Dangers of Coal Mining and Production

Peter Krebs

Date Presented : 11/26/12

PURPOSE: I wanted to inform people about the dangers of coal mining and production, especially, in China and India. Furthermore, inform people about the environmental impacts and the large numbers of people who are killed each year by bad government regulations.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. Should there be an international law about the regulation of coal mining? if not how would you suggest for it to be dealt with?
2. What are other ways for the world to move away from coal mining and make sure that other nations do the same?

NOTES:

• Our dependence on coal is a very dangerous and has many dangerous effects on the environment
• Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuels that is available to us
• can give off small amounts of radiation when burned
• it can lead to acid rain which kills environments
• coal dust can pollute the air and runoff from plants and mines are deadly to any people or animals around the runoff
• coal mining takes up huge amounts of land and displaces the animals and environment in the area
• China and india plan to create 818 new coal mines in the next couple of years and 1,199 coal plants are being planned
• There are 2300 coal fired power plants worldwide, which are being powered by over 700 coal mines
• there are two types of coal mines modern surface mining and underground mining
• in the past underground mining was the main way that coal was extracted from the earth but with today's technologies coal is able to be extracted from the top soil
• The problem with coal is that when it is burned it releases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere
• these gasses are then affecting the environment around us and leading to larger amounts of climate change
• this is heating up our atmosphere

• Coal mining is also very dangerous
• thousands of people die each year in coal mine accidents
• in just China over 2000 people died last year
• especially in nations like china and india where regulations are at an all time low
• even with the current news about the many different accidents in coal mines there are many that go unnoticed
• as you can tell in the video the coal mines are being given a lot of leeway in the government because many of the officials have money invested in these mines
• it is a serious problem in the world right now and should be dealt with immediately
• latest accident at the state-owned Xiangshi coal mine in southeastern Guizhou province highlights poor safety measures being adopted in coal mines in China, the world's biggest producer and user of coal

SOURCES:

"12 Environmental Effects of Coal Mining." - Environment 911. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://www.environment911.org/160.12_Environmental_Effects_of_Coal_Mining>.

Gerken, James. "Nearly 1,200 Coal-Fired Power Plants Proposed Globally, Report Finds." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/world-coal-fired-power-plants_n_2166699.html>.

Hance, Jeremy. "China and India Plan 818 New Coal Plants." Mongabay.com. N.p., 25 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1126-hance-coal-india-china.html>.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAOr18w5Wk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGJfiz-Syfs

Gas Tax

PURPOSE: The purpose of my news report was to bring up an issue that is not widely talked about in the US, but affects everyone in the country. I think it is interesting that the US is so hesitant to raise the gas tax, even though it holds the solution to so many of our problems. We talk so much about developing new types of energy, but by raising gas taxes and making it harder to access gas we would solve those same problems. The way I see it, it is the same as a carbon tax on corporations, the individual pays for what they pollute, and raising it would force people to be more conscious about their environmental ethic. 

NOTES - TALKING POINTS

• Only two countries—Kuwait and Saudi Arabia—charge lower gas taxes than the U.S. and both are net global oil suppliers, not consumers.
• The federal gas tax has remained unchanged at 18.4 cents for a gallon of gasoline (and 24.4 cents for diesel) for nearly two decades.

• Cannot cover highway and other transportation costs like it is supposed to 
• Failure to care for existing roads/bridges and the lost productivity with them are estimated to add $100 billion annually to the federal deficit.
• Opponents argue that the gas tax is detrimental to American competitiveness 
• AND that it Disproportionately effects lower income Americans?
• But proponents of elevated gas tax say that investing in infrastructure is vital to American economic growth
• and that under taxing gas encourages over dependency
• The US was once #1 in the world for its infrastructure, but has fallen to 15th 
• Seen as a way to avoid the “Fiscal Cliff”
• Gas tax spreads burden over hundreds of millions of people, who also benefit from it
• US GAS PRICES = WAY less than rest of world

