A new study shows that runoff pollution is hurting more than marine species and fishing industries. It's bad for taxpayers, too.
Researchers at Kansas State University found that freshwater pollution by fertilizers -- phosphorous and nitrogen -- costs government agencies, individual citizens, and drinking water facilities at least $4.3 billion each year. The figure includes money lost from decreasing property values and recreational water activities as well as costs for treating drinking water.
The environmental implications of high nutrient levels in our waterways are well documented. Agricultural runoff and other non-point sources of pollution have decreased oxygen levels to levels too low to support life, creating a dead zone the size of New Jersey. And, as we've told you before, the problem worsens every year. The nitrogen levels in the Gulf of Mexico have almost tripled over the last 50 years.
The Kansas State University study now gives policymakers even more ammunition for making changes at the policy level to help mitigate the nutrient pollution problem in the U.S.
The demand for biofuels continues to grow, and while ethanol has emerged as a popular source, debate has also ensued. Still, about 30% of the nation's corn crop is used in ethanol production.
Now a new debate has sprouted around the announcement of a genetically engineered corn variety targeted to the ethanol industry.
USDA is currently seeking public comment for a transgenic corn variety engineered to produce an enzyme that would make it easier to convert the corn into ethanol. Once deregulated, the corn variety would be grown without permits or regulatory oversight.
This is problematic for consumer groups, like the Center for Food Safety, which says this is the first crop proposed for industrial use that is also a food crop. Even if the intended use for this corn is ethanol, history shows us that complete segregation of different corn varieties is not possible.
Although FDA approved the enzyme that's inserted into the corn, there's still concern around unexpected problems should this variety contaminate the food supply. Whether it's allergenicity fears or market acceptance, a transgenic crop intended for industrial use should be driven by prudence as much as profit.
As more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, our oceans become increasingly acidic -- and faster than previously thought. Scientists have been monitoring the acidity of seawater around an island off Washington state since 2000. The acidity, they report, has increased ten times faster than climate models predicted. The increase in carbon dioxide emissions from human activities has led to a 30% rise in ocean acidity over the last 200 years.
Of course, at stake are entire ecosystems, and the fishing and tourism industries that depend on them.
Here's how it works: Atmospheric carbon dioxide dissovles in the oceans and forms carbonic acid. As the water acidity increases, the calcium carbonate shells and skeletons of many marine species corrode. So mussels and other shellfish start to decline in numbers, throwing off the balance of competing and non-competiting species alike. Some species, including smaller barnacles and calcium-based seaweeds, actually fare better under the different conditions.
This is the first data on ocean acidity from temperate waters, and more research is needed in both temperate and tropical waters, researchers say. But the study is typical of other climate change research, says one marine biologist, who laments, "almost without exception things are turning out to be worse than we originally thought."
The answer: 200 hogs, 50 beef cattle or 25 dairy cattle.
The question: How many of the above animals release enough methane each year through farting and burping so as to trigger a sizable per-animal fee under proposed Clean Air Act regulations aimed at stemming greenhouse gas emissions?
The proposed EPA regulations, which President-elect Barack Obama's advisers have indicated the agency will move forward on, would require businesses to obtain permits in order to emit more than 100 tons of a pollutant per year. And yes, it only takes 25 gassy dairy cattle to hit that threshold in a given year.
Farmers are understandably irked at the prospect of having to obtain a permit for their animal emissions similar to those required of municipal waste incinerators, chemical manufacturers and cement factories. In an industry with ever-shrinking margins, the proposed tax is a hefty one: $175 per cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and upwards of $20 per hog.
Since the 490-plus-page EPA notice was published last summer, the agency has received more than 100,000 responses, many from angry farm bureaus. "The permit would effectively be a massive new tax on our farm animals," said New York Farm Bureau President John Lincoln, who estimates that the tax would cost New York farmers alone more than $110 million per year.
We're not saying the EPA should look to nix the cow tax idea entirely, but it may behoove them to paint with some less broad strokes when it comes to assessing fees on various industries. Farmers don't deserve to be exempt here, but less stringency may be in order.
There are 76 million cases of food poisoning in the United States each year. Most poultry-related cases are caused by just two groups of organisms – Campylobacter and Salmonella.
Large-scale poultry producers use antibiotics in their feed to reduce bacterial outbreaks that can then be transferred to consumers – usually because their animals are so crowded that disease transmission is high. However, antibiotics don’t work on Campylobacter, and scientists and consumers have grown increasingly wary of antibiotics in their food.
Scientists at the University of Arkansas have found one solution - in the form of caprylic acid, a fatty acid found in coconut and cow’s milk. Researchers found that caprylic acid reduced Campylobacter populations in turkey guts, though the mechanism remains unknown.
