Author: aiy5022

Introduction

Over the semester I have talked extensively about different specific problems that the world faces when it comes to food sustainability, such as deforestation, water usage, and antibiotics overuse. Because of this I thought I would take a step back and report on how many countries across the world compare against each other int terms of food sustainability.

The way that the Food Sustainability Index rates countries is through a “three pillar system”,  consisting of sustainable agriculture, nutritional challenges, and food loss/waste. The FSI consults with experts to properly weight the rating scales and takes in an extensive amount of data. The index also manages to account for many external variables that might affect the data in many countries.

So in a way, this blog will serve as an award ceremony of sorts, the intention being to offer a benchmark to other countries that might want to emulate the successes of a particular country.

Least Food Waste – France

Among the 34 countries surveyed in the Food Sustainability Index, France scores the highest in this category. Most notably, France is outstanding in its policy response to food loss and food waste — meaning that the French government is being proactive in their laws.

This proactivity led France to lose only 1.8% of its total food production to waste annually. France has three times less waste per person when compared to a country like Australia. Other European countries are close behind, such as Spain, Germany and Italy.

Most Sustainable Agriculture – Italy

Speaking of Italy, the country does excellently when it comes to preserving their environment. Specifically, Italy excels at preventing water scarcity, managing its water, and reducing the environmental impact of water on its agriculture. As the biggest consumer of food in the eurozone, it makes a lot of sense why Italy puts so much priority on innovating new techniques to reduce its water consumption.

Additionally, Italy receives a maximum score in the climate change category, because of its implementation of agricultural techniques for climate change adaptation. By adopting new, effective agriculture practices Italy hopes to secure its future in food. Other countries that performed well under this pillar were South Korea, France, and Colombia.

Most Nutritional – Japan

This award isn’t exactly too surprising as I hear on the internet a lot about how healthy people in Japan can be, and how long they can end up living. Their high performance in the life expectancy and life quality categories can be partially explained by genes but also the advanced food infrastructure that Japan has. For example, 100% of the population has access to an improved water source.

Japan has also traditionally been one of the least overweight countries in the world, with only 27.2% of adults being overweight. In comparison, three in four American males are overweight or obese, and three in five American females are overweight or obese. This can be explained by their dietary patterns, with most Japanese avoiding fast food restaurants consistently, and their low income inequality. Additionally, the Japanese school system integrates a compulsory nutrition education to help educate their young about how to eat healthy.

Important Trends

It’s especially important when aggregating so much data that has been plucked from across the world that we look at the trends that connect the countries together. Here are some of the more obvious correlations that popped up during the FSI’s analysis.

• Higher income countries generally have greater food sustainability. One outlier of this is the United Arab Emirates, which ranks first in income but ranks dead last in the food security index.
• Human development corresponds with greater food sustainability. Human development is a statistic composed of life expectancy, education, and per capita income. Germany and India follow these trends very closely.
• High population countries generally have lower food sustainability. This correlation makes quite a lot of sense – countries such as China and India have very low food sustainability ratings, likely due to their inability to feed over one billion people.
• Rapidly urbanizing countries generally find it harder to secure food, most likely because of the rapid growth being prioritized over food sustainability measures. Since the growth of the nation is prioritized, the future of food is put on the backburner.

 

Hope you enjoyed this little country awards ceremony!

Source

http://foodsustainability.eiu.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2016/09/FoodSustainabilityIndex2017GlobalExecutiveSummary.pdf

 

Introduction

Deforestation is one of the planet’s worst enemies. Since 1990, the world has lost 1,000 football fields worth of forest every hour, almost 30 million acres yearly. And while efforts have been put forth by many countries such as Brazil and Belize to curb the illegal and legal ways to cut down swaths of trees, the climate effects of deforestation is still being seen.

And we hear about it pretty often as well. My god, the number of time another teacher or student has said “let’s use electronics to save the trees” is mind-numbing. Every time someone tells me “stop killing the trees” I just want to… you know. But what most people don’t understand is that the largest cause of deforestation is not to make pulp for paper, but instead merely to clear room and convert land for agricultural uses. Let’s take a look at why agriculture takes up so much space and the potential consequences of our plantations.

Food and Farmland

According to a report by Greenpeace, nearly 80% of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest is for the sole reason of cattle ranching.  Brazil became the world’s largest export of beef by sacrificing the Amazon, with more than 38,600 square miles cleared out for farming from 1996-2009. In 2008 the number of cattle just in the Amazon was at 80 million, compared to the entire US herd at 96 million. Since cattle need lots of land to graze, the higher the demand for Brazilian beef, the more land that ranchers will end up clearing for their work.

