Help Support EcoWatch
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience while browsing it. By clicking 'Got It' you're accepting these terms.
Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
A Zoa T-shirt made by Modern Meadow the piece was commissioned by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Modern Meadow
By Lucy Goodchild van Hilten
A warehouse filled with huge gleaming silver vats hums around the clock, as billions of yeast cells work to make a material we can wear, sit on and carry around. In an adjoining room, rows of benches hold molds of different shapes and sizes, where sheets of cellulose layer up and become recognizable. In the next room, the material is finished and packaged, destined for designers, tailors and upholsterers.
<p>This is the scene of a biofabrication plant, producing leather without the animals. A futuristic ideal? Companies like <a href="https://tinyurl.com/8jx49ys" target="_blank">Modern Meadow</a> don't think so. As the firm's CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/atforgacs?lang=en" target="_blank">Andras Forgacs</a>, a biofabrication pioneer, said during his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gXq1ml6B1E" target="_blank">2013 TED talk</a>: "Perhaps biofabrication is a natural evolution of manufacturing for mankind. It's environmentally responsible, efficient and humane. It allows us to be creative: We can design new materials, new products and new facilities."</p><p>The company is gearing up to launch its first products in a year or so, after successfully <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y7b8fnl6" target="_blank">debuting a cultured leather T-shirt</a> last year. Modern Meadow's staff of 80 is working away at a production plant in Nutley, New Jersey, getting ready to revolutionize fashion and the materials industry—and change the way we think about animal products.</p><h3>A Painfully Prized Material</h3><p>According to a <a href="https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/4959853/top-trends-in-prepared-foods-2017-exploring-trends-in-meat-fish-and-seafood-pasta-noodles-and-rice-prepared-meals-savory-deli-food-soup-and-meat-substitutes.html" target="_blank">2017 report</a>, veganism is on the rise—only 1 percent of Americans identified as vegans in 2014; that figure is now 6 percent. U.S. proportions are comparatively low; in India, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country" target="_blank">as many as 42 percent</a> of people are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegan">vegan</a>. Moreover, New York-based consultancy group <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0c5d00_90935d6fda344991a8fc2452eb112c83.pdf" target="_blank">Baum + Whiteman predict</a> that this year's trend will be plant-based diets going mainstream. You might expect this to mean a drop in the world's cattle population, but you'd be wrong—it has been <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/" target="_blank">increasing steadily since 2015</a> and now stands at more than 1 billion cows.</p><p>A number of factors could be contributing to this discrepancy, the leather industry being one: valued at $93.2 billion in 2016, the industry is <a href="https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4395563/global-leather-goods-market-by-mode-of-sale" target="_blank">expected to grow</a> to $121.16 billion by 2022. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/01/should-vegetarians-wear-leather/2595/" target="_blank">Reasoning</a> that leather is a by-product of the meat industry (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/27/ethicalfashion.leather" target="_blank">which it isn't</a>), people are often quicker to pull on a pair of leather boots than tuck into a burger. Yet a glance at the process behind leather manufacturing suggests that walking in those boots may be doing more harm than eating a meat-based diet.</p><p>Livestock, many of which are reared for their hide, produce an <a href="https://tinyurl.com/zonnqet" target="_blank">estimated 14.5 percent</a> of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The products aren't even used fully—as many as one-third of the hides produced are thought to end up in a landfill.</p><p>In addition to the environmental impact through greenhouse gas emissions and waste, it's the process of tanning that is perhaps most shocking. Considered one of the world's biggest pollution threats, the tanning of <a href="https://gizmodo.com/how-leather-is-slowly-killing-the-people-and-places-tha-1572678618" target="_blank">23 billion square feet</a> of leather a year directly affects an <a href="https://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_reports/display/88" target="_blank">estimated 1.8 million people</a> through chromium pollution.</p><p>Tanning preserves the leather and makes it durable, protecting it against the heat, cold and wet. It's essentially an accelerated mummification process, beginning with the removal of hair, fat and meat by physical scraping and using bleach and lime pastes. Then the leather is treated using a mixture of chromium salts and tanning liquor. It's the cocktail of chemicals used that has a toxic effect: in total, about 250 chemicals are needed to soak, treat and dye the leather.</p><p>The problem is that leather is usually processed in places with little environmental protection regulation, such as China, India and Bangladesh, so the chemicals are <a href="https://gizmodo.com/how-leather-is-slowly-killing-the-people-and-places-tha-1572678618" target="_blank">dumped into the environment</a>; on average, tanning one ton of hide produces <a href="https://gizmodo.com/how-leather-is-slowly-killing-the-people-and-places-tha-1572678618" target="_blank">20 to 80 cubic meters of toxic wastewater</a>.</p><p>It's not just the environment that's in danger: People working in the tanneries are exposed to dangerous concentrations of the tanning chemicals, and they're at risk of falls, drowning and injury by the heavy machinery. The chromium is the most dangerous chemical they handle, causing a whole host of problems, from skin ulcerations called "chrome holes" to respiratory disease and cancer. </p><h3>Brewing Leather Like Beer</h3><p>Modern Meadow's Andras Forgacs thinks there's another way, and he's bet his career—and <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/modern-meadow#section-funding-rounds" target="_blank">$53.5 million</a> of venture capital—on it.</p><p>"Animals are not just raw materials, they're living beings," he said in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gXq1ml6B1E" target="_blank">TED talk</a>. "Already our livestock is one of the largest users of land, fresh water and one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases, which drive climate change. ... We need to move past just killing animals as a resource to something more civilized and evolved. Perhaps we are ready for something literally and figuratively more cultured."