Activists Say Americans Support Labeling Genetically Modified Food

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/27/149474012/activists-say-americans-support-labeling-genetically-modified-food#more

According to a survey by the coalition "Just Label It," 91% of those polled favored the labeling of genetically modified food. The movement to label GM food therefore seems to have the support of public opinion, and has becomes an adopted practice in 40 other countries, but the FDA still asserts that there is nothing unsafe about GM foods. Of course, the big food companies are lobbying hard against this campaign, since many of their products would have to be labeled.
This article brings up several issues regarding GM food. For one, the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world (particularly Europe) when it comes to the treatment of GMOs. 40 countries require GM food to be labeled, but they also do not have anywhere near the amount of food with GM ingredients as the US. Though the facts about GM food are still not fully known, and according to the article, still pretty unknown to the American public, the fact that 40 other countries felt labeling to be necessary should tell us something.

Monsanto, obviously trying to protect their own interests, said labeling GM food would "undermine consumer confidence in the food supply." To be honest, my confidence is already undermined by the fact that food companies are so resilient to label what is in their products. If GM food is harmless, then what's the harm in labeling it? Of course there would likely be some consumer backlash against GM products, so the harm would be to the food companies' bottom lines. Again, its an issue that brings light to the tight relationship between big business and government.

Bringing this article into the context of environmental justice, I was struck by the last sentence: "...many organic farmers are concerned that GM pollen may drift onto their fields, thus rendering them unable to sell their products under a non-GMO label." This sentence brings a different perspective to the issue. We've previously discussed a few articles concerning lawsuits against farmers for unintended patent infringement, and this sentence suggests that GM labeling might be another way that farmers are penalized for trying to grow organic crops. It also touches on the fact that not only could farmers be limited to what they can label as "non-GMO" but also that consumers will be limited on what they can find that is completely free of GM ingredients. Environmentally, the US' genetic diversity is being threatened by GM contamination, and like with most cases of pollution, it is hard to fully reverse its effects. If there are no products that could be labeled non-GMO then labeling hardly seems the issue. That GM foods are so widespread in the first place is troublesome, not just for consumers but for farmers and the environment as well. Is the labeling GM foods then just treating a symptom rather than the cause? Is the idea of "Just Label It" that if GM foods are labeled then people won't consume them? And then shouldn't education about what GM actually means be a focus too?

Feds oppose Navajo Grand Canyon plan

Feds oppose Navajo Grand Canyon plan 

The Navajo living on the East Rim of the Grand Canyon have proposed a large development project that could cost up to 1 billion dollars but bring up to 70 million dollars of annual income to the depressed community. The East Rim is currently the most pristine section of the Grand Canyon—and many environmentalists oppose its development. However, the Navajo leaders are stressing the positive influence the development could have for their community. There are plans to build a resort and spa, commercial area, river walk, RV park and tramway to transport visitors. The area doesn’t have infrastructure, so many roads would have to be paved and water would have to be piped in.

This project is promising in that it will likely bring the Navajo income and up to 2,000 jobs, but it will also take away some of the “authenticity” of the place. We have discussed in class the differing ideas of what pristine is, and what makes a place authentic. It is easy to see both sides of this debate. The East Rim is the Navajo’s land and, thus, they should have the right to develop it as they see fit. Further, it is hypocritical for the Parks Service to condemn them for developing just as the Parks Service has done on the Southern Rim. On the other hand, this would not be a gradual development and there have been few environmental considerations. The Navajo’s land rights have been contested by the Hopi for years, but the Navajo were granted rights and the construction ban was lifted in 2009.

In class, I think the sentiment has largely favored local communities controlling the development of their own land. I agree with this, but this project does strike me as excessive. As a potential visitor, if I am going to visit a remote rim of the canyon with great views, I wouldn’t want there to be a spa, RV park or commercial strip mall. I would be deterred by the lack of “authenticity.” Does this make me hypocritical? That I would advocate for locally controlled development, except in the areas I want to protect? I do think the Navajo should be permitted to develop the eastern rim, but it doesn’t sound like the current plan has taken into account the enormous environmental implications. Still am I any better than the Forest Guardians? What do you think of this debate?

A strict new EPA standard on lead pollution here in the United States has made domestic recycling more difficult and expensive, but does not prohibit companies from exporting the recycling process to countries where standards are low and enforcement is lax. As of this year, 20 percent of spent American vehicle and industrial batteries are now exported to Mexico, up from 6 percent in 2007. This trend poses many dangers to Mexican laborers, children and entire communities. The dangers occur in the recycling process itself. When the batteries are broken for recycling, the lead is released as dust and as lead-laced emissions during melting. In the United States this process is undertaken in sealed, highly mechanized plants where the smokestacks are fitted with filters and the surrounding area is monitored for lead levels. In contrast, in many parts of Mexico, batteries are broken  by men using hammers and the smokestacks vent to the air outside where lead particles are free to drift off and end up anywhere from schoolyards to local neighborhoods and food carts. Lead levels in soil samples taken from a town’s elementary school have been found to be five times the limit for children’s play areas in the U.S.

