My disclaimer: I do not believe either political side uses science to influence policy and ALL politicians should be required to have a preamble that states "based on my limited understanding of history and science..."
Embedded Files
Golden Rice: We need to get past this.
Quite a while ago two very nice Dr.'s (Peter Beyer and Ingo Potrykus) developed a genetically modified rice that contained vitamin A [1]. It has taken a long time to get the rice sufficiently 'stuffed' with the vitamin enough but has been ready for developing countries where Vitamin A deficiency contributes to at least 250,000 children going blind a year [2].
Though there have been many groups that have positioned themselves against 'Golden Rice' or any Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), the main reason behind the lag in developing this much needed nutritional supplement and distributing it lies in the UN's "Cartagena Protocol" [3] which has language vague enough to turn it into an 'anti-GMO' ruling.
Now, the case for or against GMOs is beyond my research, but the science behind Golden Rice and the desperate need for its distribution are quite clear. Though some countries (including the U.S.) have been willing to distribute Golden Rice, the most needy countries are still being blocked access to it by a policy that is based more in fear of GMOs than GMO science. We can't continue to have a quarter million of our brothers and sisters go blind a year from bad policy, we need to do better.
[1] https://www.press.jhu.edu/news/blog/golden-rice-imperiled-birth-gmo-superfood
[2] https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/
[3] https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
Food irradiation: We need to get past this.
I want to talk about something from way back in the 80's and 90's - food irradiation - and how we are still not using it today. While it has been approved for most of my life [1] it is something that still faces regulatory approval and has not had a public campaign necessary to establish consumer confidence.
Irradiated food is just that, food where we have used radiation to kill harmful bacteria and pests to allow the food to go longer without spoiling. From a scientific standpoint, there is no evidence this process poses any danger to anyone [2] , [3] despite all of this being 'settled' before Y2K, we still face massive food shortages in the world in places like Africa where roughly 18% of cereal food goes bad before it can be eaten, costing the rest of the world 27 Billion annually to make up for this shortfall of sustenance in those developing countries.
We need to do the easy cost benefit analysis on this and spend the money to demystify this technology and implement it in countries where they are capable of feeding themselves. Allowing, for instance, ~320,000 tons of food to go to waste in Guana, then paying to have it shipped from the United States is a waste of resources and keeps those countries reliant on foreign food at best and emperils the people in those countries at worst. We need to utilize technology as a tool to feed the planet. We need to do better.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/1997/11/01/237152/food-irradiation-will-it-keep-the-doctors-away
[2]https://fbns.ncsu.edu//extension_program/documents/foodsafety_irradiation.pdf) and the FDA, IAEA and 70 other countries endorse the practice (https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-irradiation-what-you-need-know /
[3] https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/01/acceptance-use-of-food-irradiation-reached-new-levels-in-2017
Let's talk about your smart phone and e-waste. You probably know by now that producing your phone created side products like lead, mercury, cadmium and lithium. You probably also know that the average person replaces their smart phone every 21 months. This combination has led to 'lakes' the size of 23,000 olympic swimming pools of toxic sludge in places like China and Brazil due to the manufacture of smart phones [1], [4].
In addition to this, the mining of gold for connectors creates deforestation in the Amazon and has side products of mercury and cyanide and the harvesting of tin has destroyed coral basins around Indonesia. It is estimated that this technology will be the most destructive communication technology of our planet by 2040 [2].
Though there have arisen some recycling options [3] there has been no standard set in law or practice to help either ease the rate of pollution or to fund its ecological recapture or repair. Smart phones are doing real damage in the countries that produce them for us and we need to be looking at the long term rehabilitation of these environments as part of the continuing use of this technology. We need to do better.
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4446?type=check_update&version=1
[2] https://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/news/study-shows-smartphones-harm-environment
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-reduce-the-toxic-impact-of-your-ex-smartphone/
[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-reduce-the-toxic-impact-of-your-ex-smartphone/
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse