Tag: xelyn

5 | MOUTH | Organic foods: Truth or corporate scam?

Posted on Tagged , Leave a comment
Fig. 1 – Organic Food
Recently, I was reading up on organic food, and came across this journal article:

Offsetting Risk: Organic food, pollution and transgression of spatial boundariesDownload

The journal article examines the reasons why people in the city of Palermo, Italy consume organic food. It also highlights the issue of the day back in 2016, when Green Party members of the European Union gave urine samples to test for traces of glyphosate, a type of pesticide. It is one of the most widely used types of agricultural chemicals, but the governmental expert committee concluded that it is harmless to humans. However, despite this conclusion, there is still the perceived harmful effects of it. For one, members of the UK Pesticide ActionNetwork disagreed and advised people who wanted to avoid ingesting the substance to eat organic foods.Their advice followed a popular view of organics as as safer, and thus healthier, food. The existence of other chemical fertilisers, GMO food and loss of biodiversity did not help glyphosate’s case either, and people started to become more wary of what was going into their food. 

The consumption of organic food thus became trend because people wanted to offset the contamination risk that is believed to result from living in a polluted urban environment. 

Amongst the Palermitans surveyed, most agreed that organic food was ‘healthier’ compared to inorganic food. They cited fears of cancer, short-term illnesses like food poisoning and allergies. One woman even reasoned that she ate organic food “to try to lower the dose of poisons in my diet”. 

It is thus interesting to find out how pollution can affect the purchasing and consumption choices of consumers, but are they right to assume that organic food is much healthier? 

Not exactly. Food that is ‘organic’ is defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as food that has not pesticides on it for at least 3 years. It would be difficult to determine if this buffer period is effective for all types of pesticides, given that there are so many. There could still be trace amounts left and consumers would be none the wiser. Moreover, organic food is not necessarily ‘healthier’ it just contains fewer pesticides and is more expensive. Oftentimes, companies find loopholes and plaster the term ‘organic’ all over their products to generate more sales. For instance, for food to count as organic, it need only 95% of the ingredients to be organic. For it to count as “made with organic…”, that percentage is much lower – 70%. Furthermore, organic food still contain pesticides; ORGANIC pesticides that is. Though the USDA conducts annual sampling to determine pesticide levels, only 41% of ‘organic’ samples contained no pesticides. There were also trace amounts of pesticides that are not considered organic. Foul play on the company’s part? Perhaps; their aim is to profit-maximise after all. 

In this atmosphere of fear, companies benefit the most. Organic food is priced higher than their inorganic counterparts, and can be sold in smaller quantities. So, should you still buy organic food? Sure, if you can afford it, but I must caution you that you may not get all the benefits you expect. 

– Xelyn

References:
ORLANDO, G. 2018. Offsetting Risk: Organic Food, Pollution, and the Transgression of Spatial Boundaries. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 40, 45-54.



The con

4 | MOUTH | From farm to table: is food safe?

Posted on Tagged , , Leave a comment

Insects are called ‘pests’ for a reason. They scare us, leave droppings in our food and also destroy crops. We dealt with this issue by inventing pesticides such as malathion and chlorpyrifos. These are sprayed onto fruit, vegetables and wheat.

Fig. 1 – Worker spraying pesticides onto crops

HOW ARE PESTICIDES INGESTED?
Pesticides enter our bodies through the food we eat. Now, you might be thinking, “I use a fruit & veggie wash, so my produce is 100% free of these chemicals.” That’s where you’re wrong – these washes only remove most of the pesticide residue on the surface of the fruit / vegetable. Whatever residue is left is what gets ingested. Vegetables that contain the most pesticides include: strawberry, spinach and kale. So you might want to lay off the kale smoothies for now.

Fig. 2 – Common vegetables

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME?
When a large of concentration of pesticides is ingested over a period of time, it could lead to a wealth of health problems – difficulty breathing, vomiting, diarrhoea, or even death.

ARE THERE ANY PREVENTIVES?
Washing with a fruit/veggie wash is definitely a first step, though it is not enough. If you are able to buy from farmers’ markets whereby produce is not sprayed with pesticides, that would be safer for you as well.

IS THERE ANY LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THIS?
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency has the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) which sets standards for the use of pesticides on crops. Maximum legal residue limits are set for each kind of pesticide, and samples are collected through the Pesticide Data Program. If any organisation were to be found contravening this law, the commodity will be seized. Moreover, any public fears/doubts regarding any kind of pesticide are taken into consideration when revising or implementing new laws. The stricter standards of FQPA and major improvements in science and data, and an increase in the use of safer, less toxic pesticides, has led to an overall trend of reduced risk from pesticides.

CONCLUSION
Overall, just keep in mind the preventives there are in reducing risk of pesticide poisoning, and temporarily avoid any foods that are shown to have high pesticide levels. Keeping abreast of food in the news would also be a good strategy.

– Xelyn

References
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=520&tid=92
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/03/20/pesticides-food-report-strawberries-spinach-kale-have-most/3178844002/
https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/food-and-pesticides

2 | MOUTH | You wouldn’t willingly eat a plastic bag, would you?