</p><p>"We should begin by reimagining leather." That's how Forgacs proposes to shake up the industry—by culturing leather without the need for animals at all. Leather is essentially a simple material—one Forgacs and his team at Modern Meadow have spent the last few years working out how to grow through a process called biofabrication.</p><p>It's not a new process; a decade ago, Forgacs <a href="https://organovo.com/about/history/" target="_blank">co-founded Organovo</a>, a company that pioneered a technique for printing human tissue for medical use. With biofabrication, it's possible to grow all sorts of tissues and organs, like windpipes, skin and blood vessels, to implant into patients. Their work garnered a lot of attention, and Forgacs was soon approached about the possibility of creating animal tissue, particularly leather. He accepted the challenge and co-founded Modern Meadow.</p><p>Technically speaking, growing leather is simpler than growing human tissue, as there's only one cell type to deal with. The secret is yeast: They alter the yeast DNA so the cells produce the protein collagen, the main constituent of leather. They ferment the yeast, much like in beer brewing, to grow billions of cells that produce collagen. Then they purify the collagen, which assembles into helices and fibers, forming the material's structures.</p><p>The resulting leather is then tanned using a process with a smaller environmental footprint: "We preserve the material and then treat it to achieve the required suppleness and finish. Less water, less energy, less chemicals." Modern Meadow's <a href="https://tinyurl.com/ycv44qth" target="_blank">proprietary process</a> reduces the time it usually takes to make leather—two years—to just two weeks.</p><h3>Are We Ready for the Alternative?</h3><p>Forgacs is excited, and rightly so: The process doesn't harm animals, it uses fewer chemicals and there's less waste. The leather can even be grown in the shape of a handbag or a shoe, helping manufacturers down the line to reduce their waste. They can also play with the properties of the material, making it thin and transparent or thicker and opaque, soft, breathable and patterned—or a combination of these in a single piece of leather.</p><p>"This type of leather can do what today's leather does, but with imagination, probably much more," said Forgacs. Indeed, as the company responded to me in an email, "Biofabrication is still in its early stages, but the potential of the technology is massive."</p><p>Modern Meadow's materials brand, Zoa, will soon hit the consumer market; its "reimagined" graphic T-shirt was a hit in a <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y7b8fnl6" target="_blank">fashion exhibit</a> at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Dave Williamson, the company's chief technology officer, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/modern-meadow-lab-grown-leather/540285/" target="_blank">told The Atlantic</a> that the T-shirt "will change the way you think about leather."</p><p>"Leather is a gateway material," said Forgacs—a way to jump-start the biofabrication industry. There are already other applications on the horizon. <a href="https://boltthreads.com/technology/microsilk/" target="_blank">Bolt Threads</a> is commercially producing engineered spider silk threads, with knit ties available to purchase. The company has also taken an alternative approach to leather: Its material <a href="https://boltthreads.com/technology/mylo/" target="_blank">Mylo</a> is made by fungal mycelium cells that self-assemble into a leather-like material.</p><p>Think of all the other animal products we could eliminate using biofabrication. <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yaopd586" target="_blank">Ceratotech</a> is "producing rhino horns without rhinos," for example. "If poachers and consumers are just after the horn, and we've been able to create human tissue using genetic and stem-cell engineering, why shouldn't we give this a try using rhinoceros stem cells?" <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00592" target="_blank">said founder Garrett Vygantas</a>.</p><p>Then, of course, there's the holy grail: meat. As a group of researchers from the National University of Singapore and Indian Institute of Technology in Hyderabad recently argued in a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40898-018-0005-1" target="_blank">paper in Biomanufacturing Reviews</a>, "Cultured meat or in vitro meat offers a safe and disease-free way forward to meet increasing meat requirement without involving animal sacrifices and at the same time, reducing greenhouse emissions, as compared to conventional meat." </p><p>But as genetic engineering and biofabrication techniques continue to get cheaper and more accessible, it will be the hesitancy of the market holding back the commercial viability of lab-cultured meat: People might be willing to wear something grown in a lab, but eating it is another story. Modern Meadow plans to release its first commercially-available product in 2020, and there's a lot riding on its success: Zoa will make or break the company, and it also stands to have a big impact on the way the market perceives biofabrication in general. </p><p>As Forgacs predicted, the success of cultured leather could open the door to a whole new world of lab-made products, ultimately reducing our reliance on livestock, the suffering of animals and the impact on the planet.</p><p><em>Lucy Goodchild van Hilten is a writing fellow for <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. She is a writer with an MSc degree in the History of Science, Medicine and Technology from Imperial College London. She has served as assistant editor of Microbiology Today and senior marketing communications manager for Life Sciences at Elsevier. She set up <a href="https://telllucy.com/" target="_blank">Tell Lucy</a> in 2014, with a mission to make the complex understandable. Lucy also runs <a href="https://bucketlistbookshop.com/" target="_blank">Bucket List Bookshop</a></em><em>—home of the world's best writing. Follow Lucy on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/lucygoodchild" target="_blank">@LucyGoodchild</a>.</em></p><p><em><em>This article was produced by <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
A seagull pecks at a plastic bag on Jan. 30, 2017, in Venice Beach, California. Bruce Bennett / Getty Images Entertainment / Getty Images
By Lorraine Chow
The world's plastic problem may seem vast and incalculable, but its footprint has actually been measured. In a sweeping 2015 study, researchers calculated that 9 billion tons of the material have been made, distributed and disposed in fewer than 70 years. That's an astonishing figure, but it's also one that's hard to picture. Perhaps a better way to illustrate the problem of plastics is by looking at the damage that can be caused by a single drinking straw.