• In the U.S., gas prices average $4.19 per gallon, according to Bloomberg. In contrast, gas prices are $5.75 per gallon in Canada, $6.75 per gallon in Australia, $8.84 per gallon in the United Kingdom, and $9.35 per gallon in Italy. - From MAY -> price changes proportionally in countries. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT

• Increase gasoline tax = less consumption 
• people have incentive to either drive less, or buy more fuel efficient cars 
• In Europe -> where gas taxes are significantly higher, clean diesel and fuel efficient cars have been sold for much longer than in the US

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

- Would raising the gas tax affect consumption? Or would people pay to keep their current lifestyles?

- What are some positives and negatives to an increased gas tax? Do the benefits of one outweigh the disadvantages of the other?

- Should the US raise its gas tax?  

"Are gas prices really that high?."FlowingData . N.p., 22 Mar. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://flowingdata.com/2011/03/22/are-gas-prices-really-that-high/>.

Gordon , Deborah . "Five myths about your gasoline taxes ." CNN. N.p., 7 Dec. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/opinion/tsay-gordon-gas-tax-myths/index.html>.

Kavoussi, Bonnie. "Gas Prices In U.S. Are Among Lowest In World, Report Finds."The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/united-states-low-gas-prices_n_1518169.html>.

West, Sarah E.. "Should Distributional Considerations Hold Up Higher Gasoline Taxes? ." Resources for the Future - RFF.org . N.p., 22 June 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/09-06-22-Should-Distributional-Considerations-Hold-Up-Higher-Gasoline-Taxes.aspx>.

Livia Chesley
November 30, 2012

The Environmental Impacts of Tourist Traffic on Mt. Everest



Purpose:
   To inform people of the effects of traffic on the slopes of Everest, a mountain sacred to Tibetans and in high regard to the rest of the world, as well as a part of nature.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are there other ways to keep Everest clean?

·        Bishop also pays Sherpas two to three dollars per 20 pounds of trash they bring back and seven dollars per oxygen bottle

·        The Nepalese government raised the fee for climbing Everest and now requires a $4,000 deposit for each expedition as well as limiting the amount of expeditions that can take place each year. But they have to be careful so as not to upset their economy

2. How might the circumstances of Everest change people’s priorities?
• High altitudes impair the human mind and bod
• In the dangerous situation of mountaineering, people are focused on their own safety rather than preserving the mountain
• The tourists will probably not revisit Everest and so see less of a need to preserve i
3. If this is the case, should we forbid humans to climb Everest in order to preserve it? Looking at your answer, what does this say about our perceptions of Everest’s “uses?”
4. Does our environmental ethic change when considering unique natural sites such as Everest? Should it?

Supplemental information (before discussion):

• The Khumbu region and Katmandu city are places nearby Everest where many tourists and climbers stay.
• Together they have room for 40,000 people, but these days up to 700,000 people have been cramming in, with 20,000-40,000 of them attempting to summit Everest and other Himalayan mountains

• Everest has been renamed as “the tallest landfill in the world” because covering the slopes is human waste, aluminum cans, food, climbing equipment, medical equipment, plastics, glass, batteries, clothing, fuel canisters, tents, paper, oxygen cans, and even dead bodies and bloody syringes, all totaling about 1,100 pounds of trash from every expedition.
• Much of this waste does not decompose
• The most trash is accumulated on the Southeast Ridge because it is the most common route up the mountain
• People have recently been throwing their trash into crevasses because the motion of the ice grinds up trash, but this does not get rid of the problem and the trash usually ends up deposited on the lower slopes of the mountain anyway

• It takes about a month to acclimatize, so expeditions generate more trash than you might expect
• Tourists also effect the communities of Nepal by hoarding the countries resources
• The environmental impacts and decreased welfare of locals outweighs the positive economical impacts of tourism in Nepal