Plants like soy traditionally grown in large scale plantations supply 1/4 of vegetable oils globally, while oil palm production which also requires the clearing of the forest, is expected to double by 2020.

Additionally, deforestation is a leading cause of soil erosion, which has caused 1/3 of the world’s arable land to become unusable, which in turn also drives more ranchers to go towards deforestation, which is hard to reverse and takes many years to restore.

As the world population grows and more food is needed to feed the next generations, we will see more pressure put on the forests by farmers and ranchers trying to survive.

Additionally, the increasing popularity of biofuels could be problematic for the remaining global forest land. Biofuels can be readily produced from plant oils such as oil palm, which are grown on cleared lands. Here’s a video on the possible effects of the surge of biofuels.

The Effects of Deforestation

Deforestation can cause a vicious cycle – because the act of deforestation drive climate change, which in turn hurts the food production of existing farmland and motivates farmers to cut down more trees in order to meet quotas.

The long term effects of deforestation could have a myriad of harmful impacts on the environment. Below, a graphic lists four major effects that occur when trees are cut down by the thousands. All five of the nodes are effects and causes of each other – that is, a loss of biodiversity causes food insecurity, which leads to more deforestation, which leads to greater CO2 emissions, and so on. For example, if current deforestation rates continue throughout the years, the Amazon’s soy production could fall by 25% by 2050. Not good when the world is depending on your food production.

Even though deforestation could be the key to solving and preventing the climate change crisis, forest renewal efforts seem to have fallen by the wayside. According to M. Sanjayan, executive vice president and senior scientist at Conservation International, the international community needs to prioritize forest conservation:  “If you look at the $400 billion that is being spent globally to deal with emissions, only 2% of that goes towards protecting and restoring forests,” he said. “The science is really clear that we are on a dangerous path and if the world temperature increased by more than 1.5 or 2% it would make life extraordinarily difficult for billions of people around the planet, particularly those who live along the coast. Forests give us the most efficient way we know for mitigating that.”

Conclusion

It’s pretty clear that the world should move towards protecting the forests in order to efficiently combat global warming. A big part of this is changing how we view agriculture and the awareness towards agricultural deforestation. It’s important for people to know that one of the biggest factors towards the changing climate is ourselves and how we decide to eat food as a consumer.

Sources

Beef consumption fuels rainforest destruction

https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/us-activists-stop-burger-king-importing-rainforest-beef-1984-1987

http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/19/un-forests-ag-report/

Palm Oil, Deforestation, and the Fast Food Industry: Would You Like a Side of Forests with That?

http://www.latimes.com/world/global-development/la-fg-global-earth-day-20170421-story.html

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/deforestation/deforestation_causes/forest_conversion/

 

I went to a deliberation the Friday before our deliberation on Saturday with a friend. It was also on the opioid crisis and I was hoping to get another perspective on the topic and also get some experience with how a deliberation is run before I did my own. It would also be useful to get some insight on my own

Their approaches were pretty similar to our own – their three topics were about big pharmaceutical companies, the lack of good healthcare, and the possibility of community awareness campaigns throughout America. One of the main differences between their topic and ours was our team’s focus on Centre County and its afflicted rural areas, while theirs took an general look at Americans as a whole.

Their approach one was definitely the most different from ours, as they reported that pharmaceuticals represented the bulk of American opiate addicts, while a couple of representatives at our deliberation said that a decrease in opiate prescriptions had already been implemented throughout America. Their deliberation then was directed down a path of figuring out how to limit the prescription of opiates. A interesting fact that came up was that doctors were worried about not prescribing opiates because patients would give them bad reviews and the hospital would get involved. That addition really changed the flow of the talk. One idea that came up during the discussion was the underprescription of opiates for surgeries, which was interesting.

Their second approach focused more on the healthcare side of the opioid crisis and did not include any mention of injection sites, so the overall conversation was much different. While our group mainly discussed the viability and usefulness of a safe injection center in Centre County, the deliberation I went to discussed the ways to help people access healthcare .

Their third approach was quite similar to ours in that they discussed the need for positive and effective education of the effects of opioids, especially when patients are prescribed them for a surgery. They also compared the anti-cigarette ads to what local communities and state governments could run for opioids.