<p>In 2015, a team of marine biologists in Costa Rica pried a plastic straw from the nose of a male olive ridley sea turtle. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wH878t78bw" target="_blank">Footage</a> of the excruciating, bloody extraction was posted online and viewed by millions of people around the globe. The video is powerful not only because it suggests the pervasiveness of plastics and shows the harm it can inflict on a vulnerable species, but it also strikes a much deeper chord within: shame.</p><p>"Subconsciously, people who watched the video knew that the straw in that turtle's nose could have been thrown away by any of us," Christine Figgener, the biologist who extracted the straw, wrote in a <a href="https://medium.com/lonely-whale/sometimes-i-get-overwhelmed-when-i-try-to-communicate-that-we-need-our-ocean-e6601b497705" target="_blank">Medium</a> post after the video went viral. "They saw their own actions reflected in its eyes."</p><p>Not long after saving that turtle, members of the same team of marine biologists in Costa Rica pulled a plastic fork out of the nose of another olive ridley, this time a female. A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRiTABRQOjk" target="_blank">video</a> of that disturbingly similar extraction was also posted online and viewed millions of times.</p><p>After that video came out, I <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exclusive-interview-researchers-remove-plastic-fork-lodged-in-sea-turt-1882132312.html" target="_self">spoke</a> with George Shillinger, the former head of the Monterey, California-based conservation nonprofit called the Leatherback Trust, which works with the team in Costa Rica.</p><p>"It's just the tip of the iceberg," he told me. "This was an isolated incident involving a single turtle in a small area off a nesting beach in Costa Rica. Just imagine globally what's happening."</p><p>In 2015, a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/08/27/1502108112" target="_blank">study</a> by Australian and British scientists determined that 90 percent of seabirds living today have ingested some form of plastic, mistaking it for food. If plastic consumption continues at its current rate, 99 percent of seabirds will carry plastic in their guts by 2050.</p><p>Then can we assume, I asked Shillinger, that the same thing is happening to sea turtles? He replied without hesitation: "Totally."</p><p>Both turtles were released back to sea after the items were freed from their nostrils, but other aquatic creatures are not so lucky. In June 2018, a small male pilot whale that died in southern Thailand was found with more than 80 plastic bags crumpled in his stomach. The veterinary surgeon who carried out the necropsy told <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/worst-case-ive-seen-vet-on-whale-that-died-after-eating-80-plastic-bags-11393507" target="_blank">Sky News</a> the animal was "emaciated," as the plastic likely stopped the whale from getting the nutrients he needed.</p><p>This is the key to understanding that aforementioned 9-billion-ton figure, which was calculated by researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, the University of Georgia and the Sea Education Association: Most of that plastic—roughly 7 billion tons—has been thrown away. Only 9 percent is recycled and 12 percent is incinerated, leaving the vast majority of plastic waste accumulating in landfills or in the natural environment, the researchers determined. If you think one plastic straw is bad, think what 7 billion tons could do.</p><p>The most eye-opening revelation in the research is how quickly plastics proliferated since the 1950s, when mass production of synthetic plastics first took off. Half of the world's plastic now in existence was made in just the last 13 years, with most of that for products used only once, discarded and forgotten.</p><p>If you think back to that first turtle, his encounter with a plastic straw is a distinctly modern problem. Paper straws were the standard until their non-degradable cousins took over in the 1960s and '70s. Today, about <a href="https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/06/media-legislators-activists-are-all-stic" target="_blank">175 million</a> plastic straws are thrown out in the United States every day, the marketing analysis firm Technomics estimates.</p><p>There's no denying the incredible usefulness and versatility of plastic. The low-cost, durable material can be molded into everything from lightweight drinking tubes to insulation for our homes. We take for granted that plastic keeps our food fresh and encases the electronics we use every day. Modern medicine would not be possible without disposable syringes and plastic implants. However, its durability and widespread use around the globe are exactly why plastics are so pervasive in the environment.</p><p>Plastic waste that's discarded on land has three fates: recycling, thermal destruction and landfills. Each carries unique consequences.</p><p>Recycling is often promoted as a green ideal, but the small amount of plastics that do get recycled are <a href="https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2015/8/23/the-myth-of-the-recycling-solution" target="_blank">mostly downcycled</a> to a lower-grade material to make even more landfill-bound products <a href="https://napcor.com/recycling/pet-end-products/" target="_blank">such as</a> synthetic fiber for clothing and carpets or takeaway food containers. Recycling also can't possibly keep up with the expected deluge of new plastics, as fossil fuel companies have plowed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/26/180bn-investment-in-plastic-factories-feeds-global-packaging-binge" target="_blank">$180 billion</a> to fuel a 40 percent rise in plastic production in the next decade.</p><p>Incinerating plastic certainly gets rid of it, and some suggest that burning the petroleum-based waste could be a fuel source. However, the process <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/incineration_versus_recycling__in_europe_a_debate_over_trash" target="_blank">emits harmful dioxins</a> in the atmosphere, potentially creating a public health risk.</p><p>That leaves us with the dump, where most plastics end up. Hundreds of millions of tons take up valuable landfill space and mix with other types of trash. During rainfall, water trickles through the landfill, creating a toxic, chemically laden stew called leachate. If the landfill is not properly lined, leachate can ooze into nearby groundwater, wetlands, rivers and lakes. Bisphenol A, a ubiquitous, endocrine-disrupting plastic additive also known as BPA, has been detected in landfill leachate at levels exceeding acute toxicity benchmarks, a 2015 <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01307" target="_blank">study</a> of Norwegian waste-handling facilities found.