conditions of the animal’s living spaces and the unsanitary environments (dead animals, excrement, and food lining the floors of their living quarters) that accompanied those low operating costs increased the likelihood of infection and illness among the animals. Antibiotics were seen as an effective method to treat this problem, however, rather than treating the animals that had become ill, (which would be expensive, time consuming and difficult) the industry realized it was cheaper to administer a low level of antibiotics to all animals in a given factory farm setting as a preventative approach to animal illness and infection. As a perceived added benefit, the use of antibiotics increased the growth rate of the animals and accordingly the productivity and profit margins of the farms. Unfortunately the article explains how this particular method of antibiotic use coupled with the unsanitary conditions of the factories created a ‘petri dish’ for bacteria to develop resistance to those antibiotics. This is an example of how modern technology and medicine cannot always supplant traditional methods of food production and animal husbandry, and there are perhaps dangerous consequences that must be considered or at least acknowledged in the present state of affairs regarding antibiotic use in factory farming. If we need these medicines to be effective for humans we must use them prudently and responsibly for combating illness, not preventatively and recklessly for increasing profits.

Totally Drug Resistant Strain of Tuberculosis in India's Slums

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46010460/ns/today-today_health/t/india-reports-new-strain-totally-drug-resistant-tuberculosis/#.Tyiy_XGspX8


There has been a fair amount of discussion in class about the influence social class has on where people live. Those who are affluent tend to live in cleaner environments with access to better healthcare, education, and technology; while those who are impoverished are forced to inhabit environments which often fail to provide life's basic necessities. Is this just? Shouldn't there be a definitive line that distinguishes environments that are not fit for people to call home? This framed my perspective while reading the article on tuberculosis in India.

Recently, 12 cases of totally drug resistant tuberculosis were discovered in India. This means that the disease is untreatable by any drugs. It means death for the people with the disease. Sadly, this disease is completely curable, but since India has highly unregulated and unqualified physicians and drugs, patients do not receive the care that they need.

The Indian government (and the World Health Organization) is refuting the claim that these people are infected with "totally drug resistant" tuberculosis. Although they admit the patients are sick, they refuse to acknowledge the disease is totally incurable. But why? One reason is that these infected individuals are all from Indian slums. As stated in the article, "They have had no help from the Indian TB system. They are the untouchables, so no one is making a fuss. They don't have the power to vocalize."

So I urge the next person who reads this article to question the impact of the environment on our health. Is it just that the poor in India are forced to live in slums and are exposed to diseases like tuberculosis? This may seem like an article strictly about an issue with global health - but it is much more. This is a multifaceted article that deals with issues relating to health, justice, societal values, politics, and the environment.

The Freegan Establishment (NY Times)

                 This article from the New York Times addresses issues of environmental justice in regards to food. It details the lifestyle and ethos of those who subscribe to “Freeganism,” a way of life that is “dedicated to salvaging what others waste and- when possible- living without the use of currency.” I think it brings to light one way that some people are dealing with the dilemmas inherent in our society such as exorbitant waste and consumerism. Especially after watching “The Food Producers,” reading “Domesticated Landscapes,” and learning about different means of sustaining oneself and one’s community, I found this article in line with the theory that foraging does not always give way to farming.  Freegans in fact refer to themselves as a “modern hunter-gatherer society.”

            The freegans discussed in the article all live in a deserted mansion as squatters. Although this poses questions of legality, the courts and surrounding neighborhood actually ruled in favor of the freegans because of their commitment to the upkeep of the mansion. Goals of reducing one’s own waste and making use of others’ waste are manifested in the freegans’ eating habits, such as eating food attained via dumpster-diving, roadkill, or scavenging for things such as snails. Many freegans are barefoot and have little if any possessions. Most abhor spending money. Although this lifestyle may seem like merely a more stable form of homelessness, Freeganism is distinct from the plight of those who are impoverished. Many of its constituents have left their middle or upper class backgrounds to live in such a way because of their personal beliefs about environmental consciousness. A man central to Freeganism’s growth founded the movement after working at an organic food store that wasted much of its good and salvageable produce due to minor imperfections or bruises. The movement began with McHenry’s efforts to distribute the leftover produce to the needy, and eventually morphed into a lifestyle. McHenry himself states that for him, Freeganism would ideally not exist, because that would mean that those in the food industry would no longer be outputting so much waste.