Overall I thought that the discussion was pretty healthy – there were no heated words and no one took over the deliberation with constant opinions. Everyone was able to share their opinions for each approach. Although the talking was relatively  In general most of the people were in agreement about what we should do but weren’t sure how to approach the actual issue. We determined that the opioid crisis was a multifaceted problem that was caused by several systematic healthcare problems more than any problem in particular.

The conclusion was pretty good as well but because so many people answered each question we didn’t get through very many questions in the end.

The deliberation I attended was very helpful as it served as a precursor to me, and as a member of Team Summary and Outreach it gave me an idea of how to summarize a discussion in full. I’m glad that I went as it definitely prepared me for what was to come.

 

Introduction

While most everyone understands that water is essential to life and that it’s necessary for our society’s functions, most people don’t understand how much water is needed to make even basic foods.  For example, how many gallons of water does producing a pound of beef cost?

The answer is 1800 gallons of water! This can be a mind-boggling amount for people unfamiliar with the process required to create your Friday night steak. In order to raise a steer, grass, forage, and feed are required, components that all require copious amounts of water in order to operate properly. Consider that it takes 147 gallons of water to produce one pound of corn, and that a steer can often eat thousands of pounds of feed over a period of a few months.

Typical values for the volume of water required to produce common foodstuffs
Foodstuff	Quantity	Water consumption, litres
Chocolate	1 kg	17,196
Beef	1 kg	15,415
Sheep Meat	1 kg	10,412
Pork	1 kg	5,988
Butter	1 kg	5,553
Chicken meat	1 kg	4,325
Cheese	1 kg	3,178
Olives	1 kg	3,025
Rice	1 kg	2,497
Cotton	1 @ 250g	2,495
Pasta (dry)	1 kg	1,849
Bread	1 kg	1,608
Pizza	1 unit	1,239
Apple	1 kg	822
Banana	1 kg	790
Potatoes	1 kg	287
Milk	1 x 250ml glass	255
Cabbage	1 kg	237
Tomato	1 kg	214
Egg	1	196
Wine	1 x 250ml glass	109
Beer	1 x 250ml glass	74
Tea	1 x 250 ml cup	27
Source: IME

Here is a list of some common food items that you would often buy at a store or have for a meal, and their corresponding water consumption, in SI units. It’s a good way to show just how much we rely on water and how much we need for our societies to function.

The Problems and the 70%

Agriculture requires a lot of food, and water scarcity can destroy the food supply for millions of people. Agriculture currently uses up roughly 70% of our global water supply, according to TheWaterProject. Only 3% of the Earth’s water is freshwater, and this means that agriculture has to compete with other sectors of society for water.

Now, where does this leave the state of the world’s food production and how does this have to do with our water supply? Well currently the world’s farms produce enough food to theoretically feed everyone on the planet, yet millions of people still go hungry because they cannot afford to pay for it. Farmers produce a lot of food every year, yet 30%, or 1.3 billion tons is wasted every year, as the food has to pass through a long process to get to your dinner table. This also means that the water used to make the food is wasted as well.

California’s Case

A good example to look at for the effects of water scarcity and food scarcity is California, which is still suffering from the effects from a historic drought.

The drought and the subsequent increased cost of water have led to declines in agricultural production across the state. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, production of oranges were down 9 percent, avocados down 13 percent, garlic down 6 percent, romaine lettuce 15 percent, and olives 29 percent in 2014, compared with the previous three-year average. The drought cost California’s farmers $1.5 billion in 2014 alone due to the combination of revenue losses from lower production and additional pumping costs.

While this drought did not cause very significant effects worldwide, it still created major problems regarding the water supply of the Southwest United States, causing a lot of strain and forcing water rationing over the state of California. Failure to manage California’s depleting groundwater could also lower California’s ability to sustain agricultural production during the next drought.

The Future

So what does this hold for the future of our food? Well, according to our current statistical models the world will have a population of 9.7 billion by 2050, and food production will have to match that. The problem is not that food production can’t match the number of people in the world but how to get that food to them. The necessity of ramping up food production will also increase the competition over the remaining water sources.

As a result, there is an increased possibility that because of improper water management, more demand for water, and climatic factors, America and the rest of the world could be looking at a scenario where a large and severe drought could seriously damage our food supply. In order to prevent such an event from happening, organizations are working together to encourage smart water management and a sturdy food supply chain.