• An important figure in the preservation of Everest is Brent Bishop
• He leads trips of about five people up and around the mountain, carrying back up to 5,200 pounds of waste each time.
• 17,526 pounds is the total amount of garbage returned to the bottom of Everest so far

• In addition to increased amounts of waste littering Mt. Everest, the traffic on the slopes causes more deaths because people have to wait for other climbers before reaching the summit.
• Waiting for long periods is risky because of the cold temperatures, high altitude, and depleting amounts of oxygen in climber’s tanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_5YkHpUiDc

http://voices.yahoo.com/environmental-problems-efforts-save-mount-everest-5004.html

Thanksgiving Turkeys

Danielle Slatkin

Date Presented:  11/26/12

Thanksgiving Turkeys

The purpose of my news report was to educate the class about the bird that they just ate on Thanksgiving.  For example, I showed the process turkeys go through to get to the slaughterhouse, as well as the effects that turkeys have on the environment and on people's health.  I displayed these facts, and showed an advertisement created by PETA, in order to let individuals in the class make an informed decision on whether or not he or she wants to continue supporting the Thanksgiving turkey industry. 

Discussion Questions:

1.     Is this an issue that Americans should care strongly about, and put as a priority?

2.     Would it be possible for Americans to break this tradition of eating turkeys? Could you give up eating turkey on thanksgiving?

3.     Is it a good tradition that the president pardons a turkey every thanksgiving?  Does this, or is this enough to promote animal rights?

Some of my Research:

·      Over 65 million turkeys are killed during the winter holiday season alone

·      The majority of these turkeys spend their entire lives confined inside massive sheds, and never set foot outside

·      In the 1960s, it took 220 days to raise a 35-pound turkey-->now, due to selective breeding and growth-promoting drugs, it only takes 132 days to raise a turkeyàfarm conditions are so harsh that the turkeys have to be pumped full of antibiotics just to stay alive

·   According to the US Dep. Of Agriculture, the single condition for the term “free-range” is that birds need to have access to the outdoorsàall other facets of a free-range turkey’s life can be indistinguishable from the living conditions of a conventionally raised bird-->turkeys, and in fact all birds, are excluded from coverage under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and from the Animal Welfare Act

·      Turkey skin is also contaminated with deadly pathogens and antibiotics that are passed on to the consumers

-    much of the 10 billion pounds of manure generated by 7,300 turkey farms in 33 states ends up in our drinking water, and is responsible for the release of immense amounts of methane and nitrous oxideàthe livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all transport combined

-     PETA used to support the turkey pardoning, but this year the PETA president Ingrid Newkird said “it makes light of the mass slaughter of some 46 million gentle, intelligent birds and portrays the United States’ president as being in some sort of business partnership with the turkey-killing Industry.  Turkeys do not need to be pardoned, they are not guilty of anything other than being born into a world of prejudice.  They are innocents who should be respected for who they are:  good mothers, smart birds, and interesting animals.”

Main Source:
"GREENRLogout." GaleNet. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DateDescend&docType=IAC&docLevel=&prodId=GRNR&tabID=T004&subjectParam=&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3A.

Other Sources (including video link-Peta.org):

"Compassion Over Killing > Harvest Compassion This Thanksgiving with an Animal-Friendly Feast!." Compassion Over Killing. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cok.net/feat/thanksgiving/>.

"Gentle Thanksgiving." Gentle Thanksgiving. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.gentlethanksgiving.org/about/why.htm>.

"Thanksgiving: Disgrace to Turkeys: PETA's Banned Ad | PETA.org." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization | PETA.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.peta.org/features/Thanksgiving-Grace.aspx>.

"White House Thanksgiving Tradition: Obama Pardons Turkey Named Cobbler - ABC News." ABCNews.com  - Breaking News, Latest News & Top Video News - ABC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/white-house-thanksgiving-tradition-obama-pardons-turkey-named/story?id=17767432#.UK6V17tehEE>.

