Following House Approval, U.S. Has a Chance to Ban the Cruel Shark Fin Trade
18 March
Insights + Opinion
Lemon shark seen in the wild. Vanessa Mignon
By Sara Amundson
Every year, fins from as many as 73 million sharks circulate throughout the world in a complex international market. They are the key ingredient in shark fin soup, a luxury dish considered a status symbol in some Asian cuisines.
<p>The global trade in shark fins is contributing to a crisis among shark populations worldwide. Sharks are being killed <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X13000055?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">30 percent faster</a> than they can reproduce, and the fin trade is one of the main culprits. Up to <a href="https://elife.elifesciences.org/content/3/e00590" target="_blank">one-quarter</a> of all species of sharks and their relatives are at risk of extinction. Some shark populations have declined by <a href="https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/16/prop/E-CoP16-Prop-43.pdf" target="_blank">nearly 90 percent</a> in recent decades. The disappearance of sharks can <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/shark-fishing-tournaments-devalue-ocean-wildlife-and-harm-conservation/" target="_blank">harm fragile ocean ecosystems</a>, because as top predators, sharks help balance the populations of species below them in the food chain.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="17d87ec34d2ed085f4ac7284997704c0"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4oiX_z0AGgA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Additionally, many of the fins traded are obtained through the brutal, inhumane practice known as finning, in which fishers at sea catch sharks, slice off their fins and throw the animals — usually still alive — back into the water. Unable to swim without their fins, the sharks drown, bleed to death or are eaten alive by other fish. Because space on boats is limited and fins are by far the most valuable part of the shark, fishers have an incentive to use this cruel method to get fins.</p><p>However, the tide is turning against the shark fin trade.</p><p>In November 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a resounding bipartisan "no" to this cruel practice, voting 310 to 107 to pass a bill <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/news/house-approves-bill-prohibiting-trade-shark-fins" target="_blank">banning</a> commercial trade of shark fins and products derived from shark fins in the U.S. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/737" target="_blank">The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act</a>, led by Representatives Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-Northern Mariana Islands) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would prohibit all purchase, sale and possession for commercial purposes of these parts and products. The legislation builds on previous laws passed by Congress — the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ557/PLAW-106publ557.pdf" target="_blank">Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000</a> and the <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/shark-conservation-act" target="_blank">Shark Conservation Act of 2010</a> — which banned the act of shark finning in U.S. waters and the transport on U.S.-flagged vessels of shark fins not naturally attached to a shark carcass.</p>The action has now moved to the U.S. Senate, where a third of the members have sponsored a parallel bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/877" target="_blank">S. 877</a>, introduced by Senators Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia). Already the Senate Commerce Committee has cleared this bill for potential floor action.
<p>States are also taking up the fight. In January, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill into law that bans the sale and trade of shark fins in the Garden State. The state's general assembly had <a href="https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/990923" target="_blank">approved the bill</a> by a vote of 54 to 19, and the state's senate passed its version of the bill by a vote of 33 to 6. These vote tallies reflect the will of the state's constituents: In a <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/NJ%20Public%20Opinion%20Survey%20040119.pdf" target="_blank">recent survey</a>, a majority of New Jersey voters said they would support a prohibition on the sale, possession and trade of shark fins.</p><p>New Jersey now joins 13 other states, including all of its coastal neighbors, and three U.S. territories that have passed legislation to ban or limit the sale of shark fins — American Samoa, California, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and Washington.</p><p>The current to stop the shark fin trade is also flowing internationally. In June 2019, Canada, the <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/2017-shark-finning-report-congress" target="_blank">largest importer</a> of shark fins outside Asia, passed a bill that includes measures to prohibit that country's trade in shark fins as well as the act of finning in Canadian waters. Worldwide, nearly 60 airlines and container shipping companies — including Air China, Eastern Air Logistics (the parent company of four major Chinese airlines) and Maersk, the world's largest shipping line — have <a href="https://wildaid.org/four-more-chinese-airlines-ban-shark-fin/" target="_blank">banned the transport of shark fins</a>. Many high-end restaurants and hotel chains in Asia have also stopped serving shark fin soup. Demand for the soup <a href="https://tinyurl.com/tygz8mg" target="_blank">is declining</a> but not quickly enough to save sharks on its own.</p>
<p>While finning in U.S. waters is already prohibited, current law is not enough because once shark fins are on land, they can be sold. Furthermore, U.S. participation in the global fin market continues to fuel the practice in places that lack shark-finning bans or adequate shark management and conservation policies.</p><p>It is impossible to guarantee that shark fins are humanely and sustainably sourced. That is because once a fin is detached, it is impossible to know where it was obtained, or whether it was sliced off a shark at sea or removed after the shark was brought to shore. It is also difficult to determine the species of the shark. For the most part, shark fins sold in the U.S. do not come from U.S. fishers. Because of this, fins sold here can come from sharks that were finned, or from <a href="https://tinyurl.com/clw28lh" target="_blank">endangered or threatened</a> shark species.</p><p>Our role is magnified by the fact that the U.S. is a major transit hub for international shark fin shipments. Latin America is one of the most significant shark fin-producing regions, and many of these countries transport shark fins through U.S. ports. <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/unintentional-partner-shark-fin-market-report_0.pdf" target="_blank">Some Latin American nations</a> ship as much as one-third to one-half of all their shark fin exports through the U.S. In fact, on February 3, almost 1,400 pounds of dried shark fins worth around $1 million were <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/endangered-species-1400-pounds-shark-fins-1m-seized-miami/" target="_blank">found by wildlife inspectors</a> in Miami. The shipment is believed to have originated in South America and was likely headed to Asia.</p>
<p>Still, banning the shark fin trade in the United States has its opponents. They argue that U.S. shark fisheries are already well managed. In reality, however, fewer than 20 percent of U.S. shark stocks <a href="https://usa.oceana.org/blog/are-us-sharks-trouble" target="_blank">are considered sustainable</a>. They also argue that it is wasteful for fishers to land a shark and not be able to sell its fins. By that standard, not selling the ivory from a dead elephant is wasteful, too — but as a nation, we have decided that the broad well-being of all elephants supersedes that pernicious use of their tusks.</p><p>Fishing industry advocates claim that banning the fin trade would have harmful economic impacts. The truth is, though, that sharks are worth much more alive than dead. In 2016, <a href="https://usa.oceana.org/SharkEconomics" target="_blank">shark-related diving</a> in Florida produced more than $221 million in revenues and more than 3,700 jobs. Moreover, fishers would still be able to sell the meat and other products from the sharks they land. In states where the shark fin trade has been banned, there is no evidence of negative impacts to the commercial fishing industry.</p><p>Finally, some believe we can address the shark crisis not by changing our own practices, but simply by requiring other countries to improve their shark fishing methods. The latter is an unrealistic goal. The low percentage of U.S. shark stocks known to be sustainable underscores how difficult fisheries are to manage, even here in one of the world's richest and most technologically advanced nations. Additionally, when the U.S. leads, other countries follow. After we banned commercial trade in ivory, many other nations followed suit, including China, the European Union and Australia.</p><p>Simply put, the U.S. must remove itself from the cruel and ecologically damaging global shark fin trade. Americans <a href="https://oceana.org/press-center/press-releases/8-10-americans-support-nationwide-shark-fin-ban" target="_blank">overwhelmingly oppose it</a>, and we are in a position to set an example for the rest of the world.</p><p>Join the wave for a U.S. shark fin ban. <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/sharkfinban" target="_blank">Call your two U.S. senators</a> and ask them to support S. 877, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.</p><p>Sharks are worth more alive than in a bowl of soup.</p>
<p><em>Sara Amundson is the president of the <a href="https://tinyurl.com/ybl63pav" target="_blank">Humane Society Legislative Fund</a>, the 501(c)4 legislative and political organization affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States. In this capacity, she manages political and legislative activity for the organization. She has testified before the U.S. Congress and in various state legislatures on a variety of animal protection legislation.</em></p><p><em>This article first appeared on </em><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/following-house-approval-us-has-a-chance-to-ban-the-cruel-shark-fin-trade/" target="_blank"><em>Truthout</em></a><em> and was produced in partnership with </em><a href="https://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
- The Surprise Middleman in the Illegal Shark Fin Trade: The U.S. ... ›
- Starbucks Urged to Cut Ties With Hong Kong Chain That Still Serves ... ›
- $1 Million Worth of Shark Fins Seized at Miami Port - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
On the morning of Nov. 8, 2018, the Camp Fire erupted 90 miles (140 kilometers) north of Sacramento, California. By evening, the fast-moving fire had charred around 18,000 acres and remained zero percent contained, according to news reports. NASA
By Tony Dunn
On Nov. 8, 2018, I was trapped in my car as embers fell all around me in Paradise, California, and the thought that kept going through my head was, "This can't be the same fire [that had been reported 10 miles away only two hours before]. Fires can't move like that."
I should know: I spent nearly a decade studying wildland fire history, fire ecology and fire behavior in Southern California for the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies.
<p>But it was the same fire.</p>
<p>I thought a lot of other things on that cold, windy morning stuck in an endless line of unmoving cars, as the flames engulfed the homes around me. I thought I would never see my wife again. I thought I was going to die.</p><p>I didn't die that day, though <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article235480892.html" target="_blank">85 people did</a>. But I came away from that experience knowing that climate change isn't some far-off dystopian prediction that we don't need to worry about. I met climate change face to face that day. It is real. It is here. And it is happening right now.</p><p>Five of the most extreme fires in all of California history have happened in the past two years. In 2017, the Thomas Fire set a record as the largest ever fire in California — only to be surpassed eight months later by the Ranch Fire. In 2017, the Tubbs Fire set a record as <a href="https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5511/top20_destruction.pdf" target="_blank">the most destructive fire</a> in California history — only to be far surpassed 13 months later by the Camp Fire in Paradise. The 2017 Carr Fire experienced an unheard-of fire tornado with winds of 143 miles per hour — equal to an <a href="https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2018/carr-fire-tornado/" target="_blank">EF-3 tornado</a>. What fire researchers like myself used to consider to be inconceivable fire behavior has become the new normal.</p><p>Before the Camp Fire, I felt that I was safe from the worst impacts of climate change. I was wrong. If you feel that you are safe from climate change, so are you.</p><p>"But you had insurance, right? So you're OK, right?" is something I've heard over and over during the past year.</p><p>No, we're not OK.</p><p>Despite having what we thought was excellent homeowner's insurance, having paid for hundreds of thousands in coverage that we are legally owed — our insurer, Nationwide, still refuses to pay us. The only thing that compares to the trauma of the fire is the trauma of having to fight for something that you already paid for. But it turns out that insurers aren't as "on our side" as their advertising jingles imply.</p>
<p>We ended up leaving our family behind and moving 2,700 miles from home just to have a shot at being able to afford rebuilding our lives with what our insurer "gave" us.</p><p>Then I found out our <a href="https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/apex_extprd/f?p=250:40:0::NO:10,20,30,40::" target="_blank">insurer has more than $1 billion invested in fossil fuels</a>. In fact, insurers working in California have more than <a href="https://tinyurl.com/shyq28s" target="_blank">half a trillion</a> dollars invested in fossil fuels, and many of them provide insurance coverage for fossil fuel infrastructure like coal plants and oil pipelines.</p><p>Wait, what?</p><p>How does that make sense? How can insurance companies be investing in the very thing that is causing massive losses to their policyholders across the country and around the world?</p><p>What, exactly, is their end game?</p><p>Insurers are pulling out of California in droves, <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234161407.html" target="_blank">sending "nonrenewals" to tens of thousands</a> of homeowners, <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article232575652.html" target="_blank">raising rates (for those they don't cancel)</a> by several hundred percent, or just <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/15/as-fire-season-heats-up-insurance-companies-drop-long-time-clients/" target="_blank">not writing policies at all for large areas</a> of the state.</p><p>What do they think is going to happen to their business if they stop writing policies in the West because of wildfires, in the Midwest because of recurring floods and droughts, and in the South and East because of hurricanes and sea level rise?</p><p>What do they think their business is going to be in a world of climate change? Whose side are they on?</p>
<p>Instead of contributing to the very thing that is destroying our communities, insurers should be at the forefront of climate action, working with policyholders to make their homes more resilient, investing in communities — not coal companies — to make needed changes to reduce risk and increase readiness for climate change. In areas where the risk is too high, insurers should be actively helping policyholders to relocate rather than taking a "rebuild or get nothing" attitude. They should stop investing in and insuring fossil fuel companies and projects.</p><p>Insurers, in short, should be on our side, not on the side of the fossil fuel industry.</p>
<p class=""><em>Tony Dunn is a former fire ecologist and fire behavior researcher. He also worked for Pacific Gas & Electric as the director of the Sierra Energy Center in the Sierra Nevada foothills. After the Camp Fire, he relocated to western North Carolina. Follow him on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/adunnphoto" target="_blank">@adunnphoto</a>.</em></p><p><em>This article first appeared on </em><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/insurers-should-support-people-not-the-fossil-fuel-industry/" target="_blank"><em>Truthout</em></a><em> and was produced in partnership with </em><a href="https://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
- Climate Crisis Could Trim 10.5 Percent of GDP in 80 Years, Says ... ›
- The Federal Reserve Finally Talks About the Climate Crisis ... ›
- First Major U.S. Insurer Begins Divestment from Fossil Fuels ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Close-up of an octopus in the sea. Alexander Rieber / EyeEm / Getty Images
By Leslie Crawford
Remember back when we were all tubes?