Posted on Tagged , Leave a comment
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is screenshot-2019-09-13-at-17.11.34.png
Fig. 1 – When we eat fish, is it 100% fish?

Of course, for those of us in the right mind, the answer to that question would be “No.”

But what if we told you that you are in fact eating plastic?

Plastic pollution is a very a real problem, and our increased use of plastics and plasticisers has resulted in there being microplastics in the food we eat.

I recently read an article entitled “Today’s Special: Grilled Salmon Laced With Plastic” on Mother Jones, and the findings of recent research is gut-wrenchingly shocking.

Microplastics actually ‘migrate’ into the flesh of fish instead of just staying in their gut. Most previous studies have only studied the guts of fish with regards to microplastics, and thus there is actually more plastic in our fish than was previously assumed.

This spells trouble for fish and seafood lovers, as a recent study has also discovered that seafood is the “third-largest source of chemical-laden microplastics.”

Fig 2 – How humans end up eating plastics

What does this mean for humans? Well, consumption of plastics could result in health problems such as hormonal disruption and cancer. The development of infants could even be negatively affected.

So, should you still eat fish? It would be difficult to cut fish and seafood out of your diet entirely so perhaps you could minimise your intake to avoid ingesting that much microplastic.

– Xelyn

References

GROSS, L. 2019. Today’s Special; Grilled Salmon Laced With Plastic. Mother Jones. Online.

SMITH, M., LOVE, D. C., ROCHMAN, C. M. & NEFF, R. A. 2018. Microplastics in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health. Current Environment Health Reports, 5, 375-386.

1 | EYES | Where are the stars? Has the government kidnapped them?

Posted on Tagged , , , 1 Comment
Fig. 1 – Before and after light pollution (International Dark Sky Association 2003)

No silly, that’s just light pollution. Light pollution arises from there being too much artificial light and as a result the night sky and its many features like stars are concealed from us.

According to Longcore & Rich 2004, this phenomenon is “broad-scale”, there being thousands of light sources emitting light and thus illuminating the night sky.

Fig. 2 – Diagram on the astronomical light pollution phenomenon

CONSEQUENCES (Chepesiuk 2009)

on circadian rhythm + melatonin production –

We humans rely on the absence of light to produce melatonin and enable us to sleep, so when there is excessive light, photons are exposed to our retinas. This then disrupts melatonin production and our circadian rhythm. This could be the reason why we sometimes get up in the middle of the night – there is usually some kind of electric lighting entering our windows and shining on our faces, unless we have blackout curtains to prevent this.

on discovery –

Imagine living in a country that has full view of some part of the Milky Way but that view is obscured by artificial light. Wouldn’t that just be a bummer? This is the case for two-thirds of the US population and more than half of the European population who have lost the ability to see the Milky Way in all its grandeur with the naked eye. So then, what happens what they do get to enjoy the view? In 1994, Los Angeles suffered a power outage just before dawn. Afterwards, many reported seeing a mysterious glow cloud in the sky that struck fear into their hearts. What was this cloud you might ask? It was a band of the Milky Way. Our beautiful home galaxy was so foreign and unseen because of the presence of artificial light that it scared them (National Geographic 2019). Our children should not be growing up without having seen the Milky Way for themselves, since they have the chance to.

Fig. 3 – A band of the Milky Way over Los Angeles, CA

on animals –

While this course is primarily focused on the anthropogenic consequences of pollution, I thought it necessary to mention how pollution affects animals. We are all on the same planet, and any change in a single ecosystem could affect us in myriad ways. In New York City for example, around 10,000 migratory birds die each year from smashing into high-rise buildings as they fly. The presence of artificial light confuses and disorients them, causing them to be distracted and thus lose focus mid-flight. The bodies of these birds leave prints on buildings, and could even become killer litter as they fall from up above onto the street below. Additionally, some animals are momentarily blinded when there is too much light. Frogs for instance suffer from reduced visual capability and their recovery period ranges from a half hour to many hours. You could see how they would become easy pickings for any opportunistic predator. Sure, the loss of a few frogs may not present any considerable problems to humans as a whole, but perhaps for those of us without a cold, cold heart, we would feel sad. They didn’t do anything wrong, and yet our need for light has caused them suffering.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

Overall, it would be impossible to reduce the production of more light sources. What we can do however is to be less wasteful. Having motion sensors to turn lights on is a great way to prevent the waste of electricity and to also reduce light pollution. Initiatives like Earth Hour is another excellent idea. For just an hour, people with the benefit of seeing the Milky Way can enjoy a feast for the eyes. Lights should also be turned off whenever they are not in use. And, to protect our circadian rhythms, blackout curtains could be installed for better sleep and rest.

References
CHEPESIUK, R. 2009. Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117, A20-A27.

DRAKE, N. 2019. Our nights are getting brighter, and Earth is paying the price. National Geographic. Online.

LONGCORE, T. & RICH, C. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 191-198.

-Xelyn