</p><p>Perhaps the biggest problem with plastics is when they escape into waterways. The same team of researchers who came up with the 9 billion ton estimate also put out another famous <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768" target="_blank">study</a> in 2015 that found 8 million tons of plastic leach into the world's oceans every year.</p><p>This constant flow of plastic can seriously threaten marine life that accidentally eat or become entangled in the material. The United Nations <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/12/547032-new-un-report-finds-marine-debris-harming-more-800-species-costing-countries" target="_blank">estimates</a> that more than 800 animal species have been negatively impacted by marine debris, which is mostly plastic.</p><p>Take the drinking straw found in the turtle's nose. How did the straw get there? I imagine that the straw was swept out of a landfill during rainfall. It trickled into a stream, flowed into a river, then was carried out to sea. Pushed along by winds and waves, the straw got drawn into a garbage gyre—one of Earth's <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/podcast/mar18/nop14-ocean-garbage-patches.html" target="_blank">five massive vortices</a> of plastic soup—and floated among millions of other pieces of trash. Then one day, the straw was accidentally inhaled by our turtle.</p><p>Notably, the most prevalent type of plastic in aquatic ecosystems isn't easily visible. Bags, bottles, fishing gear and other ocean plastics break down from currents and sunlight into smaller and smaller pieces, or microplastics. These tiny particles, which also consist of microfibers shedding off synthetic fabric during laundry, have been found in all corners of the globe.</p><p>A 2015-2017 <a href="https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/reports/quantification-microplastics-national-park-beaches" target="_blank">study</a> analyzed the abundance and distribution of microplastics and microfibers on 37 coastal National Parks and found the particles in every single one, even the most remote and secluded sites. Parks that were far away from urban areas—including sites in Alaska, along the northwest Pacific coastline and islands in the Pacific Ocean—clocked more than 100 pieces of microplastics per kilogram of sand.</p><p>"It doesn't seem to matter where you live," said Stefanie Whitmire, research scientist with Clemson University and the study's lead author. "Plastic is being found in rivers and lakes, not just in the middle of the ocean. Microfibers are found in the sea salt that I just bought from the grocery store."</p><p>Trouble is, scientists have documented all sorts of marine life gobbling up these plastics, including plankton, fish, mussels, oysters and even coral, but it's not currently clear what influence it has on the organisms' health.</p><p>"It's such a new area that scientists don't know everything about how it's affecting the organism," Whitmire explained. "But we know that plastics are made up of things that aren't great," such as BPA and other chemical additives.</p><p>New <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180917135930.htm" target="_blank">research</a> from Loggerhead Marinelife Center and the University of Georgia suggests that ingesting degrading ocean plastics poses a risk to younger sea turtles because the pieces can cause blockages and nutritional deficiencies. This not only puts entire sea turtle populations at risk, since they can take decades to sexually mature, but degrading plastics can also impact the larger oceanic food chain, the researchers warned.</p><p>"If the level of mortality we have observed in post-hatchling sea turtles also occurs for zoo plankton, baby fish and crustaceans, then we will witness a complete disruption in our ocean life cycle," co-author Branson W. Ritchie of the University of Georgia explained in a press release for the study.</p><p>What's more, Whitmire pointed out that marine plastics can also absorb other toxins in contaminated environments, including persistent organic pollutants, fire retardants and organic pesticides, potentially posing an even bigger problem for ocean life.</p><p>So, what happens when contaminated plastics are ingested by an organism?</p><p>"That's one of the big concerns," Whitmire said. "Where plastics rank on how they are affecting wildlife, we don't know that whole story yet."</p><p>What we do know is that the globe's plastic footprint is only getting larger. The Ocean Conservancy's 2018 International Coastal Cleanup report found that the 10 most common items picked up by volunteers at beach cleanups around the world were all made of plastic.</p><p>It was the first time since the annual report's inception more than 30 years ago that plastics swept the top spots. Cigarette butts, which have plastic filters, were the most commonly littered item. Food wrappers, drink bottles, bottle caps, bags, drinking straws and foam food containers were also on the list.</p><p>A lot of this plastic is tossed after minutes of use, but its impact on wildlife and the environment can last for centuries.</p><p>Nicholas Mallos, director of the Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas program, noted that plastics crept onto the list over the years, displacing items like rope, beverage cans and paper bags.</p><p>"But this is the first year that all 10 of the top-10 items collected are made of plastic," he said in an issued statement. "Given that plastic production is rising, this could be the start of a long and troubling trend."</p><p>Although the problem with plastic is usually tied to its risks to waterways and wildlife, an August 2018 <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200574" target="_blank">study</a> found that commonly used plastics, such as grocery bags and plastic wrap, emit traces of methane and ethylene. The two potent greenhouse gases are known to exacerbate climate change.</p><p>"Considering the amounts of plastic washing ashore on our coastlines and the amount of plastic exposed to ambient conditions, our finding provides further evidence that we need to stop plastic production at the source, especially single-use plastic," lead author Sarah-Jeanne Royer <a href="http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=9407" target="_blank">said</a> in a press release for the study.</p><p><em>This article was produced by <a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Sgt. Jerry Rushing / U.S. Department of Defense
By Daniel Ross
A rock seawall protecting the Air Force's Cape Lisburne Long Range Radar Station on the North East Alaska coast is under increasing duress from extreme weather patterns affecting Arctic sea ice—nearly $50 million has been spent replacing vulnerable parts of the wall already.