<p>Sy Montgomery does. That was a simpler time, eons before the octopus and <em>Homo sapiens</em> went their separate evolutionary ways, and certainly long before that highly intelligent cephalopod, which appeared some 300 million years ago, ended up boiled, stewed and fried. "Our lineage goes back a half-billion years ago when everyone was a tube," says Montgomery, a naturalist and author of many books about animals. "That was when there were no eyes. Yet we have evolved almost identical eyes. I just love that."</p>
<p class=""><em>Leslie Crawford is the author of <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/store/sprig-the-rescue-pig" target="_blank">Sprig the Rescue Pig</a> and <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/store/gwen-the-rescue-hen-book" target="_blank">Gwen the Rescue Hen</a>. She lives in San Francisco with her two children, six hens and four foster pigeons. No partridges. Follow her on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/lesliemcrawford" target="_blank">@lesliemcrawford</a>.</em></p><p><em>This article was originally published by <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/youre-not-so-different-from-an-octopus-rethinking-our-relationship-to-animals/" target="_blank">Truthout</a> and produced as part of a partnership between <a href="https://www.stonepierpress.org/" target="_blank">Stone Pier Press</a> and <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>
<p>Montgomery's enthusiasm and devotion to Earth's creatures—and the similarities we share with them — has inspired her readers to get to know the eight-tentacled and big-brained wonders in <a href="https://tinyurl.com/zy436hz" target="_blank"><em>The Soul of the Octopus</em></a>, and taken us to the ends of the Earth and back to our own backyards in such award-winning books as <a href="https://tinyurl.com/pvnbgtq" target="_blank"><em>Spell of the Tiger</em></a> and <a href="https://tinyurl.com/rg6fk8q" target="_blank"><em>Birdology</em></a>.</p><p>A real-life Dr. Dolittle, Montgomery says she's always related best to animals and — sometimes straining the patience of her bipedal family members — has long treated her home as a land-bound ark for orphaned animals. In scientifically precise but poetic prose, she writes that we share greater similarities than differences with the electric eel, the tarantula, the tree kangaroo and the snow leopard. Don't forget, she says, that we hail from the same genetic pool, or more likely, gurgling swamp. By paying attention to the commonalities we have with our fellow animals — our singular capacity for what Montgomery argues is a broad range of emotions and zeal for life — humans can transcend the "we-shall-rule-the-Earth" anthropocentric focus, she says, and see that we are all in this together.</p><p>"We are on the cusp of either destroying this sweet, green Earth — or revolutionizing the way we understand the rest of animate creation," Montgomery <a href="https://tinyurl.com/sdhca33" target="_blank">said</a>. "It's an important time to be writing about the connections we share with our fellow creatures. It's a great time to be alive."</p><p>Montgomery recently chatted with Leslie Crawford, author of animal-focused children's books <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/store/gwen-the-rescue-hen-book" target="_blank"><em>Gwen the Rescue Hen</em></a> and <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/store/sprig-the-rescue-pig" target="_blank"><em>Sprig the Rescue Pig</em></a>, and compared notes on delving into the minds of animals.</p>
Leslie Crawford: Do you understand animals more than people?
<p><strong>Sy Montgomery:</strong> As a child, I grew up on an Army base and I did not have a single human friend. It allowed me the freedom to get to know other species. I vividly remember my 20s like it was yesterday. As a young person, I was often worried about whether or not I was reading other people correctly. And yet these are organisms that use the same English language. It's terrific to be in my 60s and know I can read animals. I have always read animals better than people.<span></span><br></p>What did you find surprising about humans as a child?
<p>I was shocked to learn that people use their language to lie. Even little kids lie. Of course, animals will lie, too. An octopus will say, "I'm four or five sea snakes." What the octopus does is change each of its arms to look like a sea snake, which is very poisonous.<em></em> Chimpanzees lie all the time. But the degree to which humans use language to lie shocked me. I've always dealt with animals in a very straightforward way. I wasn't ever trying to conceal things from them. Humans often want incorrect information about you and project incorrect things on you.</p>So much has changed about our understanding of animals since you started writing about them. When did you first realize that animals are sentient beings?
<p>I think most of us realize as children that animals are sentient beings. But then, somehow, for so many people, this truth gets overwritten — by schools teaching old theories, by agribusiness that wants us to treat animals like products, by the pharmaceutical and medical industries who want to test products on animals as if they were little more than petri dishes. But thankfully, scientific and evolutionary <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726/" target="_blank">evidence for animal sentience</a> has grown too obvious to ignore.</p>What have you learned about animals and consciousness?
<p>You don't want to project onto animals your wishes and desires. You have to respect your fellow animals. I don't want to roll in vomit, but a hyena would enjoy that. I don't want to kill everything I eat with my face, but that's what I'd do if I'm a great white shark. If I were eating a carcass, I would not be as happy about it as a scavenger. We have different lives but what we share is astonishingly deep, evolutionarily speaking.</p>When did you know you were an animal person?
<p>Animals have always been my best friends and the source of my deepest joy. Before I was 2, I toddled into the hippo pen at the Frankfurt Zoo, seeking their company, and totally unafraid. When I learned to speak, one of my first announcements to my parents was that I was really a horse. The pediatrician reassured my mother I would outgrow this phase. He was right, because next I announced I was really a dog.</p><p>My father loved animals. Growing up, my mother had a dog named Flip who she adored. But I seem to have had an even greater attachment to animals than they did. My friend, the author <a href="http://www.brendapetersonbooks.com/about/" target="_blank">Brenda Peterson</a>, says that I must have been adopted at the local animal shelter.</p>How many animals do you currently live with?
<p>Right now, the only animal who lives with us is a border collie named Thurber. I travel a lot: Thailand, Ecuador, Germany, Spain. I can't force my husband to have a house filled with animals. I had chickens but predators got almost all of them. Weasels got into the coop. They are so smart. Even though we buried wire beneath the floor, weasels need just a tiny opening to get through. You can never weasel-proof an old barn.</p>It sounds like you have some respect for weasels even though they killed your chickens?
<p>They were there first. I learned my chickens were killed on Christmas morning when I brought a bowl of popcorn to them and saw this white creature with black eyes staring at me. You'd think I'd be angry. But the beauty and ferocity of this creature filled me with awe. At the same time that I mourned my beloved chickens, I admired the weasel.</p>You originally studied psychology. How do you go about thinking about what animals are thinking? Or is it a mistake for people to imagine animals are thinking in a way that we think?
<p>I triple majored in college, and psychology was one of them. But thinking about animals wasn't really part of the coursework. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that nonhuman animals share our motivations and much of our thought processes. We want the same things: food, safety, interesting work and, in the case of social animals, love. But we can't always apply human tastes to animals — otherwise fish would seek to escape from the water and hyenas wouldn't roll in vomit.</p>When did you stop eating meat and dairy and why do you think some people make the decision and others don’t?
<p>I read <a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061711305/animal-liberation/" target="_blank"><em>Animal Liberation</em></a>, by Peter Singer, in my 20s. Even though I loved meat, I haven't eaten it since. I can't wait to try the Impossible Burger!</p>In writing Sprig, I learned so much about pigs, including how smart they are. What do you love most about pigs?
<p>They are so sensitive and emotional. And they're wise. They know what matters in life: warm sun, the touch of loving hands and great food.</p>Similarly, when I wrote Gwen, I found out how remarkable hens are with their own superpowers, including keen eyesight and a strong community that includes watching out for each other.
<p>I agree with you. I love these aspects of their lives. I love how similar they are to us in so many ways, but I also love the otherness of these animals.</p>Speaking of “otherness,” in your book Soul of an Octopus, you came to know Athena, an octopus, as a friend. But can a person really know an octopus?
<p>Until the day I met Athena in 2011, pretty much all of the creatures I got to know personally were vertebrates. We are so like fellow mammals, with whom we share 90 percent of our genetic material.</p><p>I didn't know if I would be able to bring what I understand about other animals to an invertebrate, but I was delighted to see it was true of the octopus. It was clear the octopus was just as curious about me as I was about her.</p><p>There are some animals who aren't interested in you. But when you have an octopus look you in the face and investigate you with her suckers with such an intensity, well, what that octopus taught me [about consciousness] blew me away. When Athena grabbed me, I correctly understood that she wasn't being aggressive, just curious.</p>How do you convince people to consider an octopus as something other than something to eat?
<p>I tell them about my octopus friends, Octavia and Kali and Karma — specific individuals to whom they could relate.</p>I have realized that preaching to people about seeing animals as worthy of the same compassion and dignity as is owed humans doesn’t work. But if preaching isn’t effective, what do you think works to change hearts and minds — and stomachs?
<p>Teach by example. It's the most powerful tool we have. Your love for pigs, told through your stories of Sprig and Gwen, is contagious because of your example. You show how much fun it is to let these animals enrich your life and make others want to be part of it. That's much more appealing than a lecture.</p>Are there one or two calls to action you would ask of people who want to improve the world for animals?
<p>I would suggest that individuals find the action that best suits them. For me, when I was young, working 14 hours a day and making relatively little money, I had no extra time for volunteer work, and my tithes to animal causes amounted to far too little. But I could change my diet, so I did. For another person, an overnight <a href="http://www.eatingwell.com/article/279566/9-healthy-tips-to-help-you-start-eating-a-vegan-diet/" target="_blank">change to vegetarianism or veganism</a> might be too tough, but perhaps they could <a href="https://www.wikihow.com/Volunteer-at-an-Animal-Shelter" target="_blank">volunteer at a shelter</a>.</p><p>I personally hate politics, though I vote and donate. But other people might throw themselves joyously into working toward electing candidates that <a href="https://aldf.org/article/protecting-animals-through-local-legislation/" target="_blank">support conservation and animal welfare legislation</a>. Happily, we can all work with our individual strengths to make the change animals deserve.</p>What about everything we learn daily about climate change and the growing risk of mass extinctions?
<p>Sometimes you don't want to read the headlines. It's so depressing. During the civil rights movement, I was too young to have anything to do with that. But now we can choose to be part of what is definitely a movement, one that recognizes that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726/" target="_blank">nonhuman animals think and know and feel the way we do</a>. We know this based on cognitive and behavioral science. That change has happened within my lifetime, which is fantastic.</p><p>The fact that we live during a challenging time gives us an opportunity to be courageous. I'm thrilled to be able to apply my courage to such a worthy endeavor and with such worthy partners.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 60% of Earth's Wildlife Wiped Out Since 1970 ›
- 'Eating Animals' Drives Home Where Our Food Really Comes From ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Renewables Are Gaining Traction, but We Need to Be Able to Store the Energy
13 December 2019
Science
Investing in grid infrastructure would enable utilities to incorporate modern technology, making the grid more resilient and flexible. STRATMAN2 / FLICKR
By Elliott Negin
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' recent decision to award the 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to scientists who developed rechargeable lithium-ion batteries reminded the world just how transformative they have been. Without them, we wouldn't have smartphones or electric cars. But it's their potential to store electricity generated by the sun and the wind at their peak that promises to be even more revolutionary, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and protecting the planet from the worst consequences of climate change.
