Two weeks ago someone mentioned the term “slow money” to me as if I knew what they were talking about. Not having a head for finance I just thought it was a term they teach you in business school that I really don’t care about. However, I was very wrong. Slow money is something very much environmentally related. The idea was created by a man named Woody Tasch. His long term goal is to get one million people to invest 1% of their income to food security, ecological diversity and nutritional health, to name a few. The speakers at this year’s Slow Money event reads like a who’s who list of characters from the movie Fast Food Nation. Chapters of Slow Money have been started around the country. I think this is an extraordinary idea. The government does not subsidize organic family farms and yet we have a food revolution afoot. How can we expect people to eat better and be more conscious about the food they buy if nobody is helping the farmers? I really like the idea of going beyond the CSA to help our local farmers. I am a little fuzzy though on how funds will be distributed… I will keep you updated.
|
||||||
|
With so much attention focused on the ecological and economic aspects of the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, it is worth reviewing some of the other potential human health impacts of this disaster. In addition to those discussed previously in this space, an excellent article about occupational hazards associated with the response to the spill can be found here. Specifically, is there reason for concern about exposure to particulate matter and toxic chemicals emanating from the controlled burns of oil on the Gulf’s surface and the oil recovery flares? While preliminary data seem to indicate that exposures have not reached levels of concern, at least according to OSHA, it is important to remember that those levels (Permissible Exposure Limits and other benchmarks) are set to protect workers in occupational settings, not the general public, and certainly not vulnerable sub-populations of the general public. Complicating matters, the cleanup operations surrounding this spill are so unique, that it is difficult, if not impossible to know whether existing exposure limits are appropriate. The occupational and public health outcomes in workers and Gulf residents will be a story to watch for years to come. How many times do you go into a restaurant without checking its sanitation record? I am definitely guilty of this and have to admit that I don’t even think about it. If a restaurant is dirty once I go in I will leave but I never check beforehand what their violation history is. The NY City Department of Health is about to make it easier for diners. Starting at the end of the month a new letter grading system is going to be implemented. Every restaurant will be required to post a sign in their window with their current letter grade given to them after an inspection by the DOH. The grades will range from A to C with an A being the highest score. You can read more about it here at the DOH website. Los Angeles has had this system in place for more than a decade and they have seen a significant reduction in food borne illnesses since its implementation. There is an element of shaming built into this system. The hope is that no restaurant owner will want a big C in their window so they will strive to keep the restaurant clean and follow the DOH rules more carefully. What do you think- will this help NYC restaurants maintain a healthy establishment? Would you eat at a restaurant with a C grade? Posting about the World Cup a few days ago has left me thinking about the many ways in which sports, particularly professional sporting events, can impact the environment or public health. Leaving aside the many health issues associated with performance-enhancing drugs, and the health impacts of evolving protective equipment (football helmets and concussions, for example), there are many obvious ways in which sports and the environment intersect - Travel - Thousands of people getting to and from the game; players and teams jetting across the country (and the globe); it adds up, and as was demonstrated by the World Cup study, is probably the single largest impact sports has on the environment Energy - Lights to light the stadiums; power to heat the arenas, and on and on. Putting lots of people in a single space actually amounts to a fairly efficient use of energy, per person, but multiplying these events many, many times over the course of a 162 game baseball season, 16 game football season, and 81 game NFL and NHL seasons is certainly a massive amount of energy. Water - Golf courses use massive amounts of water (not to mention pesticides) to remain green and playable. Many implement smart use strategies to limit their water consumption, but still remain large municipal water drains. Artificial playing surfaces – Again, leaving aside the benefits (or detriments) to sports injuries, the debate remains open as to the health impacts of repeated exposure to the rubbers and plastics in modern artificial playing surfaces. This is one that fascinates me and I hope to see more research in this area. Clearly, the occasional softball game is not going to pose a health threat to anyone, but what about young children in sports leagues, playing everyday, on a synthetic field? What about sustaining cuts and abrasions and exposure to the plastic compounds via those routes? There are surely many, many more intersections between sports and the environments, after all this is without even considering auto racing… Nonetheless, I would personally not want to consider eliminating sports from my life because of the above. Instead, consider the things we can do to lessen the environmental footprint of attending sporting events and participating in sports. Carpool to the game (or use mass transit); recycle your souvenir cup; encourage your home course to adopt greener watering strategies and integrated pest management principles; support your local field and park system, and use appropriate clothing and protection to avoid potential hazards associated with rubber and plastic playing fields. Perhaps you have seen this story about Chinese iPhone workers who have been committing suicide. As an environmental health specialist the first thing that came to my mind was that these workers were being exposed to chemicals that was altering their brain chemistry. I assumed that these chemicals were causing the workers to be depressed and suicidal. That’s what I was expecting to read in the papers. However, that was not the case. Apparently, the living conditions and the wages are what’s driving these workers to take their own lives- (these factors fall more under the heading of occupational health). I don’t think my assumption is so far fetched. Take a gander at this article. What you are exposed to at work most certainly has an effect on your body. I