<p>In 2013, a late summer monsoon rainstorm struck Fort Irwin, in California, flooding more than <a href="http://www.oea.gov/resource/2018-climate-related-risk-dod-infrastructure-initial-vulnerability-assessment-survey-slvas" target="_blank">160 buildings</a> and causing extensive damage that took weeks to clean up. Some buildings were out of commission for months. </p><p>The 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado's history, only narrowly missed Peterson Air Force Base. The fire cost some <a href="http://www.oea.gov/resource/2018-climate-related-risk-dod-infrastructure-initial-vulnerability-assessment-survey-slvas" target="_blank">$16 million</a> to battle.</p><p>These are just some of the findings that make up a U.S. Department of Defense vulnerability <a href="http://www.oea.gov/resource/2018-climate-related-risk-dod-infrastructure-initial-vulnerability-assessment-survey-slvas" target="_blank">report</a>, published earlier this year, looking at the impact of climate change on more than 3,500 military installations. Its conclusion? That more than half of these installations are affected by flooding, drought, winds, wildfires, storm surges and extreme temperatures. Drought proved the single biggest challenge to the military, affecting nearly 800 bases. Next up was wind, which affected more than 750 bases, while non-storm surge-related flooding impacted a little more than 700 bases. </p><p>"As an institution, the military sees climate change as a threat to what they do on multiple levels," said Michael Klare, professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. "It's a threat to their bases. It's a threat to their operations. It creates insurgencies. t creates problems for them. They're aware of that, and they want to minimize those impediments."</p><p>Indeed, climate change has long been on the military's radar. It was the George W. Bush administration, for example, that required the Defense Department to procure <a href="http://www.energytrendtracker.org/2017/03/dod-bucks-trump-in-pursuit-of-renewables/" target="_blank">25 percent of its energy for its buildings from renewables by 2025</a>. Even President Ronald Reagan received <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/03/reagan-bush-41-memos-reveal-how-republicans-used-to-think-about-climate-change-and-the-environment/" target="_blank">military memos</a> warning of global warming. While in 2014, the department published a <a href="https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/downloads/CCARprint_wForward_e.pdf" target="_blank">roadmap</a> establishing an outline to deal with the threats from climate change within the military, as ordered by then-President Barack Obama.</p><p>Although President Trump's administration is known for its climate change denialism, major figures within the military are still noticeably vocal about the issue. In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned in a <a href="https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf" target="_blank">Worldwide Threat Assessment</a> that the impacts from global warming—more air pollution, biodiversity loss and water scarcity—are "<a href="https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf" target="_blank">likely to fuel economic and social discontent</a>—and possibly upheaval—through 2018." Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been called the "<a href="https://www.alternet.org/environment/when-it-come-climate-change-policy-us-government-two-minds-utterly-opposing-worldviews" target="_blank">lone green hope</a>" for his long-established views on the threat of global warming. </p><p>Given the immediate threat of rising sea levels, the U.S. Navy is leading the charge to better understand these impacts at the ground level. Last year, a <a href="https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=31041&destination=ShowItem" target="_blank">Navy handbook</a> provided a planning framework for incorporating the threat of climate change into development projects at Navy installations. To put this into context, a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/sea-level-rise-flooding-us-military-bases" target="_blank">analysis</a> of 18 military installations along the U.S. East coast and the Gulf of Mexico found that by 2050, most of these bases will experience 10 times the number of floods than they do currently. In about 80 years, eight of the bases could lose as much as 50 percent of their land to rising seas. Naval Air Station Key West, in Florida, could be almost entirely underwater by the end of the century.</p><p>"We did use the high sea level rise scenario because generally, the military has a low tolerance for risk," said Shana Udvardy, UCS climate preparedness specialist and a co-author on the study. "And we're basically on track for the high scenario because of the rate of ice sheet melting. It's very likely to happen, and it's after mid-century that we'll really see the changes in the extent and frequency of tidal flooding."</p><p>According to U.S. Geological Survey scientist Curt Storlazzi, who has studied the <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/documentary-about-sea-level-rise-threatening-republic-marshall-islands-features-usgs" target="_blank">effects of global warming on military installations</a> on the Marshall Islands for the Defense Department, the twin impacts of rising sea levels and storm waves will increase the magnitude of flooding there by "double" in the next couple of decades. "That's going to negatively impact both the military and civilian populations," he said. "That's the big takeaway—most civilian and defense infrastructure doesn't do well with salt water."</p><p>The Center for Climate and Security, a non-partisan group of defense and national security experts, continues to study the myriad threats of climate change on the military. In this recent <a href="https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/climate-and-security-advisory-group_a-responsibility-to-prepare_2018_02.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>, the group outlined how extreme weather patterns will expand the department's role in tackling national and global security threats, highlighting how humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions are "increasingly important responsibilities for military commanders around the world."