<p>For that to happen, support for batteries needs to match the support renewable energy has received over the last few decades, shielding the industry from the Trump administration's continuing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/climate-rule-trump-reversing.html?searchResultPosition=1" target="_blank">attempts</a> to short-circuit it.</p>
<p><em>Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p><p><em>This article first appeared on </em><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/renewables-are-gaining-traction-but-we-need-to-be-able-to-store-the-energy/" target="_blank"><em>Truthout</em></a><em> and was produced in partnership with</em> <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank"><em>Earth | Food | Life</em></a><em>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>
<p>No matter how much President Trump "digs" coal, for instance, it can no longer compete economically. Since 2010, at least 289 coal plants <a href="https://phys.org/news/2019-05-coal-power-trump.html" target="_blank">have closed</a>, comprising 40 percent of U.S. coal power capacity, and 50 of those plants have shut down since Trump took office.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, renewable electricity generation has nearly <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38752&src=email" target="_blank">doubled</a> over the last decade, and close to 90 percent of that expansion has come from wind and solar, which jumped more than fivefold. This April, wind, solar and hydroelectric power <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/renewables-beat-coal-in-the-u-s-for-the-first-time-this-april" target="_blank">produced more electricity</a> than coal for the first time ever.</p>
<p>That's all good news. If wind and solar maintain their exponential growth rate, the United States is <a href="https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/" target="_blank">on track</a> to get all of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2050. Fulfilling that potential, however, will require two major advances: updating the rickety U.S. electricity grid and developing energy storage technologies that can enable the grid to incorporate more wind and solar power.</p>
Updating an Antiquated System
<p>Currently, <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx" target="_blank">29 states and the District of Columbia</a> require utilities to increase the amount of electricity they generate from renewable resources over time. California, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont and Washington, D.C., are leading the pack with a target of 100 percent by mid-century.</p> <p>These renewable electricity standards have proven to be one of the most effective ways to curb U.S. global warming emissions. According to a 2016 Energy Department <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/new-study-renewable-energy-state-renewable-portfolio-standards-yield-sizable-benefits" target="_blank">report</a>, these standards cut carbon pollution nationally by 59 million metric tons in 2013 alone, akin to closing 15 average-sized coal-fired power plants. It would be even more effective to have a national standard, and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) has <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/national-renewable-electricity-standard" target="_blank">proposed</a> one of 50 percent by 2035. But ratcheting up renewable electricity requirements can go only so far without modernizing the grid and increasing storage capacity.</p> <p>While today's smartphones boast more than <a href="https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/07/02/your_mobile_phone_vs_apollo_11s_guidance_computer_111026.html" target="_blank">100,000 times</a> <a href="https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/07/02/your_mobile_phone_vs_apollo_11s_guidance_computer_111026.html" target="_blank">the processing power</a> of the computer on board Apollo 11, most of the power plants, transmission lines, transformers and poles that comprise the grid are at least 40 to 50 years old, built during the expansion of the electric power sector in the decades following World War II. With its aging equipment, capacity bottlenecks and vulnerability to climate impacts, today's grid gets a <a href="https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/energy/" target="_blank">barely passing grade</a> of D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers.</p> <p>The grid was designed to transmit electricity from large, centralized plants, but power today flows from other sources, including solar and wind facilities. Rooftop solar panels and other "distributed" generation systems reduce the distance electricity has to travel, potentially increasing efficiency, but they also increase the complexity of transmitting electricity, and the amount generated from hour to hour varies. Investing in grid infrastructure would enable utilities to incorporate modern technology, making the grid more resilient and flexible, better able to integrate variable energy sources, and capable of providing real-time information so consumers can manage their energy use and save money.</p>100 Percent Clean Energy Is Possible — With Storage
<p>A modernized electricity grid would have the capacity to store large amounts of excess electricity. Today, utilities have to produce the exact amount of electricity needed at a specific time to meet demand. With advanced storage technology, it doesn't have to be that way.</p> <p>"Our electricity grid is where our food distribution system was before refrigeration," says Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at my organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "Up until the 1920s, when the refrigerator became widely available, most people had to eat fresh food right away because they had no good way to keep it cold. A grid with storage capacity would allow consumers to light their homes at night with the extra energy from solar panels during the day."</p> <p>One storage technology — pumped hydroelectric — has been around since the 1890s, and there has been increased interest in it in recent years because it can be paired with variable renewable sources. Hydroelectric plants pump water to elevated reservoirs and release it through turbines to generate electricity when demand is high. With <a href="https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydropower/" target="_blank">23 gigawatts</a> of capacity, pumped hydro is currently the largest type of energy storage in the United States. That said, it represents less than 2 percent of U.S. generating capacity and is unlikely to grow much more due to the cost of building such facilities.</p> <p>The ideal solution would be rechargeable, factory-size batteries that can store massive amounts of energy for days or even weeks. Today's grid-scale batteries can store only a few hours' worth of energy before they need to be recharged. That's enough to accommodate solar or wind power variability but not nearly enough to completely switch from fossil fuels to renewables.</p> <p>Money is the main issue. Billions of private-sector dollars are now pouring into research and development for electric vehicle batteries, but they are only trickling in for grid batteries because the market is still in its infancy. That makes funding dependent on the U.S. government, which historically has <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dont-take-federal-science_b_4146736" target="_blank">supported</a> cutting-edge research before the private sector was ready to invest. But federal funding for grid battery R&D has been deficient, and the United States is <a href="https://americanenergyinnovation.org/2017/03/can-the-us-take-charge-in-the-global-battery-market/" target="_blank">falling behind</a> China, Japan and South Korea in the global battery market.</p>Bipartisan Support in Congress
<p>Deploying batteries to store electricity generated when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing would enable the grid to handle more renewable energy. Fortunately, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle recognize that potential.</p> <p>There are a handful of bipartisan <a href="https://www.powermag.com/doe-lawmakers-looking-at-energy-storage-rd-funding/?pagenum=1" target="_blank">energy storage bills</a> now pending in the Senate. One bill, introduced by Angus King (I-Maine) and Martha McSally (R-Arizona), would provide $500 million over five years for a joint Energy and Defense department energy storage demonstration program. In September, the King-McSally proposal was folded into a <a href="https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republican-news?ID=23EE00A2-2A58-40CE-B7CC-733D03DC5651" target="_blank">bill</a> proposed by King's fellow Mainer, Republican Susan Collins, which would dedicate $330 million over the next five years for storage R&D to help lower battery costs, which already have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/giant-batteries-supercharge-wind-and-solar-plans-11565535601" target="_blank">dropped</a> nearly 40 percent since 2015. The Department of Energy <a href="https://www.powermag.com/doe-lawmakers-looking-at-energy-storage-rd-funding/?pagenum=1" target="_blank">supports</a> a number of the proposed research efforts, which is not surprising, given Energy Secretary Rick Perry has <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/rick-perry-hails-energy-storage-7cb6b0709a1a/" target="_blank">called</a> storage the "holy grail" of U.S. energy.</p> <p>The House is also jumping on the bandwagon. In June, it passed an <a href="https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY2020%20E%26W%20Sub%20Markup%20Draft.pdf" target="_blank">appropriations bill</a> that boosts the Energy Department's energy storage budget by nearly <a href="https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/fy20-appropriations-bills-doe-applied-energy-rd" target="_blank">35 percent</a>, and the budget of its Advanced Research Projects Agency — which has invested as much as <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/07/federal-energy-storage-convening-summary.pdf" target="_blank">15 percent</a> of its funding in electricity storage projects — by <a href="https://www.aip.org/fyi/2019/fy20-appropriations-bills-doe-applied-energy-rd" target="_blank">17 percent</a>. More recently, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee proposed <a href="https://mikethompson.house.gov/sites/mikethompson.house.gov/files/GREEN%20Act%20Discussion%20Draft.pdf" target="_blank">legislation</a> in November that would provide tax incentives for a range of clean energy technologies, including energy storage.</p> <p>"Energy storage technology was developed right here in the United States, but we are losing out to other countries," says Rob Cowin, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Increasing federal funding for energy storage R&D will pay big dividends for the U.S. economy and national security. Taking the right steps now will make our electricity grid cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›
- Costa Rica Runs Entirely on Renewable Energy for 300 Days ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
If Factory Farm Conditions Are Unhealthy for Animals, They’re Bad for People Too
03 December 2019
Health + Wellness
Flourishing antibiotic resistance is just one of the many public health crises produced by factory farming. Farm Watch / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
By Tia Schwab
In 2014, the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, commissioned by the UK government and Wellcome Trust, estimated that 700,000 people around the world die each year due to drug-resistant infections. A follow-up report two years later showed no change in this estimate of casualties. Without action, that number could grow to 10 million per year by 2050. A leading cause of antibiotic resistance? The misuse and overuse of antibiotics on factory farms.
<p>Flourishing antibiotic resistance is just one of the many public health crises produced by factory farming. Other problems include foodborne illness, flu epidemics, the fallout from poor air and water quality, and chronic disease. All of it can be traced to the current industrial approach to raising animals for food, which puts a premium on "high stocking density," wherein productivity is measured by how many animals are crammed into a feeding facility.</p>
<p><em>Tia Schwab is a former <a href="https://www.stonepierpress.org/newsfellows" target="_blank">Stone Pier Press news fellow</a> who recently graduated from Stanford University where she studied human biology with a concentration in food systems and public health.</em></p><p><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/factory-farm-conditions-are-unhealthy-for-animals-and-bad-for-people-too/" target="_blank">Truthout</a> and was produced as part of a partnership between <a href="https://www.stonepierpress.org/" target="_blank">Stone Pier Press</a> and <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. An earlier version appeared on <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/goodfoodnews/factory-farms-public-health" target="_blank">Stone Pier Press</a>.</em><br/></p>
<p>Oversight for the way factory farms operate and manage waste is minimal at best. No federal agency <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/goodfoodnews/mapping-factory-farms" target="_blank">collects</a> consistent and reliable information on the number, size and location of large-scale agricultural operations, nor the pollution they're emitting. There are also no federal laws governing the conditions in which farm animals are raised, and most state anti-cruelty laws do not apply to farm animals.</p><p>For example, Texas, Iowa and Nebraska have <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/FA-AWI-LegalProtections-AnimalsonFarms-110714.pdf" target="_blank">excluded</a> livestock from their animal cruelty statute and instead created specific legislation aimed at farm animal abuse that makes accepted or customary husbandry practices the animal welfare standard.</p><p>After New Jersey <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/FA-AWI-LegalProtections-AnimalsonFarms-110714.pdf" target="_blank">created</a> similar legislation, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sued the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, claiming that "routine husbandry practices" was too vague. The New Jersey Society won, and as a result, the state's Department of Agriculture has created more specific regulations.</p><p>In North Carolina, <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/FA-AWI-LegalProtections-AnimalsonFarms-110714.pdf" target="_blank">any</a> person or organization can file a lawsuit if they suspect animal cruelty, even if that person does not have "possessory or ownership rights in an animal." In this way, the state has "a civil remedy" for farm animal cruelty.</p><p>Still, the general lack of governmental oversight of factory farms results in cramped and filthy conditions, stressed-out animals and workers, and an ideal setup for the rampant spread of disease among animals, between animals and workers, and into the surrounding environment through animal waste.</p>
Antibiotic Resistance
<p><strong>The problem</strong>: In 2017, nearly <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/119332/download" target="_blank">11 million</a> kilograms of antibiotics—including 5.6 million kilograms of medically important antibiotics—were sold in the U.S. for factory-farmed animals. Factory farms use antibiotics to make livestock grow faster and control the spread of disease in cramped and unhealthy living conditions. While antibiotics do kill some bacteria in animals, resistant bacteria can, and often do, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnarms%2Fanimals.html" target="_blank">survive and multiply</a>, contaminating meat and animal products during slaughter and processing.</p><p><strong>What it means for you</strong>: People can be exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by handling or eating contaminated animal products, coming into contact with contaminated water or touching farm animals, which of course makes a farmworker's job especially hazardous. Even if you don't eat much meat or dairy, you're vulnerable: Resistant pathogens can enter water streams through animal manure and contaminate irrigated produce.</p><p><strong>Development</strong>s: The European Union has been much more aggressive than the U.S. in regulating antibiotic use on factory farms, <a href="https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-05-1687_en.htm" target="_blank">banning</a> the use of all antibiotics for growth promotion in 2006. But the U.S. is making some progress, too. Under <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/83488/download" target="_blank">new rules</a> issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which went into effect in January 2017, antibiotics that are important for human medicine can no longer be used for growth promotion or feed efficiency in cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and other animals raised for food.</p><p>Additionally, <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yyavm2of" target="_blank">95 percent</a> of medically important antibiotics used in animal water and feed for therapeutic purposes were reclassified so they can no longer be purchased over the counter, and a veterinarian would have to sign off for their use in animals. As a result, domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials approved for use in factory farmed animals decreased by 43 percent from 2015 (the year of peak sales) through 2017, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/119332/download" target="_blank">reports</a> the FDA.</p><p>However, the agency still allows routine antibiotic use in factory farms for disease prevention in crowded and stressed animals, so these new rules aren't nearly enough, says Matthew Wellington, antibiotics program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund.</p><p>"The FDA should implement ambitious reduction targets for antibiotic use in the meat industry, and ensure that these medicines are used to treat sick animals or control a verified disease outbreak, not for routine disease prevention," Wellington <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yyavm2of" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.</p><p>National Resources Defense Council Senior Attorney Avinash Kar <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yyavm2of" target="_blank">agrees</a>. "Far more antibiotics important to humans still go to cows and pigs—usually when they're not sick—than to people, putting the health of every single one of us in jeopardy."</p>Water and Pollution