What can and should be done about this apparent inequality? Some American companies are committed to reducing lead exposure and only send batteries to countries with standards as strict as the U.S. Other companies that are currently recycling in Mexico say they intend to bring their Mexican plants up to American standards, however, the EPA does not inspect or verify facilities in Mexico so there can be no assurance this will happen.

American companies are shipping hazardous waste to countries that are ill-equipped to process it safely. As a result, children are underdeveloped and cancer rates are higher. But it cannot be proven since official testing has not been done because there is no funding for such a project in Mexico. These actions by American companies are currently legal and so a strong case for institutionalized environmental racism can be made here. Some companies and organizations are working to change the system and construct new laws, but the extent of the problem is daunting. How can justice be found?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/science/earth/recycled-battery-lead-puts-mexicans-in-danger.html

Ecotourism Holds Bright Prospects in Bangladesh

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=227601

Bangladesh is looking to expand its tourist industry by promoting rural tourism activities to wealthy clients. Similar to some of the ecotourism destinations discussed in class like St. Johns and the zone between North and South Korea, Bangladesh possesses both natural and cultural uniqueness that will hopefully draw tourists. Tourists can stay in tents or partake in home-stays in villages in India, or they can fish or snorkel. Interestingly, the article noted that Bangladesh aims to attract Asian tourists because they are more used to the culture and hygiene aspects of India that might deter other European tourists. Additionally, tourists who now travel to the region are relatively poor, and Bangladesh wants to target more wealthy clients to increase its revenue.

This article did not mention any negative effects of ecotourism or explain how locals feel about ecotourism in the area. One problem is that India has very poor infrastructure - how will it be able to support an influx of potentially thousands of people each year? Do you think that the locals will receive any of the monetary benefits from ecotourism, or will the money flow to the government? Given the possibility for negative ramifications of ecotourism (sea turtles example in class), I think Bangladesh should carefully assess both the potential for good and bad before promoting ecotourism in the region so rigorously. What do you think are relevant issues to consider?

Global aviation sector commits to support a sustainable future

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/events/events/123343-global-aviation-sector-commits-to-support-a-sustainable-future.html

As people worldwide are becoming aware of more environmentally friendly ways to consume and live, businesses are also catching on to the green wave – both for ethics and to fulfill the demand for green products.  A prime example is the recent upsurge in production of gas-efficient or gas-electric hybrid cars.  Many car commercials highlight the car’s fuel efficiency as a sellable feature of the car.  Nonetheless, the car industry remains extremely competitive and unified efforts between companies to truly raise the standards of car eco-friendliness are meager. 

While consumers keep their heads down, however, an industry up above is making impressive changes.  In terms of eco-friendliness, the aviation industry is one that many consumers have ignored.  Even though a commercial jet can produce more carbon dioxide in one domestic flight than an SUV produces in a month, there has not been high consumer demand or campaigns for more environmentally friendly airplanes.  Whether this is because aviation travel is far less frequent than car travel or there is a lack of consumer knowledge of airplane emissions, the aviation industry has appeared to understand that.  The aviation industry is taking environmental friendliness into their own hands.  At a meeting in Geneva on March 22, 2012, chief executives from 16 global aviation companies signed the Aviation & Environment Summit’s Declaration as a message to world governments that are going to meet at Rio de Janeiro for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June.  The declaration is meant to show the world governments that the global aviation industry – including airports, airlines, aircraft producers, and air navigation providers – is making a unified effort towards sustainable development.  In 2008, the aviation industry was the first global sector to commit to global cross-industry action on climate change.  Unified action across the aviation industry has already led to drastic reduction in fuel use and emissions.  The aviation industry is also a key leader in economic growth and connectivity of world markets, as a main facilitator of the world tourism industry.  However, in order for the aviation industry to continue its impressive environmental track record, it requires the cooperation of world governments so that the industry can avoid competitive distortions and truly create a global effort towards efficiency. 

As we witness the global aviation industry perform this important feat amongst world governments, it is important to notice the important role that politics and money play in environmental efforts.  This case brings us into the realm of environmental anthropology dealing with the competition of larger bodies of people in relation with the environment.  Why aren’t companies within other industries unifying to boost sustainable development?  As accustomed the world is to economic and political competition, to what extent are we going to push the world’s resources and health before we focus on a global effort towards sustainable development and environmental friendliness? 