</p><p>But former Rear Admiral David Titley, professor of meteorology at Penn State University and an expert in climate change, the Arctic and national security, argues that the military as a whole has yet to really grapple with the problem of climate change in any long-term strategic way, nor has it looked at how to cost-effectively prioritize resources—views mirrored in a recent Government Accountability Office <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-206" target="_blank">report</a>. </p><p>Change could be on its way in this regard. Rep. Jim Langevin, the ranking Democrat on the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, pushed through an amendment in the <a href="https://langevin.house.gov/press-release/langevin-supports-bipartisan-defense-bill-fy2018" target="_blank">2018 defense spending bill</a> directing the Defense Department to identify the 10 military installations most vulnerable to climate change and to identify ways to mitigate the forecasted damage. "You would argue that that's where you put your first dollar towards buying down the risk," Titley said. "There may be bases that have higher climate vulnerability, but the impact may not be that big a deal relative to others." </p><p>Langevin also included a <a href="https://langevin.house.gov/press-release/langevin-supports-committee-passage-2019-defense-bill" target="_blank">provision in the 2019 defense spending bill</a> requiring the department to factor energy and climate resiliency efforts into major military installation plans. But Titley is circumspect about the Defense Department's overall ability and willingness to institutionally get to grips with the problems climate change poses. "We'll see whether the department of defense actually does that or not," said Titley. "There's no real leadership on this issue."</p><p>Miriam Pemberton, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, said that the military's public overtures on climate change ring a little hollow when stacked up against the actual dollars directed toward green initiatives within the military—efforts like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/21/us-navy-launches-first-biofuel-powered-aircraft-carriers" target="_blank">biofuel to power aircraft carriers</a> and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-green-energy-insight/u-s-military-marches-forward-on-green-energy-despite-trump-idUSKBN1683BL" target="_blank">solar energy in combat zones</a>. </p><p>According to an Institute <a href="https://ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CvsC-Report-1.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> from last year, "Combat vs. Climate," the ratio in military spending in 2017 to deal with regular security threats versus climate change was 28:1—a slight improvement on the 2015 ratio of 30:1. But as the report finds, "spending 28 times as much on traditional military security as on climate security is hardly commensurate with the magnitude of this 'urgent and growing threat,' as the military has defined it."</p><p>Further, while the military's budget grew by <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/26/596129462/how-the-pentagon-plans-to-spend-that-extra-61-billion" target="_blank">$61 billion in 2018</a>, the amount of money the department continues to funnel toward green initiatives and renewable energies hasn't grown proportionately, said Andrew Holland, the American Security Project's director of studies. Nor does the military, he said, see its primary mission as tackling climate change. Indeed, the military is the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/us-military-oil-use.html#.WzUjRdJKjIV" target="_blank">world's largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels</a>. Last year, the department used more than <a href="https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/OE/OE_index.html" target="_blank">85 million barrels</a> of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles and contingency bases. The cost? Nearly $8.2 billion.</p><p>"We have a military whose job is to fight and win America's wars," Holland said. "But where you can take clean energy initiatives that fight climate change and also increase the military's operational ability to fight and win those wars, that's a double win."</p><p>Another obstacle is that there's no "line item for climate change" within the defense spending bill, said the UCS's Shana Udvardy. "So, it's really up to each installation to figure out where they're going to get the resources, and which resources they're going to allocate to these types of adaptation measures," she said. What's more, both Udvardy and Holland agree that the military has recently grown increasingly secretive about its green initiatives, for fear of retaliation by the White House. </p><p>Trump has already <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/" target="_blank">pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord</a>, for example, and signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth/" target="_blank">executive order</a> rolling back all Obama-era climate change related actions within federal agencies. There are notable signs that this has trickled down to the Defense Department—the latest <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf" target="_blank">National Defense Strategy</a> had been scrubbed clean of any reference to climate change, for example. </p><p>"None of us have any clue as to how bad it's going to be," said Michael Klare, about the impacts from global warming. "But this something that the military does understand better than most people—it's not the polar bears we should be worried about, it's about whole societies that are going to collapse and send out waves of migration, which we're seeing already." </p><p><em>Daniel Ross is an Los Angeles-based journalist with bylines in Truthout, the Guardian, FairWarning, Newsweek, YES! Magazine, Salon, Vice and a number of other publications.</em></p><p><em>This article was produced by </em><a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank"><em>Earth | Food | Life</em></a><em>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
By Melissa Kravitz
"You are what you eat" may be one of the oldest sayings ever to be repeated around the dinner table, but can you also eat what you are?