<p><strong>The problem</strong>: Livestock in this country produce between 3 and 20 times more waste than people in the U.S. produce, according to a <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P10089B1.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000024%5CP10089B1.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL" target="_blank">2005 report</a> issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That's as much as 1.2-1.37 billion tons of manure a year. Some estimates are even higher.</p><p>Manure can contain "pathogens such as <em>E. coli</em>, growth hormones, antibiotics, chemicals used as additives to the manure or to clean equipment, animal blood, silage leachate from corn feed, or copper sulfate used in footbaths for cows," <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf" target="_blank">according to</a> a 2010 report by the National Association of Local Boards of Health. Though sewage treatment plants are required for human waste, no such treatment facility exists for livestock waste.</p><p>Since this amount far exceeds what can be used as fertilizer, animal waste from factory farms typically enters massive, open-air waste lagoons, which <a href="https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/manureirrigation/" target="_blank">spread airborne pathogens</a> to people who live nearby. If animal waste is applied as fertilizer and exceeds the soil's capacity for absorption, or if there is a leak or break in the manure storage or containment unit, the animal waste runs off into oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater.</p><p>Extreme weather increases the possibility of such breaks. Hurricane Florence, for example, flooded <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/09/22/650698240/hurricane-s-aftermath-floods-hog-lagoons-in-north-carolina" target="_blank">at least 50</a> hog lagoons when it struck the Carolinas last year, and satellite photos <a href="https://stonepierpress.org/goodfoodnews/mapping-factory-farms" target="_blank">captured</a> the damage.</p><p>Whether or not the manure is contained or spread as fertilizer, it can release many different types of harmful gases, including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf" target="_blank">particulate matter</a> comprised of fecal matter, feed materials, pollen, bacteria, fungi, skin cells and silicates, into the air.</p><p><strong>What it means for you</strong>: Pathogens can cause diarrhea and severe illness or even death for those with weakened immune systems, and nitrates in drinking water have been <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf" target="_blank">connected</a> to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-016-0085-0" target="_blank">neural tube defects and limb deficiencies in newborns</a> (among other things), as well as miscarriages and poor general health. For infants, it can mean blue baby syndrome and even death.</p><p>Gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide can <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf" target="_blank">cause</a> dizziness, eye irritation, respiratory illness, nausea, sore throats, seizures, comas and death. Particulate matter in the air can <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf" target="_blank">lead</a> to chronic bronchitis, chronic respiratory symptoms, declines in lung function and organic dust toxic syndrome. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf" target="_blank">reported</a> that children raised in communities near factory farms are more likely to develop asthma or bronchitis, and that people who live near factory farms may experience mental health deterioration and increased sensitization to smells.</p><p><strong>Developments</strong>: It is difficult to hold factory farms accountable for polluting surrounding air and water, largely for political reasons. The GOP-controlled Congress and the Trump administration excused big livestock farms from reporting air emissions, for instance, following a <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/food/2018/12/factory-farms-no-longer-have-to-report-their-air-emissions-that-could-be-dangerous-for-their-neighbors/" target="_blank">decade-long push</a> for special treatment by the livestock industry.</p><p>The exemption indicates "further denial of the impact that these [emissions] are having, whether it's on climate or whether it's on public health," <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/food/2018/12/factory-farms-no-longer-have-to-report-their-air-emissions-that-could-be-dangerous-for-their-neighbors/" target="_blank">says</a> Carrie Apfel, an attorney for Earthjustice. In a 2017 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-09/documents/_epaoig_20170919-17-p-0396.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> from the EPA's Office of the Inspector General, the agency admitted it has not found a good way to track emissions from factory farms and know whether the farms are complying with the Clean Air Act.</p><p>No federal agency even has reliable information on the number and locations of factory farms, which of course makes accountability even harder to establish.</p>Foodborne Illness
<p><strong></strong><strong>The problem</strong>: The U.S. has "shockingly high levels of foodborne illness," <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/animals-farmed/2018/feb/21/dirty-meat-shocking-hygiene-failings-discovered-in-us-pig-and-chicken-plants" target="_blank">according</a> to an investigation jointly conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Guardian, and unsanitary conditions at factory farms are a leading contributor.</p><p>Studying 47 meat plants across the U.S., investigators found that hygiene incidents occur at rates experts described as "deeply worrying." One dataset covered 13 large red meat and poultry plants between 2015 and 2017 and found an average of more than 150 violations a week, and 15,000 violations over the entire period. Violations included unsanitary factory conditions and meat contaminated with blood, septicemic disease and feces.</p><p>"The rates at which outbreaks of infectious food poisoning occur in the U.S. are significantly higher than in the UK, or the EU," Erik Millstone, a food safety expert at Sussex University told The Guardian.</p><p>Poor sanitary practices allow bacteria like E. coli and Salmonella, which live in the intestinal tracts of infected livestock, to contaminate meat or animal products during slaughter or processing. Contamination occurs at higher rates on factory farms because crowded and unclean living conditions increase the likelihood of transmission between animals.</p><p>It also stresses out animals, which suppresses their immune response, making them more susceptible to disease. The grain-based diets used to fatten cattle can also quickly increase the risk of <em>E. coli</em> infection. In poultry, the practice of processing dead hens into "<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/e-coli-salmonella-and-oth_b_415240?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAANkjLwmsnRglc1VCMlqcRi5-MysjhEUaB6ddNuzRBu4D7mS_Kc5u2RYcFwbWFy3rsSXK8Rh26fF32cF4wb3DP6yf0ECvgxMz6hOVz-kY2KxgbY_3lEMErrMEjYYFOkCdXibwPndBfr_fztIA1Gw6EbO5sRlbajNmkUFhG382YQg&guccounter=2" target="_blank">spent hen meal</a>" to be fed to live hens has increased the spread of <em>Salmonella</em>.</p><p><strong>What it means for yo</strong>u: According to the CDC, roughly <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/estimates-overview.html" target="_blank">48 million</a> people in the U.S. suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths each year. <em>Salmonella</em> accounts for approximately 11 percent of infections, and kills more people every year than any other bacterial foodborne illness.</p><p><strong>Developments</strong>: In January 2011, President Obama <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/international-capacity-building-under-fsma" target="_blank">signed</a> the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the <a href="https://tinyurl.com/kl4oqm" target="_blank">first</a> major piece of federal legislation addressing food safety since 1938. FSMA grants the FDA new authority to regulate the way food is grown, harvested and processed, and new powers such as mandatory recall authority.</p><p>The FSMA "basically codified this principle that everybody responsible for producing food should be doing what the best science says is appropriate to prevent hazards and reduce the risk of illness," <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/health/food-safety-illness-rise-cdc/index.html" target="_blank">according</a> to Mike Taylor, co-chairman of Stop Foodborne Illness and a former deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the FDA. "So we're moving in the right direction."</p><p>However, almost a decade later, the FSMA is still being phased in, due to a shortage of trained food-inspectors and a lack of funding. "Congress has gotten about halfway to what it said was needed to successfully implement" the Act, Taylor said.</p>The Flu
<p><strong></strong><strong>The problem</strong>: Both the number and density of animals on factory farms increase the risk of new virulent pathogens, <a href="https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/22780/swine_flu_report_05_05_2009.pdf" target="_blank">according</a> to the U.S. Council for Agriculture, Science and Technology. In addition, transporting animals over long distances to processing facilities brings different influenza strains into contact with each other so they combine and spread quickly.</p><p>Pigs — susceptible to both avian and human flu viruses — can serve as ground zero for all sorts of new strains. Because of intensive pig farming practices, "the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast track, churning out variants every year," <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yybhkxaq" target="_blank">according</a> to a report published in the journal Science.</p><p><strong>What it means for you</strong>: These viruses can become pandemics. In fact, viral geneticists <a href="https://www.wired.com/2009/05/swineflufarm/" target="_blank">link</a> the genetic lineage of H1N1, a kind of swine flu, to a strain that emerged in 1998 in U.S. factory pig farms. The CDC has <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html" target="_blank">estimated</a> that between 151,700 and 575,400 people worldwide died from the 2009 H1N1 virus infection during the first year the virus circulated.</p>Breast, Prostate and Colon Cancer
<p><strong></strong><strong>The problem</strong>: Factory farms in the U.S. use hormones to stimulate growth in an estimated <a href="https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/factsheet/food-safety-consequences-of-factory-farms/" target="_blank">two-thirds</a> of beef cattle. On dairy farms, around <a href="https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/factsheet/food-safety-consequences-of-factory-farms/" target="_blank">54 percent</a> of cows are injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a growth hormone that increases milk production.</p><p><strong>What it means for you</strong>: The health effects of consuming animal products treated with these growth hormones is an ongoing international debate. Some <a href="https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/factsheet/food-safety-consequences-of-factory-farms/" target="_blank">studies</a> have linked growth hormone residues in meat to reproductive issues and breast, prostate and colon cancer, and IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, has been linked to colon and breast cancer. However, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/report-food-and-drug-administrations-review-safety-recombinant-bovine-somatotropin" target="_blank">FDA</a>, the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK15180/" target="_blank">National Institutes of Health</a> and the <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/127845/9789241209885_eng.pdf;jsessionid=BB8751F0CE011D6249BDE6C98211465C?sequence=1" target="_blank">World Health Organization</a> have independently found that dairy products and meat from cows treated with rBGH are safe for human consumption.</p><p>Because risk assessments vary, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and Argentina have banned the use of rBGH as a precautionary measure. The EU has also <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/chemical_safety/meat_hormones_en" target="_blank">banned</a> the use of six hormones in cattle and imported beef.</p><p><strong>Developments</strong>: U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines allow beef products to be <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms#15" target="_blank">labeled</a> with "no hormones administered" and dairy products to be <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1994-02-10/html/94-3214.htm" target="_blank">labeled</a> "from cows not treated with rBST/rBGH" if the producer provides sufficient documentation that this is true. Consumers can use this information to make their own decisions about the risks associated with hormone-treated animal products.</p>What You Can Do
<p>You can vote for local initiatives that establish health and welfare regulations for factory farms, but only a tiny number of states, including <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_12,_Farm_Animal_Confinement_Initiative_(2018)" target="_blank">California</a> and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Minimum_Size_Requirements_for_Farm_Animal_Containment,_Question_3_(2016)" target="_blank">Massachusetts</a>, are even putting relevant propositions on the ballot.</p><p>Another option is to support any of the nonprofits that are, in lieu of effective government action, taking these factory farms to task. The <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> and the <a href="https://aldf.org/focus-area/farmed-animals/" target="_blank">Animal Legal Defense Fund</a> are among those working hard to check the worst practices of these factory farms. Another good organization is the <a href="https://sraproject.org/" target="_blank">Socially Responsible Agricultural Project</a>, which works with local residents to fight the development of factory farms in their own backyards.</p><p>Buying humanely raised animal products from farms and farmers you trust is another way to push back against factory farming. Sadly, products from these smaller farms make up only a fraction of the total. In the U.S., roughly <a href="https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates" target="_blank">99 percent</a> of chickens, turkeys, eggs and pork, and <a href="https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates" target="_blank">70 percent</a> of cows, are raised on factory farms.</p><p>You can support lab-grown "clean" burgers, chicken and pork by buying it once it becomes widely available. Made from animal cells, the process completely spares the animal and eliminates the factory farm. "The resulting product is 100 percent real meat, but without the antibiotics, <em>E. coli</em>, <em>Salmonella</em>, or waste contamination," <a href="https://www.gfi.org/images/uploads/2018/06/GFI1pager.pdf" target="_blank">writes</a> the Good Food Institute.</p><p>In the meantime, you can register your objection to factory farming by doing your bit to reduce demand for their products. In short, eat less meat and dairy, and more plant-based proteins.</p><p>More than $13 billion has been invested in plant-based meat, egg and dairy companies in 2017 and 2018 alone, <a href="https://www.gfi.org/state-of-the-industry" target="_blank">according</a> to the Good Food Institute, and Beyond Meat's initial public offering debut in May marked the most successful one since the year 2000.</p><p>Lest you think that what you do on your own can't possibly make a difference, consider one of the major drivers behind all this new investment: consumers are demanding change.</p><p>"Shifting consumer values have created a favorable market for alternatives to animal-based foods, and we have already seen fast-paced growth in this space across retail and foodservice markets," says Bruce Friedrich, executive director of the Good Food Institute.</p>
Read More
Show Less
We shouldn't have to be toxicologists to be able to grab something at the grocery store that doesn't contain dangerous ingredients. Daniel Orth / Flickr
By Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner
A major but largely glossed over report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental and public health nonprofit based in Washington, DC, shows that thousands of untested chemicals (an estimated 2,000, to be exact) are found in conventional packaged foods purchasable in U.S. supermarkets. And yes, all of them are legal.