Picture Link: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=795&bih=564&tbm=isch&tbnid=HM6Dy9v2mW7cnM:&imgrefurl=http://cadryskitchen.com/2010/11/18/my-wish-for-the-turkeys/&docid=3ZSUTOFuyjFjhM&imgurl=http://cadryskitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/turkeysfactoryfarm.jpg&w=500&h=333&ei=Tu-zUJ-4KuHjiAKOtIHIDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=320&vpy=258&dur=58&hovh=184&hovw=276&tx=167&ty=134&sig=110770707616431204612&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=225&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:102

The Rise in Cellulosic Ethanol

Macey Mathews

Presented - November  20

The Rise in Cellulosic Ethanol 

 

Purpose: 

The purpose of my presentation was to educate the class about a type of alternative fuel called cellulosic ethanol that converts wood chips and agricultural waste into fuel. Foreign dependency on oil is an ongoing issue for the US and lowering this dependence is a major priority. This fuel source can be produced within the United States and it uses products considered "waste" while also lowering the CO2 pollution. 

1. Discussion Questions: 
   

   1. Ultimately do you believe that Kior and other companies will be successful in mass-producing cellulosic ethanol on a national scale?

   2. Current estimates say that this renewable oil could only supply 60% of Americans’ fuel…  what are other ideas to reduce dependence on foreign oil? 

   3. Do you believe that cellulosic ethanol will be a viable source with out  depleting natural     recourses? 

2. 
   

   Evidence:

•    can affordably turn agricultural waste products into fuel.
• ·        Kior, a company based inTexas, claimes it has produced a crude oil made from wood chips and would be expected to refine it into gasoline and diesel later this month
• ·        Able to rearrange the molecule of the biomass into oil in a matter of moments
• ·       Takes the cellulose, which is an energy rich molecule found in plants, and convert it into fuel
• ·       PROCESS(for wood): Shred wood into small particles and is fed into a reactor mixing a powdered catalyst. It is then sent to the separator where the catalyst is separated from the renewable crude. The renewable crude and byproducts are then sent into the product recovery where they are cooled and separated and is condensed into a liquid and the gases are send to the cogeneration unit where they are burned and used as electricity. It is then refined into gasoline and diesel 
• ·       Kior deals with mostly wood chips specifically the yellow pine however it is also possible to use other agricultural debris such as switch grass and corn stalk which does not compete with our food supply.
• ·       Companies have predicted that it would reduce gas prices to around 2 dollars a gallon and would produce around 1.2 million jobs in the coming years
• ·       Zion has recently created its first commercial fuel production facility in Columbus Massachusetts earlier this year.
• ·       They are also currently compatible with cars on the road

   Links 

   http://www.kior.com/content/?s=11&t=Technology

   http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/turning-wood-chips-into-gasoline/

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoZraRIPeNI

   http://www.issues.org/27.2/forum.html      (found from gale group)

   Follow Up: 
   http://www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/5/1/21 (specific information on the composition and process of generating the fuel) 

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy-environment/alternative-fuels-long-delayed-promise-might-be-near-fruition.html?pagewanted=all 

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1SDAgLn-tk (extended version of the video above) 

Duncan Cummings News Report, 11/1/2012

The Effects of Climate Change on Hurricane Sandy

 

Purpose: Hurricane Sandy, is the super storm that was plaguing the east coast in October. The hurricane has brought storm surges, flooding and extreme winds to the New York and New Jersey areas. There are clear connections between the extreme storm conditions and the growing effects of climate change. The rising sea levels due to melting ice caps have worsened storm surges. Climate change is increasing global ocean temperatures, which increase flooding by bringing more rain. The once rare October hurricanes are now more common because of hotter temperatures. Overall, hurricane intensity has grown due to climate change, and it is yet to be determined whether or not they are increasing in numbers. The finding in this article has direct implications for future natural disasters; climate change is making them more common and possible worse.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does North America have such a high increase in the intensity of natural disasters?