<p>The idea of eating to suit your identity dates back millennia, particularly with religious dietary restrictions seen as shaping an eater's personality and identity. The Bible forbids the eating of predators or garbage-feeders. Buddhists practice a harm-free diet, with <a href="http://www.jainfoodie.com/jain-food-restrictions/" target="_blank">Jain vegetarianism</a> enforcing more restrictions, such as not eating root vegetables that may harm insects. <a href="https://www.nhsf.org.uk/2007/05/why-do-hindus-worship-the-cow/" target="_blank">Hindus refrain</a> from eating cows, considered sacred. But beyond organized religion, the dietary choices we make may be linked just as closely to our personality as our palate.</p><p>"Quite honestly, the link between the personality and diet is not scientific," said psychotherapist Karen Koenig, who specializes in compulsive, emotional and restrictive eating. But in Koenig's more than 30 years of experience, during which time she's authored several books about psychology and food, she's noted some trends in personality type and food choice. </p><p>Specifically, underachievers are less likely to take risks in their diet, perhaps due to an ingrained fear of failure or rejection. They may have lower self-esteem and can be easily disappointed, and may also comfort themselves with food. That friend you have who is tentative to book an overseas trip is likely the same friend who eats the same thing for breakfast, lunch and/or dinner everyday. </p><p>Overachievers, on the other hand, may display similar behaviors, comforting themselves with food when they fail to take care of themselves in other ways while striving for approval or goal achievement. The "too busy to eat" mentality is typical in Type A-esque overachievers who may put bodily comfort after other accomplishments. Contradictorily, however, this type of personality can possess a strict mentality, meaning they can be uncompromising in regards to maintaining a specific diet—like vegan or paleo—throwing themselves into a narrowly circumscribed eating regimen completely. Overachievers can also fall into a dangerous "all-or-nothing" mindset, meaning that if they aren't following a dietary plan 100 percent perfectly, they'll consider that failing, and perhaps take extremes while breaking it: Think a vegan who learned there's chicken broth in their risotto boomeranging and ordering a rib eye steak and a side of bacon.</p><p>"There's a lot of mix and match," Koenig said. Ultimately, a person's dietary patterns can't be predicted by their personality, though their personalities may explain their food choices. Keep in mind, personality and mood are different things—getting "hangry" may seem like a part of one's personality, and eating something delicious or soothing may elevate your mood, but ultimately, the temporary moods that define our day are not who we are as people.</p><p>Even the flavors we prefer—many of which are evident in young people who opt for sweet over sour, or salty over bland—cannot be completely attributed to personality. "There are many other factors that determine food preferences such as early exposure to different foods and flavors and how you were raised to interact with food: Was food approached as comfort, an arena for restriction or a way to relax and enjoy time together?" explains psychologist Laura Ciel, former president of the Santa Barbara County Psychological Association. These early taste preferences may be indicative of personality, however. She explains a tactic used in France, when parents of preschool age children are asked if they are "sweet" or "salty" in order to put together classrooms with the right mix of personalities. </p><p>In adults, Ciel has seen research that points to certain personality types drifting toward specific types of foods. "People who have a desire for fast-moving, adrenaline-producing behaviors would be more likely to enjoy spicy food," she said. "And those who prefer sweet foods would be more likely to be compassionate and caring of others. Salty and crunchy food? You're more likely to be ambitious and competitive. If you enjoy bitter flavors, you might be more open to different tastes, but you might also have some tendencies toward narcissism." Of course, this is not true for every person, especially as settings change and, oh, the patriarchy rolls in. </p><p>"Although there may be inherent preferences with different personalities, the research also shows that the social setting can impact food choices," said Ciel. "For example, a woman who loves adventure and spicy food might order differently if she is in a social setting where she wants to be seen as less intense or adventurous. On a first date, she might be trying to be seen as feminine and relaxed and be hesitant to order something too spicy. Or, at a business meeting, if someone tends to gravitate toward sweet foods, they will think twice about ordering something sweet, instead going for a more salty or crunchy choice." Brain food, of course, is a term we've all heard of, and while eating may not actually make you smarter, what you choose to eat in certain settings may make you appear smarter (or snobbier, if you're the only one at the table who knows what foie gras or uni or toro is and makes sure everyone knows it), though foods that are linked to improved brain function may actually <a href="https://www.inc.com/magazine/201307/adam-bluestein/the-best-foods-for-leaders-to-eathtml.html" target="_blank">help you perform better as a leader</a>. </p><p>Leaders, who are both naturally born as well as made, have various personalities, and though food preferences may change over time, Ciel points out that personalities in most people "tend to stay relatively the same." You could be in a new place surrounded by completely new ingredients comprising a totally different cuisine than the food you grew up with and are used to, but you'll still be the same you.</p><p><em>Melissa Kravitz is a writer based in New York. She is a writing fellow at <a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. She's written for Bon Appetit, Food & Wine, Travel & Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, Glamour, AlterNet, Cosmopolitan, Teen Vogue, Architectural Digest, Them and other publications. She holds a bachelor's degree in creative writing from Columbia University and is also at work on a forthcoming novel. Follow her on <a href="https://twitter.com/melissabethk" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/melissabethk/" target="_blank">Instagram</a></em><em> @melissabethk.</em></p><p><em></em><em>This article was produced by </em><a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank"><em>Earth | Food | Life</em></a><em>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Our Cellphone Addiction Is Turning Wireless Tech Into an Invisible Weapon That’s Destroying Wildlife
03 August 2018
Animals
Justin Hamilton / Pexels / Independent Media Institute
By Reynard Loki, Independent Media Institute
There is growing evidence that our addiction to cellphones could be impacting brain functionality and be the cause of stress, anxiety, insomnia and a lack of attention and focus. Now a new report has found that we're not the only living things to be affected by our increasing dependence on wireless technology. Mammals, birds, insects and even plants are likely being harmed by the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from Wi-Fi, cellphone towers, broadcast transmitters and power lines, according to a new analysis of 97 peer-reviewed studies conducted by EKLIPSE, a biodiversity and ecosystem project funded by the European Union.