<p>The extensive collection of permissible additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens, such as synthetic sodium nitrate, found in processed meats and considered <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/" target="_blank">probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization</a>, and butylated hydroxyanisole, also known as BHA, a chemical <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/butylated-hydroxyanisole" target="_blank">listed as a cancer-causing chemical by the state of California</a> and found in commonplace items like frozen pepperoni pizza. Other unappealing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemicals</a> are commonly found in our food packaging, such as <a href="https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/the-link-between-fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-and-climate-change" target="_blank">polypropylene</a>, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/114670/download" target="_blank">sulfuric acid</a> and <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/221205.php" target="_blank">bisphenol A</a> — all of which can have impacts on human health and the environment.</p><p>How much should consumers panic before their next supermarket trip? "It really depends on what level of risk consumers are comfortable with," said Dawn Undurraga, a nutritionist at EWG and co-author of the study. "The more we learn about what is in conventional foods, the more evidence for concern we accumulate." Independent laboratory tests commissioned by EWG, for example, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/" target="_blank">found glyphosate</a>, a probable carcinogen, in every sample of conventional oats tested.</p><p>The fact that dangerous chemicals are legal for use in our food is a major public health concern that goes largely unrecognized by the U.S. government. "Unfortunately, our current policy on food additives was written in 1958 and has been completely co-opted by food and chemical companies," Undurraga said. "Additives that are deemed 'Generally Recognized as Safe,' or GRAS, by a food or chemical company or trade association are exempt from the food additive petition process where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews the safety of the additive."</p><p>Originally, this GRAS exemption was created to cover ingredients widely known to be safe, like vinegar, but with advancements in food science, the provision has been applied to thousands of chemicals. As a result, questionable substances have been allowed into a host of conventional foods. In 2017, EWG joined several other public health groups to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/groups-sue-fda-protect-food-safety" target="_blank">file a lawsuit against the FDA</a> in an effort to eliminate the GRAS loophole.</p><p>"Rather than close the loophole, the FDA has instead allowed companies to voluntarily notify the agency about food chemicals and to allow companies to summarize the industry science supporting their conclusions," reads the EWG study, elucidating that many scientists who conduct these reviews have been paid by the industry. Plus, the FDA does not subsequently review underlying biological and chemical data, leaving consumers to literally do the dirty work. The FDA did not respond to Truthout's request for comment.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA5MDYwMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjg2NDk3OX0.27AC_OHg9zXWMnTHONmC5hyCVproJI-PEqmUDcYb1s4/img.jpg?width=980" id="5a8bc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3595b4013b0345ed45097b6da7065203" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
An extensive collection of permissible food additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens. Pixabay
<p>"Consumers shouldn't have to be toxicologists to be able to grab something at the grocery store that doesn't contain questionable or dangerous ingredients," Undurraga said. Even so, toxicology literacy won't help in the frozen food aisle. According to Undurraga, there are absolutely no defining signs on food packaging to indicate that any of the 2,000 synthetic chemicals approved for use in food are present in that specific item.</p><p>In fact, the only way to minimize exposure to these chemicals is to purchase certified <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> packaged foods and look at <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodscores" target="_blank">EWG's Food Scores</a>, which measure nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 80,000 common foods, from frozen vegetables and baby food to packaged nuts, berries and grains across hundreds of popular brands; and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives" target="_blank">EWG's Dirty Dozen List of Food Additives</a>, which ranks the worst food additives common in U.S. supermarket food and where you'll likely encounter them, like potassium bromate in packaged loaves of bread and propylparaben in packaged tortillas and muffins.</p><p>If additives don't have you worried enough about what we're legally permitted to consume, know that pesticides, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903" target="_blank">found to be carcinogenic</a> and also severely damaging to the environment, are still more than prevalent alongside the packaged food chemicals at your grocery store. Every year, EWG reviews the U.S. Department of Agriculture's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> residue tests on conventional produce.</p><p>"Last year, nearly 70 percent of conventionally grown produce was contaminated with pesticide residues," says Undurraga. "This is especially concerning for pregnant women and small children."</p><p>Sure, organic packaged food and organic produce are typically more expensive than their conventional counterparts, but you're paying for more rigorous additive standards and investing in your long-term health and the health of the environment. Currently, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/report-organic-packaged-foods-only-clean-option-consumers" target="_blank">fewer than 40</a> synthetic ingredients are permitted in organic packaged foods — and this is only after each chemical has been reviewed by both independent and government experts. And yet <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/organic-packaged-food-sales-growth-hits-adolescence/" target="_blank">only around 3 percent of packaged food</a> sold in the U.S. is organic. Perhaps this is because people who shop organic are not interested in pre-packaged meals. More likely, it's because the dangers of conventional packaged food are not well-known.</p><p>Those who want to plan their supermarket trips with a budget in mind can look to EWG's shopper's guide to know what to prioritize in their carts. Beyond opting for organic packaged goods when going the pre-made route, consumers can elect to buy organic versions of fruits and vegetables whose conventional counterparts have made EWG's "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen</a>" list, which calls out those conventionally grown items found with the most pesticide residue: strawberries, spinach, kale, nectarines, apples, grapes, peaches, cherries, pears, tomatoes, celery and potatoes.</p><p>On the flip side, consumers can opt for conventional versions of the produce items that are listed on EWG's "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php" target="_blank">Clean Fifteen</a>" — those with relatively little pesticide residue: avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, frozen sweet peas, onions, papayas, eggplants, asparagus, kiwis, cabbages, cauliflower, cantaloupes, broccoli, mushrooms and honeydew melons.</p><p>Though it's unlikely Americans are going to stop buying conventional packaged food in the near future (or ever), pressure on the government to make packaged food actually safe to eat is necessary to enact change. And with so little information readily available about what we're actually eating when these chemicals aren't disclosed, keeping up with research by independent groups like the EWG remains imperative to educate consumers.</p><p>Combining their research and policy platform, EWG has launched <a href="https://act.ewg.org/onlineactions/qAZe2J99MkSq_8OXk_Bzxg2?sourceid=1016634&ms=WEB_ACTION_2019_CerealVideo_GlyphCorpAction&_ga=2.6167543.537610687.1551104638-329641234.1547048772&_gac=1.122792313.1549296822.CjwKCAiA4t_iBRApEiwAn-vt-7BGsmS1zlwZfyUG3WB7uVeO_TWc5odEkTvwNjol8gNR_NLieT97lRoCn-AQAvD_BwE" target="_blank">a petition</a> to encourage food companies like General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg's to remove <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a>-linked <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> from our food. And that's just the beginning. Other consumer safety advocates, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/10/31/without-a-food-safety-overhaul-for-additives-the-innovative-food-craze-could-spiral-out-of-control/" target="_blank">including the Environmental Defense Fund</a> and the Center for Food Safety, both represented by Earthjustice, have challenged the FDA's GRAS interpretation in court earlier this year.</p><p>Ignorance may bring peace of mind to grocery shoppers, but as more information about the hazards in our daily food purchases comes to light, it's likely we'll see more consumer pushback against dangerous practices that have become the norm.</p>
<p class=""><em></em></p><p><em>Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner is a writer based in New York. She is a writing fellow at <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. She's written for <em>Bon Appetit</em>, <em>Food & Wine</em>, <em>Travel & Leisure</em>, <em>Conde Nast Traveler</em>, <em>Glamour</em>, <em>AlterNet</em>, <em>Cosmopolitan</em>, <em>Teen Vogue</em>, <em>Architectural Digest</em>, <em>Them</em> 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 Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/melissabethk" target="_blank">@melissabethk</a>.</em></p><p><em><span></span>This article first appeared on <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/there-are-2000-untested-chemicals-in-packaged-foods-and-its-legal/" target="_blank">Truthout</a> and was produced in partnership with <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- These Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Are Getting Into Your ... ›
- Organic Foods Are the Only 'Clean' Packaged Option for Consumers ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
How U.S. Government Conceals Truth About 'Forever Chemicals' and How You Can Help Avoid Exposure
24 September 2019
Insights + Opinion
By Michael Green
A handful of multibillion-dollar chemical companies have waged war on our bodies and our environment for nearly 70 years without our knowledge or consent. Although the federal government — tasked with protecting the public and upholding the law — became aware of this chemical assault 20 years ago, it chose to conceal the truth, downplay the threat, and expand the use of a class of chemicals known to endanger the health of present and future generations.
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Toxic, Persistent, Inescapable
<p>PFAS are a class of nearly <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/chemicals/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas" target="_blank">5,000 synthetic chemicals</a> that make products water- and grease-resistant. They are in non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant carpets, lubricants, firefighting foams, paints, cosmetics and <a href="https://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-Disposable-Foodware-Report-final-1.31.pdf" target="_blank">paper plates our kids eat off at schools</a>. Humans are exposed to PFAS through contaminated food, air, dust, rain, soil and drinking water.</p><p>Termed "forever chemicals," PFAS can take thousands of years to break down in the environment and can remain in our bodies for decades. PFAS are now <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/index.html" target="_blank">in the blood of 99 percent of</a> <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/index.html" target="_blank">Americans</a> and have contaminated the drinking <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/report-110-million-americans-could-have-pfas-contaminated-drinking-water" target="_blank">water of as many as 110 million Americans</a> — particularly those living near chemical manufacturing facilities, <a href="https://www.ehn.org/pfas-contamination-is-likely-at-pittsburgh-airport-airports-may-face-legal-challenges-by-doing-nothing-2639773679.html" target="_blank">airports</a> and <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/09/a-toxic-threat-pfs-military-fact-sheet-ucs-2018.pdf" target="_blank">military bases</a>. <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects.html" target="_blank">Even the smallest exposure</a> to PFAS can cause a variety of cancers, thyroid disease, hormone disruption, decreased fertility and other serious health issues.</p><p>But there are signs of hope. Health-ravaged communities are fighting back against those that poisoned them — and winning. Schools and businesses are increasingly <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/road-eliminating-fluorinated-chemicals-food-packaging" target="_blank">seeking out foodware, carpets, couches</a> and other items that are PFAS-free. The Home Depot, the world's largest home improvement retailer, just <a href="https://corporate.homedepot.com/newsroom/phasing-out-products-containing-pfas" target="_blank">announced</a> that it will phase out the sale of all carpets and rugs containing PFAS chemicals. More and more <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y3vq6d7f" target="_blank">states are</a> taking matters into <a href="https://www.theintell.com/news/20190822/gov-wolf-announces-38m-to-help-pfas-contaminated-communities-in-bucks-montco" target="_blank">their own hands</a>, leading a national movement to combat exposure to PFAS.</p><p>"<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQUIt0BWcU" target="_blank">Dark Waters</a>," an upcoming film starring Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway and Tim Robbins, will tell the story of corporate lawyer Robert Bilott, who helped expose one <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)" target="_blank">of the most appalling environmental crimes in our nation's history</a>. And Congress is finally moving to action on behalf of the people they serve, not the corporations making them sick. Action to protect public health is being taken abroad as well, with Denmark recently becoming the <a href="https://www.ehn.org/denmark-pfas-ban-2640174947.html" target="_blank">first country to ban PFAS in food packaging</a>. But much more must be done.</p>In the Chemical Industry’s Secret War, Communities Are Fighting Back
<p>In 1947, manufacturing company 3M developed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — a member of the PFAS family. DuPont purchased PFOA in 1951 to make Teflon, which quickly made its way into the kitchens of millions of American households.</p><p>In 1999, a West Virginia farmer whose cattle were suffering unexplained illnesses sued DuPont. The company was forced to release internal documents showing its PFOA-producing factory had contaminated the local water supply, and that it had hidden <a href="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/08/IC_teflon_timeline-03_corr.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" target="_blank">evidence showing</a> that the chemical was hazardous to human health. Tens of thousands of local residents paid the price, including DuPont's own workers, suffering elevated risks of cancer and greater incidences of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">low infant birth weights</a>.</p><p>This landmark legal victory by one small farmer against a multibillion-dollar chemical company sparked a nationwide uprising of PFAS-poisoned communities filing and winning a series of class-action lawsuits against DuPont, 3M and Chemours (a spinoff of DuPont), resulting in <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/10/06/dupont-pfas-chemicals-lawsuit/" target="_blank">billions of dollars in legal settlements</a>. These courageous communities forced the release of damaging internal <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html" target="_blank">documents</a> showing these companies had known since the 1970s their two most widely used PFAS — PFOA in Teflon and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in Scotchgard — were linked to cancer, thyroid disease and other adverse health impacts.</p><p>In response, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rightfully determined PFOS and PFOA were too great a risk to human health, and DuPont and 3M voluntarily phased them out. But instead of getting out of the PFAS business, these companies simply replaced them with slightly altered <a href="https://greensciencepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Myths-vs.-Facts-June-2018.pdf" target="_blank">substitutions</a>, renamed and rebranded as safe, yet <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385894719319096?fbclid=IwAR3zIeEDnluiG2QKSGTh4HN0Q-sIsBvr_WuZAeS6dkrIshQBWyWQ8JF-8gA" target="_blank">equally persistent and no less</a> hazardous.</p><p>For example, Chemours <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/06/17/new-teflon-toxin-found-in-north-carolina-drinking-water/" target="_blank">replaced PFOA with a new PFAS called GenX</a>. Now, eastern North Carolina is <a href="https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2019-06-12/environmental-justice/communities-still-in-dark-on-cape-fear-river-contamination/a66714-1" target="_blank">reeling from GenX contamination in the Cape Fear River</a> as a result of discharge from the manufacturing process that allows for the creation of Teflon and firefighting foam. Consequently, this <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2019/02/andrew-wheeler-refuses-address-toxic-chemical-harming-98-americans" target="_blank">recurring chemical</a> onslaught continues unabated, increasing the number of unaware and unprepared communities being decimated by companies that will lie and kill for money.</p>It’s All About Class: The Key to Reducing Human Exposure to PFAS