Africa to generate more e-waste

With the dawn of technology like cell phones and personal computers, Africa has been facing a growing problem with both locally and foreign-produced electronic waste (e-waste). It has been a dumping site for old electronics shipped from Europe, often under dangerous conditions. A pressing problem is the increase of domestic e-growth. Population growth and easier access to electronics due to lax import legislation may cause Africa's domestic e-waste production to exceed that of Europe by 2017 according to experts. 

Though the use of electronics in African countries is still relatively low, its current growth rate is astonishing. According to a report published by the E-waste Africa Programme of the Basel Convention, "in the last decade, the penetration rate of personal computers has increased by a factor of 10, while the number of mobile phone subscribers has increased by a factor of 100." 

The increase in domestic and imported e-waste presents a serious challenge to authorities in countries like Kenya and Zambia. E-waste is problematic because some of the scrap components contain contaminants like lead. Great care must be taken even in the recycling process to avoid as much contact as possible with the waste. Most of the e-waste in Africa ends up in massive landfill piles, where poor children scavenge through the scraps in search of materials like gold, silver, and copper often used to construct electronics for resale.

The article highlights another problem with the accumulation of e-waste. Most of the recycling in Africa is informal, meaning that precious metals are not always properly extracted from waste and the treatment of the waste is not always done according to regulation or in the most sustainable manner. Formalizing the recycling process would help ensure that precious metals are properly extracted from the scrap, thus providing safer and more energy efficient disposal. According to Achim Steiner, head of the UN environmental agency UNEP, "from one ton of cellphones, minus the batteries, you can extract 3.5 kg of silver, 340 g of gold, 140 g of palladium and 130 kg of copper." He also stated that the cost of smelting recycled metals is "three or four times less energy intensive than smelting virgin ones." This is only possible, however, if the appropriate technology is accessible in Africa.

I found this article/issue interesting because it relates to much of what we have discussed and read in class. The technological advancement of the West is affecting the people and environment of an undeveloped region. We again see poor and vulnerable populations as victims of injustice, as the poorer populations around these landfills face greater exposure to the hazardous chemicals characteristic of e-waste. The situation raises the issue of environmental justice. One of the issues the article fails to address are the measures currently taken by UNEP and the African governments in question to take care of the problem of e-waste. Another question I have is whether or not you think European governments really have any responsibility for the negative effects caused by the landfills. I would also like to find statistics that demonstrate the correlation between e-waste piles and negative environmental and health effects.

http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Africa-to-generate-more-e-waste-20120315

EPA: ‘This water is fine, apart from all the methane’

http://grist.org/list/epa-this-water-is-fine-apart-from-all-the-methane/

            This article reports that high levels of methane were found in water samples tested in Dimock, PA – levels that one study literally described as “explosive”. However, according to the EPA, the water is still safe to drink, since methane isn’t actually harmful when ingested. However, the water still poses a huge safety risk for the people of Dimock, as it could potentially cause explosions or pose other dangers. It is likely that the water was contaminated as a result of fracking.

            I think the someone indignant tone of this article is a fair reaction. To be honest, the attitude of the EPA in this situation angers me somewhat as well. Doesn’t the EPA exist specifically for the purpose of ensuring that environmental conditions are safe for everyone? The idea of a community’s water quality being deemed as merely acceptable passable by the EPA and therefore not requiring further attention doesn’t sit right with me. Sure, methane is technically safe to drink; however, it seems absurd to me that the EPA would leave things at that. After all, there is still methane in the water.

            I live about an hour away from Dimock, so this article hit home for me. Honestly, it’s scary to imagine that this could easily happen in my own community, or communities close by where my friends and family live. And personally, if it were my community, I would be furious that the EPA is not doing more to ensure the quality of my drinking water and my safety.

            I think that this issue also demonstrates the importance of independent testing to corroborate the findings of the EPA. Honestly, I really don’t feel at all qualified to make any judgment claims about the trustworthiness of the EPA, although some of the discussions we’ve had in class have made me question it. However, I think in any case where scientific research is being collected, and especially in cases where it leads to the establishment of policies or decisions that can affect health and safety, several different groups should independently collect data to ensure that the conclusions reached are correct.

            As a sidenote, one of the things that occurred to me when reading this article is the relationship between pollution and contamination, and the popular trend to be I think it’s important for anyone who targets the issue of overconsumption of bottled water to remember that in many parts of the world, including the United States, the water isn’t actually safe to drink. I worry what the effects of an initiative to eliminate bottled water on Notre Dame’s campus would be if a similar problem were to occur here and our own water supply was contaminated.