2. Could climate change be increasing the abundance of natural disasters?

3. How could climate change effect natural disasters in California?

Evidence:

"With every degree C, the water holding of the atmosphere goes up 7%, and the moisture provides fuel for the tropical storm, increases its intensity, and magnifies the rainfall by double that amount compared with normal conditions."
http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1029-hance-climate-hurricane-sandy.html

“But the sea level rise has been even more pronounced of the U.S. east coast. A study from this summer found that sea levels in the region have been rising on average 2 to 3.8 millimeters a year during the last sixty years, cumulatively, that's around 5-9 inches.”
http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1029-hance-climate-hurricane-sandy.html

“Warmer weather in the north allows hurricanes to travel further than they usually would, while hotter seasons increase the chances of October hurricanes on the eastern seaboard, once a rarity.”
http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1029-hance-climate-hurricane-sandy.html

“In fact, a 2010 review paper in Nature Geoscience found that global warming will bump up the number of particularly intense hurricanes by 2-11 percent, hurricanes just like the "Frankenstorm" Sandy.”

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1029-hance-climate-hurricane-sandy.html

“Over the past half-century, temperatures and precipitation in the United States have gradually increased, more of the precipitation has fallen in heavy storms, sea level and sea surface temperatures have risen, and other aspects of climate have also changed.”

http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=392fa7e32b9168dd14bd532e53defc2b&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T012&docId=A225078457&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0

“When weather varies outside this range of tolerance, however, damages increase very disproportionately. As floodwaters rise, damages are minimal as long as the levees hold, but when levees are overtopped, damages can be catastrophic. If roofs are constructed to withstand 80 mile per hour (mph) winds, a storm bringing 70 mph winds might damage only a few shingles, but if winds rose to 100 mph, roofs might come off and entire structures be destroyed. Plants can withstand a dry spell with little loss of yield, but a prolonged drought will destroy the entire crop. The most alarming risks of damage from climate change arise from an increasing likelihood of such extreme weather events, not from a gradual change in average conditions.”

http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=392fa7e32b9168dd14bd532e53defc2b&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T012&docId=A225078457&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0

“Insured losses from disasters globally averaged $9 billion a year in the 1980s. By the 2000s, the average soared to $36 billion per year. The costliest weather disasters in the USA since 1980, as defined by insured losses, have all been hurricanes, led by Katrina in 2005 ($62 billion) and Ike in 2008 ($18 billion).”

http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=89ddd7165d02d7a155d3cfb81a5932ec&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T004&docId=CJ304985284&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0

References:

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1029-hance-climate-hurricane-sandy.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTFKnwN9Q3o

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/hurricane-sandy-becomes-stronger-and-larger-than-expected/2012/10/25/59172f10-1eb2-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_blog.html

http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=392fa7e32b9168dd14bd532e53defc2b&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T012&docId=A225078457&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0

http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=89ddd7165d02d7a155d3cfb81a5932ec&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T004&docId=CJ304985284&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0

Hazardous Waste By Sydney Block

Purpose: 

The purpose of this presentation was to inform the class about hazardous waste in the United States and and around the world. Hazardous waste disposal is an international issue that is important to be aware of and to know how to encourage safer ways to dispose these toxic materials.

Overview of Presentation:

-Hazardous wastes are byproducts of human activities
-This issue became prevalent in the 1970s when a number of high-profile human health and environmental pollution crises focused public attention on the problem
- United States industries, farms, mines, military facilities, cities, and small businesses generate roughly 200 million tons of hazardous wastes each year
-Each year, industrialized nations with strict environmental regulations export more than two million tons of hazardous waste for disposal in poorer developing nations with less stringent waste disposal oversight

Discussion Questions:

           Should there/can there be an international law limiting and regulating hazardous waste?

·      What steps do you think the US needs to take in order to decrease the amount of hazardous waste produced by American industries, farms, mines and military facilities?