<p>This game of <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b01337" target="_blank">chemical "whack-a-mole"</a> must end. Thanks to weak laws and undue chemical industry influence, PFAS remain in an endless number of products and industrial applications, continue to spread across the globe, and pollute our drinking water, food, bodies and environment.</p><p>All PFAS are similar in structure and use and contain properties known to be toxic. To even begin to address this crisis, PFAS must be properly regulated as a "class" of chemicals and included on the EPA's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program" target="_blank">Toxics Release Inventory</a> (TRI), just as what was done to Monsanto's cancer-causing class of polychlorinated biphenyls chemicals.</p><p>Once on the TRI, one of the nation's premier right-to-know initiatives, chemical manufacturers will have to report where, when and the amount of PFAS they are releasing into our air, water and soil annually. This would better inform unknowingly exposed communities, incentivize companies to reduce PFAS pollution, prioritize the elimination of the most hazardous PFAS and more effectively hold polluters accountable.</p>EPA, Trump and DoD: Greed, Corruption and Collusion
<p>Yet, Trump's EPA and Department of Defense (DoD) remain dependable PFAS defenders. The EPA has yet to set a safe, enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS, has <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/did-epa-consult-with-the-chemical-industry-while-working-to-suppress-a-scientific-study-on-pfas?_ga=2.39499115.93197554.1561921734-469411700.1561921734" target="_blank">colluded with the chemical industry</a> to keep health risks secret, and has approved the use of more than 600 new PFAS chemicals in the last 10 years.</p><p>The DoD has long <a href="https://www.theintell.com/news/20190728/docs-military-chemical-hazards-going-unaddressed" target="_blank">been aware</a> that PFAS in firefighting foam endangers the health of soldiers, their families and surrounding communities. But again, the life of U.S. soldiers are not as valued as the chemicals that kill them.</p><p>As of August 2017, there are more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/dod_presentation_epa_summit_pfos_pfoa_may2018_final.pptxx_.pdf" target="_blank">400 known or suspected</a> military sites contaminated with PFAS. <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/preserving-science-based-safeguards/toxic-threat-pfas-contamination-military-bases" target="_blank">A recent report found</a> PFAS water contamination at 130 military bases across the country — nearly two-thirds had more than 100 times levels considered safe. Nonetheless, the DoD supports the continued use of PFAS despite the <a href="https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/05/17/40234605/lake-union-marina-fire-is-out-thanks-to-non-toxic-firefighting-foam" target="_blank">availability of safer alternatives</a>, <a href="https://gatehousenews.com/unwellwater/battleground/" target="_blank">opposes spending the $2 billion</a> in PFAS cleanup costs needed on and around military bases and has pressured the EPA to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/440874-critics-accuse-epa-of-weakening-pollution-rule-for-pentagon" target="_blank">weaken cleanup standards</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration recently <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/suppressed-study-the-epa-underestimated-dangers-of-widespread-chemicals" target="_blank">attempted to suppress</a> a major environmental health study that showed exposure limits for PFAS should be 7 to 10 times lower than current EPA safety standards. Last February, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/11/toxic-corruption-chemical-industry-keeps-pulling-epas-strings" target="_blank">Trump's EPA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the chemical industry</a>, released its long-awaited "<a href="https://www.ceh.org/news-events/press-releases/content/cehs-ansje-miller-statement-regarding-epas-pfas-action-plan/" target="_blank">PFAS Action Plan</a>" that actually makes it easier for the continued, secret and unregulated use of chemicals that threaten our future survival without fear of repercussion.</p>Congress Steps Up, Trump Threatens Veto
<p>After decades of inaction, Congress has recently <a href="https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/state-impact/press-publications/research-reports/pfas-federal-legislation" target="_blank">introduced</a> more than 20 PFAS-related bills, as well as dozens of amendments to the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would reduce PFAS pollution and help identify the extent of the crisis we face — including increasing the cleanup of PFAS waste using the Superfund program and requiring the EPA to set a science-based standard for PFAS in drinking water.</p><p>Notably, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/452507-trump-threatens-veto-on-defense-bill-that-targets-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">President Trump has threatened to veto</a> the NDAA if it contains current amendments that would protect soldiers — and surrounding communities — impacted by the U.S. military's use of PFAS-laden firefighting foam. Congress has until early October to submit an agreed-upon, merged bill to the president.</p>A Clash on Class: We Must Get This Right
<p>Despite Trump's threatened veto, my organization, the <a href="https://www.ceh.org/" target="_blank">Center for Environmental Health</a>, applauds these historic and long overdue congressional actions. However, there are significantly different approaches being taken on the most important action of all.</p><p>The Senate has proposed an amendment to the NDAA that only adds 200 of the nearly 5,000 PFAS currently in existence to the Toxics Release Inventory. Such a limited scope will only open the door for companies like DuPont, Chemours and 3M to continue to perpetually spawn new PFAS chemicals, allowing this cycle of corporate profit at the expense of human life to continue, perhaps forever.</p><p>The better approach is a bipartisan, <a href="https://delgado.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-antonio-delgado-writes-epa-acting-administrator-urging-limits-pfoapfas" target="_blank">stand-alone bill</a> proposed by Rep. Antonio Delgado of New York that includes all 5,000 PFAS on the TRI. <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/attorney-general-james-leads-coalition-22-state-attorneys-general-urging-congress-act" target="_blank">Twenty-two state attorneys general</a> support this approach, as they've seen firsthand the futility of eliminating one PFAS chemical, only to see another toxic copycat take its place.</p><p>Congress should reject the Senate's feckless TRI amendment, support Representative Delgado's bill, and support an NDAA bill only if it includes the PFAS amendments.</p><p>We face one of the most serious environmental health crises in our history. All communities deserve the right to know if toxic chemicals are being released into their air, water, food and soil. It's time to embrace scientific reality as our guide to overcoming this challenge and start prioritizing peoples' health over corporate.</p>What You Can Do to Help Avoid PFAS Exposure
<p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/#.W5wqoOhKjIX" target="_blank">Find out</a> if your tap water has been properly tested. If you are concerned, consider installing an in-home filter on your tap. Avoid "<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">nonstick" or "waterproof" products</a> and <a href="https://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-Foodware-Database_05.01.2018-Final_Full.pdf" target="_blank">disposable foodware and carryout items</a> — see the <a href="https://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-Foodware-Database_05.01.2018-Final_Full.pdf" target="_blank">Center for Environmental Health's database</a> for safer options. <a href="https://www.ceh.org/get-involved/take-action/content/toxic-chemicals-found-microwave-popcorn/" target="_blank">Avoid microwave popcorn</a> — and <a href="https://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/Popcorn-Infographic-1.pdf" target="_blank">make your own</a> instead. Don't use beauty products with ingredients <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/get-the-facts/toxic-chemicals/pfas-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances/" target="_blank">containing the term "fluoro</a>." </p><p><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/letters/make-companies-come-clean-about-their-toxics/" target="_blank">Tell your representatives</a> to include PFAS as a class on the TRI today.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Chipotle and Sweetgreen Bowls Contain Cancer-Linked 'Forever ... ›
- What Are 'Forever Chemicals' and How Are They Getting in Your ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Indigenous leaders from Brazil and allies held a non violent direct action in NYC to show solidarity with the indigenous resistance and "Terra Livre" — the national indigenous mobilization in Brazil. Erik McGregor / Pacific Press / LightRocket / Getty Images
For the past seven years, the Anishinaabe people have been facing the largest tar sands pipeline project in North America. We still are. In these dying moments of the fossil fuel industry, Water Protectors stand, prepared for yet another battle for the water, wild rice and future of all. We face Enbridge, the largest pipeline company in North America, and the third largest corporation in Canada. We face it unafraid and eyes wide open, for indeed we see the future.
<p>The Anishinaabe speak of this time as the time of the Seventh Fire — we must choose between two paths, one well worn and scorched, the other green.</p>
<p>Under a hail of water cannons, the name "Water Protector" was immortalized in the battle to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016. The rights of humans, and the rights of Nature, were trampled by the corporate machine of the pipeline company known as Energy Transfer Partners and $38 million worth of militarization. That's what was <a href="https://weresist.org/2017/03/21/dapl-protest-clean-up-cost-north-dakota-38m/" target="_blank">paid out in the name of "policing and cleanup"</a> by the state of North Dakota to brutalize Water Protectors who came from a dozen states and cities to protest against Energy Transfer Partners and the Dakota Access Pipeline.</p><p>Standing Rock was surely a <a href="http://nvrmi.com/?page_id=43" target="_blank">Selma Moment</a> in the environmental movement. This was a battle over the water and rights of Indigenous peoples and nations, but this was also clearly a battle over climate change and the future. We left Standing Rock with a deeper understanding of who we were and of this moment in time.</p><p><span></span>For the past six years, the Anishinaabe and our fellow Water Protectors have been fending off mega projects — coal generators, mining projects and Enbridge pipelines, which deliver oil from Canada to the United States. After a three-year battle against Enbridge's proposed Sandpiper, a 640,000-barrel-a-day fracked oil pipeline from North Dakota to Wisconsin, Enbridge canceled the project August 2, 2016, and purchased 28 percent of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The largest pipeline company in the western hemisphere folded its hand.</p><p><span></span>Yet the company came back with a plan to build Line 3, the 915,000-barrel-a-day tar sands pipeline. The bitter battle between Water Protectors and Tar Sands Wiindigos ("cannibals" in Ojibwe, a word that now serves as a metaphor for colonizing and extractive oil companies like Enbridge) continues. This last month, the Bad River Band of Anishinaabe filed suit against Enbridge, Inc., demanding that the company remove Enbridge's <a href="https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Infographics/IG_CanWeTrustASteelPipeline.pdf" target="_blank">66-year-old Line 5</a>, which traverses from the south shore of Gitchi Gummi toward the Straits of Mackinac. There, the opposition to a new pipe/tunnel scheme in a precarious crossing of the Great Lakes continues.</p>
<p>As an economist by training, I refer to capitalist economics as "Wiindigo Economics" — the economics of a cannibal. Enbridge's proposed Line 3 represents l70 million metric tons of carbon annually added to the environment, according to calculations made by analysts at Honor the Earth, the 26-year-old Native-led national environmental organization where I serve as executive director.</p><p>Now, slaying a Wiindigo like Enbridge is complicated. In this case, we must just keep saying no — legally, in the streets and in the investment world. We must starve the Wiindigo. Tar sands oil is extremely expensive. Put it this way: Every source of oil in the world is cheaper – much cheaper. According to Rystad Energy oil analysts, the average tar sands project won't even break even on the cost of getting the fuel out of the ground unless international oil prices rise to <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rystad-u-shale-now-world-160000388.html" target="_blank">$83 per barrel</a> and stay there. In contrast, the average U.S. fracked oil well will break even with oil prices at $46 per barrel. And that tar sands oil is landlocked. It will remain so.</p><p>Just before he died, David Koch sold his tar sands assets. He's rumored to have lost billions. The Koch brothers at one point held the largest tar sands reserves, but this August, they sold their remaining assets to a unit of Paramount Resources Ltd. "for an undisclosed sum following halted attempts to develop projects," <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/article-koch-industries-sells-its-oil-sands-properties-to-paramount/" target="_blank">according to <em>The Globe and Mail</em></a>. That's what happens with divestment and a lack of pipelines.</p><p>Native peoples have been shackled with fossil fuel projects, and many are withering away. For the past 70 years, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_Native_American_tribal_lands" target="_blank">four of the 10 largest coal strip mines</a> have been in Crow, Hopi and Navajo territory. By the end of the summer, three of those coal strip mines will be closed down, and with them, many of the units of the aging coal generators — Four Corners, Navajo Generating Station and Colstrip Units 1 and 2.</p>
<p>At the end of the fossil fuel era, big companies try to dump their liabilities on Native nations. BHP Billiton dumped a 50-year-old coal strip mine on the Navajo Nation in 2016, and Canada's Trudeau administration is trying desperately to peddle the liabilities of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project (also known as Trudeau West) to a collaboration of First Nations in Canada. But times are changing.</p><p>This past month, two units of the colossal Colstrip Power plants, fed with Crow coal extracted by the Westmoreland Coal Company are scheduled to close by the end of the year. In turn, lawsuits filed by grassroots citizens organizations such as the San Juan Citizens Alliance and its partners have forced the closure of more units at the notorious Four Corners power plant. Change is inevitable. The question is, who controls the change.</p><p>In 2017, the Kayenta Solar Facility came online with 27 megawatts of power for Navajo people. This wholly owned Navajo project is the first-of-its-kind utility-scale solar project within the Navajo Nation.</p><p>Navajo Tribal Utility Authority General Manager Walter Haase said this project "<a href="https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/navajo-solar-project-sending-power-grid-kayenta-ariz" target="_blank">demonstrates the Navajo Nation</a> is ready for large-scale renewable energy production," calling it a "gigantic first step toward enhancing the green economy."</p>
<p>Kayenta Solar was built in six months by Navajo people, who count among them more electrical engineers than any other tribe. On the White Earth reservation, 8th Fire Solar was launched this summer, producing Solar Rating and Certification Company — certified solar thermal panels to distribute throughout North America. Honor the Earth is also putting in 200 kw of solar to support the communities of White Earth.</p><p>Now is the time to choose the green path over the scorched path. The stakes are raised daily: Fires burn to the north, west, south and east, and we all feel the grief of our Mother Earth, for we are her children. It is time to be a Water Protector. It is time to be a Wiindigo Slayer — that is, it is time to stop the monsters and cannibals that plague our villages. That's what our Anishinaabe ancestors did: They slayed those Wiindigos, and that's why we are still here, 8,000 years later. It's time for this generation to summon up our courage, vision and prayers.</p><p>We are familiar with Wiindigos. We have been Wiindigo Slayers in the past, and we will be again. They have the money, but we have the people. We also have a vision for life in the future.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/water-protectors-are-prepared-for-battle-join-us/" target="_blank">Truthout</a></em>. <em>It is republished here as part of</em> <em>EcoWatch's partnership with Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin: If We Want a Future, Green New Deal Is Key
20 September 2019
Climate
We already have a realistic solution in the Green New Deal—we just lack the political will. JARED RODRIGUEZ / TRUTHOUT
By C.J. Polychroniou
Climate change is by far the most serious crisis facing the world today. At stake is the future of civilization as we know it. Yet, both public awareness and government action lag way behind what's needed to avert a climate change catastrophe. In the interview below, Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin discuss the challenges ahead and what needs to be done.