The main takeaway from this is to remind readers how much is needed for agriculture and the possible problems that dependence can cause down the road.

Credits:

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/drought-impact-study-california-agriculture-faces-greatest-water-loss-ever-seen

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste#data

https://thewaterproject.org/water-scarcity/water-scarcity-and-agriculture

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/food_security.shtml

Introduction

We all get prescribed antibiotics at one point or another at the doctor’s office, but often we don’t think about how much medicine our food receives.  Similarly to how doctors are sometimes accused of overprescribing to their patients, farmers very commonly feed tons upon tons of medicine to their livestock. It’s a looming problem in America, perhaps mostly because there’s not much of it that makes the news. Large doses of antibiotics are often given to animals to help them grow faster or help them survive suboptimal, unsanitary situations. Many other times one animal might be ill in a group and antibiotics will be administered to all of them for preventative purposes.

While this might make caring for the animals easier for the farmers, an overuse of antibiotics can lead to some serious issues concerning human antibiotics.

According to the World Health Organization, in some countries almost 80% of the consumption of medically important antibiotics comes from animals, much of which can be classified as subtherapeutic usage. This applies to countries such as the United States as well.

Before discussing the possible ramifications of antibiotic overuse, it’s critical to make the distinction between therapeutic and subtherapeutic antibiotic usage. Therapeutic usage is defined as treatment of animals when they are ill, called metaphylaxis, or preventative treatment, called prophylaxis. On the other hand, subtherapeutic usage of antibiotics is designed to improve growth rates and feed efficiency for farmers, and was banned by the European Union in 2006.

The Debate

Organizations such as the FDA, CDC, and WHO argue that the subtherapeutic usage of animals is detrimental for a few reasons:

• largest use of antimicrobials
• overuse of antibiotics, especially in a subtherapeutic manner, can increase bacterial resistance
• every important class of antibiotics is being used for livestock, which means they are all becoming less effective
• farmers use the antibiotics to compensate for terrible and crowded conditions

Those who support the use of antibiotics often argue about:

• the causal link between antibiotics in animals and humans is shaky
• the economic ramifications of banning subtherapeutic antibiotics can be high
• that subtherapeutic use prevents the need for therapeutic usage
• that proper and judicious use of antibiotics is risk free and keeps animals healthy

There are many examples of antibiotics usages increasing antibacterial resistance, although in many cases there are several variables to take into account and it’s quite difficult for researchers to get a handle on the scope and magnitude of the antibiotic problem. One study done in Pennsylvania found that Pennsylvania communities near the crop application of manure were 30% more likely to contract methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The study looked at health care records from 2005 to 2010 and looked at over 400,000 patients in Pennsylvania. Additionally it reported that 75% of antibiotics are not absorbed and ended up in manure, where it could cause problems if near human settlements.

In general much of the science supports the idea that bacterial resistance increases when there is so much usage of subtherapeutic antibiotics, and so the FDA has taken steps to regulate of the antibiotics used for humans from animal feed in a January 1, 2017 VFD (Veterinary Food Directive), which requires producers to obtain authorization from a veterinarian before being able to purchase medication. This has been generally positively viewed as a way of increasing biosecurity and limiting overuse of antibiotics.

 

Possible Future of Antibiotics

This is a solution proposed by Thomas Van Boeckel of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and it proposes a very holistic approach to solving the overuse of antibiotics. It includes taxing the use of antibiotics, restricting the consumption of meat, and restricting the usage of antibiotics, all working together to achieve a 60% reduction in antibiotic usage by 2030. It seems pretty improbable considering that it requires considerable enforcement, oversight, and legislation to be passed, but the estimations on the graph is useful to visualize the effects of these policies.

It’d be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter, as many people are unaware of just how much medicine we use on livestock.

Sources:

Landers, Timothy F. et al. “A Review of Antibiotic Use in Food Animals: Perspective, Policy, and Potential.” Public Health Reports 127.1 (2012): 4–22. Print.

Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals, National Research Council. “Read “The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks” at NAP.edu.” 7 Costs of Eliminating Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics. National Research Council, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Casey JA, Curriero FC, Cosgrove SE, Nachman KE, Schwartz BS. High-Density Livestock Operations, Crop Field Application of Manure, and Risk of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusInfection in Pennsylvania. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):1980–1990. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10408

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turning-livestock-superbug-factories

Welcome to Sites At Penn State. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!