wonder if a longitudinal study will be conducted at the Chinese plant to see if more workers become depressed and suicidal over time. What are your thoughts- do you think it is an exposure or is just the monotonous and confining lifestyle that these people lead or a little bit of both? Like much of the world I have been glued to and enthralled by the spectacle unfolding in South Africa that is the 2010 World Cup. Like all of the world however, I will also be feeling the effects that the Cup has imposed on the planet. According to a study conducted by the South African government and the Norwegian Embassy, this year’s event will result in the emission of over 2.7M tons of carbon into the atmosphere, or 6-times the emissions associated with the previous World Cup, held in Germany. The vast majority of those emissions, according to the study, are associated with travel. Owing to its global location and large size, airline transportation both to and from South Africa from abroad, and within the country between the 10 cities and venues hosting the games, will make up the majority of the emissions. When all is said and done, the rest will have come from other sources including the construction and powering of the stadiums, as well as energy supply for all of the various accommodations for the hundreds of thousands of visitors attending the event. The message should be loud and clear for Brazil, host of 2014’s World Cup (and 2016 Summer Olympics!): transportation infrastructure is critical. It is not too early to start making decisions that will leave a smaller footprint on the home of the Amazon rain forest and on the planet at large. I love sports. I am absolutely crazy about sports. However, I feel that the hosts of mega-events like the World Cup and Olympics must be accountable for their massive global and local environmental health impacts. While South Africa, FIFA, and the UN have pledged to make the 2010 World Cup carbon-neutral via offsets and other post-hoc measures, it is important that global sporting events serve as examples of responsibility and sustainability through better planning. I was listening to the BBC World News service this morning, because news always sounds better with a British accent, and they had a cute little piece about how men are switching from bars of soap to body wash. They said that the problem with this is that body wash comes in a plastic container and soap comes in paper and cardboard. So, while men are smelling better it is actually damaging the environment. I thought those bottles were recyclable so I realized I am very unclear as to what type of plastic gets recycled and what does not. I know that each plastic item has a symbol indicating how to dispose of it. But I have to be honest, after getting a Masters degree in Environmental Policy I still don’t know what’s what. So I figured if I am confused there must be others out there too. So here is a nifty little guide for those of you out there who scratch their head standing in front of the recycle bin. It didn’t take long for the oil spill to become an occupational health issue, it just happened it a way that I am not sure many would have expected. The FEMA trailers that were considered unsafe for emergency housing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have resurfaced – as housing for oil spill cleanup workers. At least this time they are not being provided directly by the government, however I strongly agree with calls for the Obama administration to step in to help get a better understanding of how and why they are being used again, in spite of known dangers. The number of “known human carcinogens” – the National Toxicology Program’s strongest designation of a chemical’s cancer hazard – is not high, especially compared to those chemicals about which we are less sure, but formaldehyde is on the list. This weekend I overheard two people bemoaning the new tax as they were buying their cigarettes. The New York State Legislature passed a new measure increasing the already very high cigarette tax. Smokers in New York City will be hardest hit because the city imposes their own taxes on cigarettes as well. The people in line in front of me shelled out $11 for one pack and it is very hard for me to feel bad for these people. Cigarettes are a luxury not an essential- a luxury that will eventually kill you. The state claims that they imposed the tax to close a budget gap, but I think this is another way to push people to a more healthy lifestyle- price them out of an unhealthy one. (Although this article states the exact opposite). Although, if you make vices too expensive then the healthier options need to be made significantly cheaper. This tax combined with the sugary drink tax, ban on trans-fats and the potential ban on salt are all in an effort to make for a healthier population. While I do think preventive care is the best way to a healthier lifestyle I do take issue with governmental interference on what I eat. A tax on cigarettes is a good idea because it is undisputed that they can kill you. Sugar and salt, however, are perfectly acceptable in moderation and if I want to drink a Coca-Cola once a month I shouldn’t have to pay through the nose for it. The idea of taxing food and drink because of health reasons has roots in good intentions but veers toward the invasive. In my opinion, the tax on cigarettes is great no matter what the intention- because the less people smoke the less secondary smoke in my lungs. In a tough defeat for health policy today, a penny-per-ounce tax proposal on sugary beverages has been abandoned by the New York state legislature. The NY Times claims that the biggest puncher in this fight has been the anti-tax lobby, and from an anecdotal standpoint, I can agree. Over the past several months, on an almost hourly basis on NY area AM radio, commercials could be heard portraying the proposed tax as a paternalistic money grab; I heard at least 2 this morning as I was getting dressed. Perhaps you’ve heard the one with 2 people on a supermarket checkout line chatting about how the tax would endanger their jobs, and proclaiming the populist virtues of various state senators who opposed the tax. The spending numbers for both the anti- and pro-tax lobbies are still coming in, but I can scarcely recall hearing a single ad from the other side. Where, for example, was the ad touting studies that have shown that for every 10% increase in price, a 7.8% decrease in consumption results? A small tax on soda and other sugary drinks could have gone a long way toward re-shaping the eating and drinking habits of millions of people in a healthy way, and represented a stand against the obesity epidemic in this country. It’s a shame that scare tactics and hyperbole won the day this time. |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2010 EnviroMentalog - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