<p>Noam Chomsky is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at MIT and Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. Robert Pollin is Distinguished University Professor of Economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Chomsky, Pollin and Polychroniou are co-authors of a book on climate change and the Green New Deal, forthcoming with Verso in Spring 2020.</p>
<p><strong>C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, let me start with you and ask you to share your thoughts about the uniqueness of the climate change crisis.</strong></p><p><strong>Noam Chomsky</strong>:<strong> </strong>History is all too rich in records of horrendous wars, indescribable torture, massacres and every imaginable abuse of fundamental rights. But the threat of destruction of organized human life in any recognizable or tolerable form — that is entirely new. The environmental crisis under way is indeed unique in human history, and is a true existential crisis. Those alive today will decide the fate of humanity — and the fate of the other species that we are now destroying at a rate not seen for 65 million years, when a huge asteroid hit the earth, ending the age of the dinosaurs and opening the way for some small mammals to evolve to pose a similar threat to life on earth as that earlier asteroid, though differing from it in that we can make a choice.<br></p><p>Meanwhile the world watches as we proceed toward a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. We are approaching perilously close to the global temperatures of 120,000 years ago, when sea levels were 6-9 meters higher than today. Glaciers are sliding into the sea five times faster than in the 1990s, with more than 100 meters of ice thickness lost in some areas due to ocean warming, and current losses doubling every decade. Complete loss of the ice sheets would raise sea levels by about five meters, drowning coastal cities, and with utterly devastating effects elsewhere — the low-lying plains of Bangladesh for example. This is only one of the many concerns of those who are paying attention to what is happening before our eyes.</p><p>Climate scientists are certainly paying close attention, and issuing dire warnings. Israeli climatologist Baruch Rinkevich <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-sea-will-get-as-hot-as-a-jacuzzi-what-life-in-israel-will-look-like-in-2100-1.7688062" target="_blank">captures</a> the general mood succinctly:</p><blockquote>After us, the deluge, as the saying goes. People don't fully understand what we're talking about here…. They don't understand that everything is expected to change: the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, the landscapes we see, the oceans, the seasons, the daily routine, the quality of life. Our children will have to adapt or become extinct…. That's not for me. I'm happy I won't be here.<br></blockquote><p>Yet, just at the time when all must act together, with dedication, to confront humanity's "ultimate challenge," the leaders of the most powerful state in human history, in full awareness of what they are doing, are dedicating themselves with passion to destroying the prospects for organized human life.</p>
<p><strong>With rare exceptions, the mainstream political establishment in the United States continues to look the other way when it comes to climate change. Why is that?</strong></p><p><strong>Chomsky</strong>: Both political parties have drifted right during the neoliberal years, much as in Europe. The Democratic establishment is now more or less what would have been called "moderate Republicans" some years ago. The Republicans have gone off the spectrum. Comparative studies show that they rank alongside of fringe rightwing parties in Europe in their general positions. They are, furthermore, the only major conservative party to reject anthropogenic climate change, as already mentioned: a global anomaly. Two respected political analysts of the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, describe the Republican Party since Newt Gingrich's takeover in the '90s as not a normal political party but a "radical insurgency" that has largely abandoned parliamentary politics. Under McConnell's leadership, that has only become more evident — but he has ample company in Republican Party circles.<br></p><p>The positions of the leadership on climate surely influence the attitudes of Republican Party loyalists. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/climate/climate-change-republicans.html" target="_blank">Only about 25 percent of Republicans</a> (36 percent of the more savvy millennials) recognize that humans are responsible for global warming. Shocking figures.</p><p>And in the ranking of urgent issues among Republicans, global warming (if it is even assumed to be taking place), is almost undetectable.</p><p>It is considered outrageous to assert that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Perhaps so, but in the light of the stakes, what else can one rationally conclude?</p>
<p><strong>Bob, the Green New Deal is seen as perhaps the only viable solution to avert a climate change catastrophe of the sort described by Noam above, yet many continue to regard it as unrealistic, not only from a purely economic perspective (the claim is that it is simply unaffordable), but also in the sense that modern economies and societies cannot function without fossil fuel energy. First, is the Green New Deal a detailed policy proposal to move us away from a climate change catastrophe, and, second, is it realistic?</strong></p><p><strong>Robert Pollin</strong>: The Green New Deal has gained tremendous traction as an organizing framework over the past year. This alone is a major achievement. But it is still imperative that we transform this big idea into a viable program. In my view, putting meat on the bones of the Green New Deal starts with a single simple idea: We have to absolutely stop burning oil, coal and natural gas to produce energy within the next 30 years at most; and we have to do this in a way that also <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/tackling-inequality-and-the-climate-crisis-the-pathway-to-a-just-transition/" target="_blank">supports</a> rising living standards and expanding opportunities for working people and the poor throughout the world.</p><p><span></span>This version of a Green New Deal program is, in fact, entirely realistic in terms of its purely economic and technical features. Clean renewable energy sources — including solar, wind, geothermal and to a lesser extent small-scale hydro and low emissions bioenergy — are already either at cost parity with fossil fuels and nuclear or they are cheaper. In addition, the single easiest and cheapest way to lower emissions is to raise energy efficiency standards, through, among other measures, retrofitting existing buildings; making new buildings operate as net zero energy consumers; and replacing gas-guzzler cars with expanding public transportation and electric cars. Energy efficiency measures, by definition, will save people money — for example, your home electricity bills could realistically be cut in half without having to reduce the amount that you light, heat or cool your house. So, the Green New Deal will not cost consumers anything over time, as long as we solve the actually quite simple problem of funding Green New Deal investments through the cost savings we gain by raising efficiency standards and producing cheap renewable energy. My coworkers and I have estimated that building a 100 percent clean energy system will require about 2.5 percent of global GDP per year for roughly the next 30 years. Yes, that's a lot of money in dollar terms, like about $2 trillion in 2021 and rising thereafter. But it does still mean that 97.5 percent of global economic activity can be devoted to things other than investments in clean energy.<br></p><p>So, absolutely, the Green New Deal can be a realistic global climate stabilization project. More specifically, the Green New Deal is capable of hitting the necessary emissions reduction targets for stabilization at a global average temperature of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100, as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last October. However, the real question, of course, is not whether the Green New Deal is economically or technically feasible, but rather whether it is politically feasible. On this question, Noam is of course exactly on point in asking: Are we, the human race, going to allow ourselves to become the 21st-century asteroid clone or not?</p>
<p><strong>What about the claim that a transition to 100 percent renewable energy will result in the permanent loss of millions of good-paying jobs?</strong></p><p><strong>Pollin</strong>: In fact, clean energy investments will be a major source of new job creation, in all regions of the globe. The critical factor is that clean energy investments will create a lot more jobs than maintaining the existing dirty energy infrastructure — in the range of two to four times more jobs per dollar of spending in all countries that we have studied, including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Spain and the United States. Of course, jobs that are tied to the fossil fuel industry will be eliminated. The affected workers and their communities must be supported through generous Just Transition measures, including guaranteeing workers' pensions, moving people into new jobs without losing incomes, and investing in impacted communities, in a range of projects. Land reclamation is just one such investment opportunity, including cleaning up abandoned coal mines and converting the residual coal ash into useful products, like paper. I can't emphasize enough that, throughout the world, <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/tackling-inequality-and-the-climate-crisis-the-pathway-to-a-just-transition/" target="_blank">"just transition" programs</a> must be understood as absolutely central to the Green New Deal.</p>
<p><strong>Noam, how do we increase public awareness about the need for government action vis-à-vis climate change?</strong></p><p><strong>Chomsky</strong>: The simple answer is: work harder. There are no new special tricks. We know what the message is. We know the barriers that have to be overcome. We have to find ways to shape the message, in words and actions, so as to overcome the barriers.</p><p>The message is two-fold: First, we're facing an existential crisis that must be dealt with quickly; and second, there are ways to overcome it.</p><p>The first part is expressed simply enough in current articles in the most prestigious and reliable journals. Oxford professor of physics Raymond Pierrehumbert, a lead author of the recent IPCC report, opens <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255" target="_blank">his review of existing circumstances and options</a> by writing: "Let's get this on the table right away, without mincing words. With regard to the climate crisis, yes, it's time to panic…. We are in deep trouble." He then lays out the details carefully and scrupulously, reviewing the possible technical fixes and their very serious problems, concluding, "There's no plan B." We must move to zero net carbon emissions, and fast.</p><p>The second part is spelled out in convincing detail in Bob's work, briefly reviewed here.</p><p>The message must be conveyed in ways that do not induce despair and resignation among those inclined to accept it, and do not evoke resentment, anger and even greater rejection among those who do not accept what is in fact becoming overwhelmingly clear.</p><p>In the latter case, it is necessary to understand the reasons — perhaps rejection of science altogether, or adopting economists' preference for market-based solutions which, whatever one thinks of them, are completely on the wrong time-scale, or the great many who expect the Second Coming, or those who think we will be rescued by some unknown technology or great figure, perhaps the colossus <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009-09/burnishing-reagan%E2%80%99s-disarmament-credentials" target="_blank">perceived</a> by scholars at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, whose "spirit seems to stride the country, watching us like a warm and friendly ghost" (Ronald Reagan).</p><p>The task will not be easy. It must be undertaken, urgently. By words and by actions, such as those being undertaken in the climate strikes of September 2019.</p>
<p><strong>Bob, what will it take for the labor movement as a whole to come around and embrace the Green New Deal vision?</strong></p><p><strong>Pollin</strong>: The Green New Deal has been gaining major <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/union-locals-build-support-for-the-green-new-deals-just-transition/" target="_blank">support in the labor movement</a> for several years now. There is still a long way to go, but progress is evident. For example, the coalition in Washington State that advanced a Green New Deal proposition in the 2018 election cycle was led by the visionary then president of the state AFL-CIO, Jeff Johnson. In the end, the initiative was defeated when oil companies flooded the airwaves with $30 million of virulent propaganda in the weeks before the November election. Similar initiatives are now being advanced in Colorado, again led by the state's mainstream labor leaders.</p><p>Of course, we need to very quickly advance beyond just these few shining examples. What is critical here is that the climate movement must be firmly committed to a just transition as one component of the Green New Deal that is of equal significance with all the others. The climate movement needs to also be clear on the point that building the clean energy economy will be supportive of increasing job opportunities and rising living standards, as I am convinced it can be.</p><p>There is no reason that the Green New Deal needs to be associated with austerity economic policies in any way. To the contrary, clean energy investments will create new opportunities for a wide range of small-scale public, cooperative, and private ownership forms. You don't need massive mining projects, pipelines or exploration platforms to deliver clean energy. Solar panels on roofs and in parking lots and wind turbines on farms can, by themselves, get us reasonably far along in meeting the energy needs of a growing egalitarian economy. From this perspective, the Green New Deal should rightfully be seen as offering a fully viable alternative to austerity economics along with the only realistic path for keeping us from becoming the 21st-century asteroid clone.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Noam Chomsky: The Biggest Problem We Face, Destruction of the Environment <a href="https://t.co/7blOGJZLHr">https://t.co/7blOGJZLHr</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ecowatch</a></p>— Rachel Parent (@RachelsNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/RachelsNews/status/699733925422354432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em><em><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-and-robert-pollin-if-we-want-a-future-green-new-deal-is-key/" target="_blank">Truthout</a></em>. <em>It is republished here as part of</em> <em>EcoWatch's partnership with Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.</em></em></em><br/></p>
Read More
Show Less
Volunteer caucasian woman giving grain to starving African children. Bartosz Hadyniak / E+ / Getty Images
Food will be scarce, expensive and less nutritious," CNN warns us in its coverage of the UN's new "Climate Change and Land" report. The New York Times announces that "Climate Change Threatens the World's Food Supply."