<p> The researchers said that "evidence is accumulating that mammals (e.g., bats and mice) have a magnetic sense" that is affected by radio-frequency-modulated electromagnetic fields (RF-EMR). Birds in particular may be highly susceptible. The researchers found that even weak magnetic fields in the radio frequency range can disrupt birds' magnetoreception, their ability to use the Earth's magnetic fields to orient themselves and find their way home.</p><p>Homing pigeons are well-known for their magnetoreception, but this sense has also been detected in other animals, like red foxes, and there is evidence that even large mammals like deer use the planet's magnetic fields to sense direction. A number of invertebrates, including worms, mollusks and fruit flies also use this ability.</p><p>The report also concluded that EMR can also alter the metabolism of plants, causing "significant changes … demonstrated at cellular and molecular levels." The authors noted that even a low level exposure to EMR "caused a rapid increase in stress-related transcript accumulation in tomato [plants]." Transcription is the first phase in the expression of a gene, in which a specific segment of DNA is copied into RNA.</p><p>The authors said that their findings indicate "an urgent need to strengthen the scientific basis of the knowledge on EMR and their potential impacts on wildlife," specifically calling out the "need to base future research on sound, high-quality, replicable experiments so that credible, transparent and easily accessible evidence can inform society and policy-makers to make decisions and frame their policies."</p><p>The UK charity Buglife (which proposed the analysis) warned that there wasn't enough research to determine limits to EMR pollution. The group said that "serious impacts on the environment could not be ruled out" and urged that 5G transmitters should not be placed near street lights, which attract nocturnal insects like moths, nor in areas near wildlife.</p><p>Buglife CEO Matt Shardlow, who served on the experts steering group of the report, warned that "there is a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/17/electromagnetic-radiation-power-lines-phone-masts-poses-credible/" target="_blank">credible risk</a> that 5G could impact significantly on wildlife." He added:</p><blockquote>"We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, but as yet, even in Europe, the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation have not been determined, let alone applied. This is a classic case of out of sight out of mind, just because humans cannot see electromagnetic radiation this does not mean that animals cannot 'see' the pollution or be <a href="http://oneworld.org/2018/05/17/could-our-obsession-with-mobile-technology-destroy-wildlife/" target="_blank">significantly impacted at a neural or cellular level</a>. A proper research program and clear policy measures are long overdue."<br></blockquote><p>Shardlow specifically warned of the current rollout of 5th-generation wireless systems or 5G networks, and called on telecommunications firms to research the impact of their wireless technology on wildlife and make their findings public. In May, Qatar become the <a href="https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/14/05/2018/Ooredoo-first-in-the-world-to-launch-5G-network" target="_blank">first nation in the world to have a 5G network</a>. The worldwide commercial launch of 5G is expected in 2020.</p><p>The report authors also said that strong EMR fields increase the temperature in living tissue, but the intensity needed to induce such heating is "not experienced by wildlife (so far)." It's notable that they left the door open to this other potential emerging threat, as cellphone adoption rates are steadily rising globally. The number of smartphone users worldwide is forecast to grow from 2.1 billion in 2016 to around <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/" target="_blank">2.5 billion in 2019</a>, according to Statista, a market research firm. That means more cell towers—and more EMR being emitted into the environment.</p><p>"When you start to observe and realize that swallows and house martins <a href="http://oneworld.org/2018/05/17/could-our-obsession-with-mobile-technology-destroy-wildlife/" target="_blank">no longer nest in towns and villages</a>, when you realize that the sparrows have all disappeared, that in the evenings there are no bats flying in the dusk and that you no longer hear owls hooting, then you will begin to know what effect microwaves from cell towers and antennas are having on the environment," said one commenter to a One World News article about the report.</p><p>The report comes on the heels of a recent <a href="http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/" target="_blank">appeal to the United Nations</a>, signed by more than 200 scientists from 41 countries, urging the international body to address the risks posed electromagnetic fields (EMF), physical fields produced by objects charged by electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Specifically, the scientists want the UN to "recognize that EMF exposure is an emerging health and environmental crisis that requires a high priority response."</p><p>"Biologists and scientists are not being heard on the committees that set safety standards," said Dr. Martin Blank of the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University and signatory of the appeal, in a video address on the website of International EMF Alliance, a group founded in 2009 that disseminates information to policymakers and health authorities about the potential effects of electromagnetic radiation. "The biological facts are being ignored and as a result, the safety limits are much too high. They are not protective."</p><p>Though evidence is mounting that humans may also be physiologically affected by EMF, the jury is still out on the impact of long-term low-frequency exposure. The World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that "current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields." However, the agency does admit that "<a href="http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html" target="_blank">some gaps in knowledge</a> about biological effects exist and need further research."</p><p>But the WHO is partially responsible for the widespread concern. As Bob Berman points out in his recent book<em> </em><a href="https://www.alternet.org/books/does-cell-phone-radiation-cause-cancer" target="_blank"><em>Zapped: From Infrared to X-rays, the Curious History of Invisible Light</em></a>:</p><blockquote>"Some of the fears are based on a report issued in 2011 by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The agency had gathered in Lyon, France, to discuss scientific studies surrounding the question of whether there's a relationship between radio-frequency-modulated electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cancer. After intense deliberations, and to the great surprise of the world at large, experts decided to classify RF-EMF waves emitted by cell phones, cell towers, and Wi-Fi networks as category 2B, indicating a '<a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf" target="_blank">possible human carcinogen</a>.'"</blockquote><p>For Dr. Blank and his colleagues raising the warning flag to the United Nations, the evidence is clear. "Cellphones, tablets, Wi-Fi, etc. Putting it bluntly, they are <a href="http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/" target="_blank">damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely</a>," he said in his video address. "Rising exposure to electromagnetic radiation is a global problem. The World Health Organization and international standard-setting bodies are not acting to protect the public's health and well-being. International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened."</p><p>In his video address, Dr. Blank suggested that the current EMF safety limits may be inadequate due to the influence of the telecommunications industry on the policymakers. "More protection will probably result from full disclosure of possible conflicts of interest between regulators and industry," he said.</p><p>"We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison's lightbulb, there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. An example that a lot of us have right now in our pockets is the cellphone."</p><p> <a href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/123468632" target="_blank">Watch</a> Dr. Martin Blank's video address:</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-vimeo">
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/123468632" width="100%" height="480" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d04bab80bac4d6d313dd271cf193aca1"></iframe>
</p>
<p>Check out Environmental Working Group's <a href="https://static.ewg.org/ewg-tip-sheets/EWG-CellPhoneGuide.pdf" target="_blank">Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use</a>.<br></p><p> <em>This article was produced by <a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p><p><em><strong></strong>Reynard Loki is a senior writing fellow and the editor and chief correspondent for <a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He previously served as the environment, food and animal rights editor at AlterNet and as a reporter for Justmeans/3BL Media covering sustainability and corporate social responsibility. He was named one of FilterBuy's Top 50 Health & Environmental Journalists to Follow in 2016. His work has been published by Salon, Truthout, BillMoyers.com, EcoWatch and Truthdig, among others.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less