However, constantly medicated animals of any sort goes hand-in-hand with concentrated, confined livestock, which is the real source of the problem. In addition, caprylic acid will likely be laboratory synthesized and become another high-priced item that producers will be pressured to buy.
The bottom line is that more agricultural research studying the efficacy of whole, non-patentable antiviral or antibacterial feedstuffs – like cilantro or garlic - would be helpful to farmers, who could grow these items on-site inexpensively.
Last week, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) reduced the fishing quotas for the increasingly rare bluefin tuna – but not by enough.
Bluefin tuna populations have already shrunk 90% in the past three decades, but selling prices of up to $100/lb make the fishing industry reluctant to toss in the towel.
Nearly 16,000 restaurants and consumers in 149 countries sent in their signatures to ICCAT, testifying that they were boycotting bluefin until populations recovered.Yet the 46-country ICCAT decided on a quota of 22,000 tons for the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean regions - double what biologists recommended to stabilize populations.
Biologists gloomily predict that the quota chosen by ICCAT will drive the bluefin to commercial extinction within several years.
It's easy to understand why water filters are a good alternative to bottled water if you're someone who's not satisfied with the tap. But it's hard to throw out those heavy plastic filters after they've purified their last drop, which is why Brita's recent announcement that it's starting a U.S. recycling program is great news.
Brita is partnering with Preserve, a company that creates plastic products out of 100% recycled materials. It will use the Brita plastic filter casings for recycled toothbrushes and other products, and the filter ingredients -- including activated carbon -- will be converted into energy. Starting in January, Brita filters and pitchers can be mailed to Preserve or dropped off at Whole Foods stores.
Apparently Brita, which is owned by Clorox, already has recycling programs in other countries. It's just been slow to create one here in the States.
Researchers at the JohnsHopkinsBloombergSchool for Public Health were contracted through a grant from Pew Charitable Trusts to “recommend solutions to the problems created by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in four primary areas: public health, the environment, animal welfare, and rural communities.”
After conducting extensive interviews and literature reviews, researchers made 6 main recommendations regarding CAFOs:
Phase out & ban the nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials
Improve disease monitoring and tracking
Improve regulations to address siting and waste disposal of CAFOs
Phase out intensive confinement (California just did)
Increase competition in the livestock market – enforce antitrust laws
Improve research in animal agriculture – currently mainly funded by industry
Researchers also reported that smaller farm operations return an average of 95% of their earnings to their communities, but industrial operations return only 20%.The Commission also reported that poverty does not decrease around industrial farms – in fact, food stamp use rises in some of those areas.
Externalities, from environmental degradation to community disruption, have been shrugged off by CAFOs for too long.The clear points of action recommended by the Johns Hopkins researchers provide legislators with a neat “to-do” list.
Thanksgiving weekend marks the beginning of a holiday season that, for many, goes on for weeks and weeks, as we hop from one party to the next. 'Tis the season for good drink, and if you're like me, a bottle of wine often arrives with me to the festivities. But buying "green" wine adds up -- and sometimes it's nice to mix it up -- so here are some quick links to inform your organic and other "green" wine purchases for merrymaking.
For starters, check out what three writers at EatingWell.com have to say about six organic wines that won't break the bank. They also offer useful insight into myths regarding sulfites. Did you know that all wine contains sulfites (produced during fermentation) and that, contrary to popular belief, sulfites don't cause headaches?
Like any food product, labels can be confusing. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle breaks down the "eco-credentials" of wine quite nicely by explaining various labels, including organic and biodynamic, to help wine drinkers figure out what kind of "eco-bang they are getting for their buck." Biodynamic and organic labels have enforcable standards, for example, while claims like "sustainable" are much more unclear.
The article also explains that some wineries have incorporated many green practices into their operations but don't list them on their labels. For example, Fetzer Vineyards and Winery of Hopland in Mendocino, California, has taken the sustainability of their company a step further by reducing its carbon footprint. Fetzer commissioned a study that found if all its bottles were converted to lighter weight glass, the average glass reduction would add up to 16% each year. The winery's carbon footprint would be cut by 14% due to reduced manufacturing and transportation emissions. The new lightweight bottles are already hitting stores. You'll notice they have no punt (the dimple on the bottom of the bottle).
It's true what our moms said...we are what we eat. In fact, it's truer than they thought. What I eat doesn't just affect me anymore, it affects all of us.
Unfortunately, the story of food can sometimes be complicated. But envirovores help each other out...which is why this blog will be bringing you news, tips, and information about food and the environment every step of the way.
.jpg)
.jpg)