<p>Reading these headlines, I'm tossed back to the late '60s when our culture was gripped by what I came to call the "scarcity scare," as Paul Ehrlich's <em>The</em> <em>Population Bomb</em> exploded into public consciousness spewing images of mounting hunger.</p><p>Really? Are our unstoppable numbers dooming us? I had to know.</p>
<p>Burrowing into the stacks of University of California Berkeley's agriculture library, it hit me: In fact, the scarcity scare was a distraction, and a dangerous one — diverting us from a most obvious fact: Food was then, and is now, abundant. We humans actively create the<em> experience of scarcity </em>no matter how much food we grow.</p><p>Obsessed with a desire to share this discovery, in 1971 I wrote <a href="https://www.smallplanet.org/diet-for-a-small-planet" target="_blank"><em>Diet for a Small Planet</em></a> to expose and help transform our scarcity-creating food system.</p><p>Yet today, we seem not to have learned.</p><p>The world now produces more than enough food for each of us — <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/ac911e/ac911e05.htm" target="_blank">2,900 calories a day</a>, roughly <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person" target="_blank">a third more</a> than in 1961. And that's just with the "leftovers" — with what remains after a third of the world's cropland goes into feeding <a href="http://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/" target="_blank">livestock</a>, a practice that shrinks the calories available to us.</p><p>At the same time, <a href="http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/" target="_blank">821 million</a> people — <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/al390e/al390e00.pdf" target="_blank">almost as many as in 1979-1980</a> — lack sufficient calories. And, in recent years, even as record harvests generate "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-grains-supply-special-report/special-report-drowning-in-grain-how-big-ag-sowed-seeds-of-a-profit-slashing-glut-idUSKCN1C21AR" target="_blank">grain glut</a>," the number has been climbing.</p><p>This summer, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization revamped its <a href="http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/" target="_blank">hunger counts</a>. To its "severe" food insecurity estimate of 821 million, it added a category "moderate food insecurity," and it reported that 2 billion of us — <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/243723._ADG_PRESENTATION_SOFI_2019_Official_NY_Launch_Presentation_Final_July_15_RR.pdf" target="_blank">one-quarter of humanity</a> — are food insecure. We're either lacking calories we need or we're unsure about our continued access to enough; or we're forced to reduce the quality and/or quantity we eat just to "get by."</p><p>Intensifying the crisis is a related global trend: Calories and nutrition are parting ways as corporate, processed food floods the planet. Even two decades ago in rural India, I saw along the roadway whole groves of Eucalyptus trees whose trunks were painted with huge Pepsi ads.</p>
<p>One result of this disconnect between eating enough calories and getting the nutrients we need is that <a href="https://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/jme-2019-key-findings.pdf?ua=1" target="_blank">more than a fifth of young children</a> worldwide experience stunted growth, a condition bringing life-long harms; and a <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y323qqer" target="_blank">third</a> of us suffer from anemia, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321092634.htm" target="_blank">doubling</a> the risk of maternal death and, in infants, associated with ongoing mental and psychomotor <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i3129/rr-0" target="_blank">impairment</a>.</p><p>That's where a narrow focus on increasing food production, reinforced by the "scarcity scare," has helped take us.</p><p>Now, nearly half a century since my own life-altering aha moment, the UN's new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, "<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/" target="_blank">Climate Change and Land</a>," has triggered another frenzy of worry about our food supply.</p><p>Running over 1,500 pages, the report itself offers vital understanding of how the climate crisis threatens our food supply and quality; and, at the same time, how farming, eating and food waste contribute between <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/" target="_blank">25 percent and 30 percent</a> of total greenhouse gas emissions. (Livestock alone, I learned elsewhere, contribute <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/" target="_blank">14.5 percent</a> of such emissions globally.) <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/" target="_blank">The report</a> also helpfully identifies ways that reworking our food system can become part of the solution to climate change.</p><p>You'd think I'd be thrilled that a key takeaway in this new report is that cutting back on grain-fed meat would trim greenhouse gas emissions as well as lessen pressure on our food supply. After all, wasn't the latter the whole point of my book, <em>Diet for a Small Planet</em>?</p><p>Well, no … and yes.</p><p>First, the "no."</p><p>In my first book I sought to awaken readers to the destructive and inefficient channeling of so much land and water into livestock.</p><p><span></span>Inefficient? Yes, very. As Americans, we imagine our farming as the best — the most modern and efficient. Yet, in large measure because of our meat-centered diets, as well as so much <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10339" target="_blank">corn going</a> to agrofuel, it feeds <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf" target="_blank">fewer people per acre</a> than does Indian or Chinese agriculture.</p>
<p>Most important, I wanted my readers to see how the rules of our political and economic system were twisted to serve a minority, undermining food security.</p><p>So, for me, choosing a plant-and-planet-centered diet became an act of rebel reason. I'd reframed the hunger crisis: Its root is not scarcity of food but scarcity of democracy. And I wanted my daily choices to reject the illogic of our anti-democracy system.</p><p>On many levels, we still do not see this core truth.</p><p><a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/" target="_blank">The IPCC report</a>, for example, lays out five scenarios, two of which could eliminate malnutrition by 2050. Among the necessary ingredients to get us there it mentions "high income and reduced inequalities, effective land-use regulation, less resource intensive consumption [i.e. less grain-fed animal food], including food produced in low-GHG emission systems and lower food waste."</p><p>Together, taking such steps constitute an about-face on multiple fronts — one that's conceivable only in a democracy where public policies serve what our constitution's preamble calls the "general welfare." By democracy I mean both the small "d" variety that includes community and worker empowerment; and I mean the formal, capital "D" variety, i.e., government accountable to citizens.</p>
<p>First, consider the "small d" variety and climate solutions. Perhaps the most dramatic success story for me — and missing in the IPCC report — is the work of poor but empowered farmers cooperating to transform their lives and confront climate change in Niger, <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/2018-update" target="_blank">the world's poorest country</a>, which is mostly desert.</p><p>In just a few decades, Niger's farmers have <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-in-sahel-beat-back-drought-and-climate-change-with-trees/" target="_blank">rehabilitated</a> 12.5 million acres by managing the natural regeneration of 200 million trees that sequester carbon, improve soil fertility, often double crop yields, as well as provide livestock fodder and firewood — all ensuring food security for <a href="https://fmnrhub.com.au/projects/niger/" target="_blank">2.5 million people.</a></p><p>Niger's progress — led by small farmers together making and enforcing rules — has been celebrated as perhaps the largest regreening transformation in all of Africa. Now, many other nations are interested in adapting the approach; and related farming breakthroughs are arising in <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/partner-content-getting-back-to-nature/" target="_blank">India</a> and elsewhere.</p><p>And, now to capital "D" democracy essential for governments to face the climate emergency and end needless hunger.</p><p>Democratic government is under attack in much of the world, and here in the U.S. to a degree unprecedented in my lifetime. But something else feels new: a growing citizens' Democracy Movement focusing on remaking the anti-democratic rules and norms that brought our nation to climate-denier status and even wider dysfunction.</p><p>In <a href="https://www.smallplanet.org/daring-democracy" target="_blank"><em>Daring Democracy</em></a><em>, </em>Adam Eichen and I share stories of this movement that has changed our lives and is achieving vital breakthroughs, sadly missing from the headlines. In the <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/45eb90_ce0f0fa87f8c455bad54302e9e0d1ec4.pdf" target="_blank">2018 midterm</a> elections alone, many who'd never been politically engaged helped pass key democracy reforms in nine states, eight cities and one county — ranging from those addressing gerrymandering to protecting voting rights. For me, the future of our precious Earth depends on more and more of us jumping in to achieve such system-correctives to what can accurately be called "privately held government."</p>
<p>But, now to my "yes" — to why I'm psyched that the IPCC report emphasizes choosing plant-and-planet-centered diets and how my democracy obsession relates to what I put into my mouth.</p><p>Consciously eating what is good for my body, for others, and for our planet is a choice that changes me — daily. It keeps me in a relational world, reminding me that the only choice I <em>don't</em> have is whether to change the world. I know that every act and inaction send out ripples. Someone is always watching.</p><p>I often think of it this way: Making positive daily choices based in consciousness of connection doesn't "change the world," but the process changes me. I become more convincing to myself, so maybe I become more convincing to others: a stronger agent in the collective struggle to change the world. Just this morning, a stranger approached me to tell me that my first book had started her on a "new path." Who knows, but I can hope her experience has been similar to mine.</p><p>I want a world where we all can experience such power. And in working for a fairer, inclusive democracy, we are enabling more and more of us to have this satisfaction: that of making choices that are both good for us and the planet.</p><p>So, yes, I'm psyched that the IPCC report includes plant-and-planet-centered diets as part of the solution, and we need not let fear trap us into another regressive scarcity scare that obscures the roots of the crisis in anti-democratic economic and political rules.</p><p>Instead, we can work to ensure that personal choices we can make to align with nature fortify our determination to dig still deeper, aware that fighting for real democracy <em>is </em>fighting for tackling climate change <em>and </em>the end of hunger.</p>
<p><em><em><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/on-climate-and-food-whats-the-lesson-we-insist-on-missing/" target="_blank">Truthout</a></em>. <em>It is republished here as part of</em> <em>EcoWatch's partnership with Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.</em></em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A defunct coal-fired power station near Johnson City, New York. DUNCAN RAWLINSON / Flickr
It seems like every day there is a new story of a pipeline spilling crude oil or an oil refinery exploding. How do fossil fuel companies continue to operate such hazardous infrastructure in communities despite the immediate and long-term harm they cause? One piece of the answer is the coverage and financial support they get from insurance companies.
<p>We may not immediately consider insurance as a key driver of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>, but insurance companies provide a crucial service to dangerous fossil fuel projects: insurance coverage for everything from explosions to car accidents. But now, that may be changing.</p><p>Earlier this summer, Chubb, the largest commercial insurance company in the U.S., announced a <a href="https://www.chubb.com/us-en/about-chubb/chubb-coal-policy.aspx" target="_blank">new policy</a> to address climate change. Saying that it "will not underwrite risks related to the construction and operation of new coal-fired plants," the company has become the first major U.S. insurer to adopt a policy restricting coal insurance.</p><p>According to the new policy, Chubb "will not underwrite new risks for companies that generate more than 30 percent of revenues from thermal coal mining … [and] will phase out coverage of existing risks that exceed this threshold by 2022."</p><p>This environmental victory follows a <a href="https://insureourfuture.us/" target="_blank">growing campaign</a> that has been pressuring the insurance industry on climate change, building on the global <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/divest" rel="noopener noreferrer">divestment</a> movement to pressure financial institutions to cut off their support of fossil fuels. With Chubb's announcement, in which the company said it "recognizes the reality of climate change and the substantial impact of human activity on our planet," the pressure is now on other major fossil fuel insurers in the U.S. like Liberty Mutual and AIG to follow suit and acknowledge the role they play in propping up the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industry.</p><p>Insurers clearly understand the grave threat of climate change — and have for decades. As far back as the 1970s, they were among the <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-insurance-companies_b_59ca9f98e4b0e02ffdb77f43" target="_blank">earliest to acknowledge the changing climate</a>. After all, insurers are in the business of risk management, and their mission centers on modeling catastrophe and pricing risk.</p><p>Yet, they have continued to protect and <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-insurance-companies_b_59ca9f98e4b0e02ffdb77f43" target="_blank">invest</a> in the very companies and projects that are actively accelerating the climate crisis. In addition to covering the risk of fossil fuel projects, insurers take the money we pay for car, home and health insurance and use it to purchase stocks and bonds in fossil fuel companies.</p><p>This stunning hypocrisy grows starker each year. In the consecutive wake of record-breaking temperatures, wildfires, hurricanes and flooding, insurance companies are responding by increasing premiums and restricting coverage in areas prone to climate change impacts like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/climate/fire-insurance-renewal.html" target="_blank">wildfire-affected counties in California</a>.</p><p>In addition, insurance companies are denying coverage to homes and businesses near these dangerous fossil fuel projects. An insurance company that is insuring a proposed oil pipeline in your community <a href="https://www.roanoke.com/business/a-question-of-effect-pipelines-vs-mortgages-property-values-insurance/article_c3750fd9-1712-5b3e-a12d-b2d2486f043b.html" target="_blank">may deem your house uninsurable</a> because of the risk of that pipeline.</p><p>There's just one word for this: perverse.</p><p>On the bright side, insurance companies have a financial incentive to change their practices because they're on the hook to pay for the damage that climate change is causing. Further, for most insurance companies, fossil fuel contracts only comprise a small percentage of overall profits, but the impact of major insurers ditching coal, oil and gas projects would be resounding.</p><p>As an individual customer of these companies, you can tell your insurance provider to step it up when it comes to climate change. To amplify your voice, you can organize with your <a href="https://www.insureourfuture.us/cities" target="_blank">neighbors</a> or <a href="https://www.insureourfuture.us/businesses" target="_blank">co-workers</a> to get your city or business to demand that its insurance carriers stop supporting fossil fuels, just like San Francisco <a href="https://www.insureourfuture.us/updates/2018/8/21/press-release-san-francisco-to-insurers-if-you-want-our-business-ditch-fossil-fuels" target="_blank">did in July 2018</a>.</p><p>The insurance industry is rapidly shifting away from coal and tar sands, citing the major risks posed by climate change. As individuals, cities, businesses and organizations are making the laggards in the industry feel the heat of inaction, the message is clear: The industry must insure our future — not fossil energy that destroys the planet and our communities.</p><p><em>Elana Sulakshana is the energy and finance campaigner at <a href="https://www.ran.org/" target="_blank">Rainforest Action Network</a>.</em></p><p><em><em>This article first appeared on <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/first-major-us-insurance-company-to-stop-insuring-and-investing-in-coal/" target="_blank">Truthout</a> and was produced in partnership with <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Global Divestment Movement Celebrates Milestone: 1,000 ... ›
- Carbon Bubble Is Bursting as Divestment Takes Hold - EcoWatch ›
- Major Fossil Fuel Divestments Strengthen Renewable Energy ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less