            Freeganism is an extreme reaction to some deplorable aspects of our society. It echoes many of the questions we have discussed in class about what is the best way to live, react to, or remedy issues of environmental justice. I think that, although Freeganism has probably promoted awareness about food wastefulness and made an impact through its members’ reduction of their own waste, it is ultimately not a sustainable or ideal means by which to live. Freeganism places excess strain on our government, court systems, and law enforcement because of its extreme nature. Do you find Freeganism to be an acceptable, or even ideal, lifestyle? What would you do if there were Freegans living in a foreclosed house in your neighborhood? 

Environmental Benefits of Building Retrofitting

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/green-lab/lca/The_Greenest_Building_lowres.pdf

Our first week, we discussed going “Green” and what it meant to be aware of our effect on the environment, making positive choices and considering the full life cycle of our products. One aspect that is often discussed in correlation with these ideas is the built environment and what steps can be taken to minimize our environmental impact. While there is often deserved praise for energy efficient buildings, this article is a very thorough study that emphasizes the environmental value of retrofitting buildings as opposed to new construction. At a basic level, this idea is not very surprising; what I found more interesting is exactly how “Green” this can be in practice. As stated in the study, each year, almost ¼ of current construction is demolished and rebuilt! Even if this new construction is very much energy efficient, utilizing the best products and practices, it can take between 10 and 80 years to overcome the climate impacts incurred during the construction process!!! In contrast, upgrading and readapting an existing building produces almost immediate environmental savings. Through very informative graphs and case studies, these claims can be explored in greater detail.

Today in class, we discussed how different communities use and live within their environment. In some groups, farmers would consistently adapt their habits and strategies to maximize their gain, while instinctively respecting and preserving their surroundings. In our modern society, that attachment to our environment is often forgotten, and habits allow for a replacement of products instead of reuse. In fact, according to this study, current building policies and regulations are an obstacle to sustainability, historically favoring new construction and undermining sustainability efforts. This study was an intriguing look at just how much recycling buildings can help us meet our carbon reduction goals in contrast to even the best replacements.  This is quite a long article. I recommend reading the first couple pages that summarize the study and glancing over the charts: some of them are quite concise in demonstrating the results. Often, it seems to me, a retrofitting process can be just, if not more costly and wasteful as brand new construction. Do you think these findings are valid and what, if any are some other issues in play here?

Information about Love Canal

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/nyregion/love-canal-declared-clean-ending-toxic-horror.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Here is some information about the toxic waste disaster of Love Canal.  This happened in the 1970s and only a few years ago (2004) was this considered to be no longer toxic.  It is one of the worst cases of toxic waste dumping (and its health after effects) that the US has ever had.

Surface Mining and Poverty in Appalachia- Infographic

 

The negative ecological impact of surface coal mining, particularly on water and plant resources, have been well-known and publicized for years; the practice's human impact, on the other hand, is less widely-discussed. Surface mining is typically the dominant industry in areas where it is practiced, and generally employs a large percentage of people in its locale. This infographic shows the correlation of poverty rates from a decade ago in the Appalachian area; this graphic shows the rates two years later and this one shows the general poverty rates from 2005-2009 without the mining correlation; comparison of the maps shows that this is clearly a continuing problem. Given other complications that come with the life of a miner, such as coal dust-related illnesses and injuries, the correlation of areas with high poverty rates and the dominance of strip mining in these locations is a reality riddled with disastrous effects with limited opportunity for improvement or industry change.