·      How else can governments encourage clean and safe waste disposals?

Sources Used in Report:

"Hazardous wastes." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 4th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2011. Gale Science In Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

"Drums Containing Radioactive Waste." Alternative Energy. Ed. K. Lee Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, and Kathleen J. Edgar. 2nd ed. Detroit: U*X*L, 2012. Gale Science In Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

"Polluted swamp at the Inger Oil Superfund toxic waste site." Environmental Encyclopedia. Ed. Marci Bortman, Peter Brimblecombe, and Mary Ann Cunningham. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Science In Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

"Toxic foam caused by the accumulation of pollutants." Biotechnology: In Context. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2012. In Context Series. Gale Science In Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

Evaluating the Benefits of Organic versus Conventional Foods: Julia

Evaluating the Benefits of Organic versus Conventional Foods 

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to examine a controversial study on the benefits of organic food versus conventional foods.  There is a common perception that organic food is healthier because it is grown or produced without pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, or other additives.  A recent study by Stanford doctors and scientists challenges this idea that organic food is healthier than conventional. 

Discussion Questions:

1. What factors should be considered in evaluating the benefits of organic food versus nonorganic food?  Only nutritional value comparisons?  What about the environmental effects of conventional farming versus organic farming?  Or the health risks from long term exposure to pesticide residues?

2.  Can there be safe levels of exposure to pesticides or chemical additives, such as growth hormones in milk?

3.  Is a food “healthy” just because it is organic?  Organic gummy bears?  Organic chips?

4. Will this study lead to less consumption and therefore less production of organic food?

Research Facts:

§  A recent Stanford study concludes that nonorganic food is just as healthy and nutritious as organic food.  Specifically, it examines numerous existing studies and finds that the nutrient and vitamin values of conventional food are generally the same as organic food.  In other words, an organic strawberry has the same amount of vitamin C as a conventional strawberry.  See New York Times Article, http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=89ddd7165d02d7a155d3cfb81a5932ec&prodId=GRNR&userGroupName=san92165&tabID=T004&docId=A301499976&type=retrieve&contentSet=IAC-Documents&version=1.0

§  The study also concludes that conventional foods do not pose a higher health risk than organic foods, even though conventional foods are thirty per cent more likely to contain harmful additives, such as pesticide residues.  NBC Video Clip, http://www.nbc.com/news-sports/msnbc-video/2012/09/organic-food-no-more-nutritious/.  The study claims that such pesticide levels are not harmful because they are within the safe levels set by the government.  See Reuters Health Medical News Article, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=SCIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA301490750&userGroupName=san92165&jsid=dc45263043a62ca8b676cf027572ff70

§  These conclusions have generated significant controversy because they suggest that people should not pay more for organic foods because they are not healthier than conventional foods.  Critics of the Stanford study claim that it is flawed because: (1) it relies entirely on existing studies that have only examined the short term health effects of eating nonorganic foods (these studies simply analyze effects of exposure to pesticides, etc., over a period ranging from 2 days to 2 years; cancer can takes years to develop); (2) it ignores the harmful environmental effects of conventional farming, such as air and water pollution from pesticide use; and (3) it disregards concern for animal welfare of animals, such as chickens and cows, who are raised on conventional farms.   See New York Times Article (cited above).

“Food” for Thought

§  The Stanford study questions the perception that organic food is healthier than conventional food.  However, its definition of healthy is narrow and focuses mainly on comparing nutritional value between the two types of food.   It also doesn’t consider health effects from long-term pesticide exposure. 

§  In addition, from a broader perspective, “healthy” can be expanded to mean what is beneficial for the environment as well as for an individual’s health.  Ultimately, the health of all human beings is linked to the health of the planet.  In this sense, the study does not answer the question whether organic food is healthier than conventional food because it does not consider the environmental impacts of conventional farming.

Resources used during Presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDXT2SYNI4