The Footprint Shuffle

                In the United States we consume a tremendous amount of meat and greens. But could what we consume and the quantities in which we consume it be killing our planet? To assess this claim we will be looking at both the green house gas emissions from the agricultural industry and the meat industry. Roughly one third of all green house gas emissions come from the food industry sector. By using estimates from 2005, 2007, and 2008 one research paper was able to come up with a set of figures for the actual amount of green house gasses put into the atmosphere by the food industry. The figures are thus; around twelve megatons of carbon dioxide, around 86% of all the food industry green house gasses. Within this we have fertilizer production which stands at about five hundred and seventy five megatons of gas emissions, and refrigeration stands around four hundred and ninety megatons. In total the food industry puts around ninety eight hundred to sixteen thousand and nine hundred megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When comparing the meat industry to the agricultural industry we need to factor in the amount of pesticides, herbicides, water use, waste production, fossil fuel use, and deforestation. All these things contribute to green house gasses. When we look at where the green house gasses come from most studies neglect this area and mainly focus on the negative impact of the meat industry. These studies tell people to eat less meat and more vegetables forgetting that the fruit and veggie industry is just as guilty of pollution as the meat industry.

                Let’s look at the meat industry now that we have taken a surface deep look at the agricultural industry.  One aspect of the meat industry that tends to be over looked is dairy. A typical dairy farm in Idaho puts out around thirty three thousand and ninety two pounds of methane a day on study found. Now with three hundred and sixty five days a year, and thousands of dairy farms in the United States we can see how detrimental an impact on the environment the dairy industry truly is. Looking at the meat industry, Americans love their meat. The primary meats consumed in the United States are chicken, pork, and beef. Beef is the most popular and has the most negative effect on the environment, with around twenty eight times more land being used for the productions of red meat, then for pork or chicken. It also has eleven times more water usage, culminating in about five times more green house gas emissions. One shocking statistic is comparing the effect per calorie of beef vs. potatoes with beef requiring around one hundred and sixty times more land, and producing about eleven times more green house gasses. One suggestion of reducing green house gasses, would be to eat less meat, big industry agriculture, and especially dairy. Some eco-friendly alternatives would be to eat certified organic agriculture, and free range/grass feed live stock. By supplementing the typical diet with more environmentally friendly options the amount of green house gasses being introduced into the atmosphere from the food industry can be reduced to a more manageable level.

#Blog

via Instagram http://ift.tt/1DwCdeZ

50 Shades of Salt

                Humans are made of salt. It is as integral to our existence as water: without salt we would die. Throughout human civilization salt has played an important role in culture by way of; economics, religion, war, and consumption. Salt dates back since before recorded history. As for recorded history, we see salt as early as 2700 BC China in the Peng-Tazao-Kan-Mu. One of the earliest treatise on pharmacology which had a major section devoted to a discussion of more than 40 different kinds of salt. Also describing two main ways to extract salt and convert it into a usable form.

                Roman soldiers were known as "Salarium Argentum", since many Roman soldiers were paid with salt. Salt makes several appearances in the English language. For instance the words; "salary", "salad", "sausage", and "sauce" are all derived from the Latin "Sal" meaning "salt". In Greece salt was an important commodity and was used in the exchange of slaves and is where we get the meaning of "not worth his salt." Looking at religion we see salt making its appearance with it being referenced more than 30 times in the Bible, in such references as "salt of the earth" and "holy salt." Salt has been the symbol of purity, incorruptibility, and immunity lending itself to religious ideology and incorporation.

                Today salt is as much a part of our culture as it has always been. We use salt in most facets of our lives, most of the time without even realizing it. Most all foods contain salt in one shape or another, we use slat on our roads, in chemical processes, water purification, and many other areas. There are many ways in which we get our salt. The two main ways are drying sea water and mining. The drying process is the same technique as our ancestors, involving several pools or salt brine water in various states of salinity. The over arching goal of this process is to evaporate the water out leaving behind the salt and minerals. Then the salt is cleaned and set to the market. The other main way to get salt is by mining it from slat deposits. In the United States we have several large salt mines. One such mine is located under Lake Erie. The Cargill mine under Lake Erie has been in operation for over 50 years, and owned by Cargill since 1997. The mine is located 1,800 feet below Lake Erie and is approximately 4 square miles. In 2013 the Cargill mine was temporarily closed due to suspected convergence, the mine was later reopened after ODNR inspectors and mine staff determined a solution to the problem.

                Salt in our diet has undergone several changes over the last few years, with the FDA putting further recommended restrictions on salt intake. Most of the restrictions are aimed at lowering obesity and cardiovascular disease. This is because as sodium accumulates, the body retains water in order to dilute the extra sodium. This leads to an increase in the amount of fluid surrounding cells and the volume of blood in the bloodstream. As the volume of blood increases it makes the heart work harder, and puts more pressure on blood vessels. Over time this can lead to high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, and congestive heart failure. There are a number of health concerns related to too much sodium intake. While too much sodium is inherently bad, conversely too little sodium intake can be just as detrimental to human health. In recent studies scientists have been finding that the "Goldilocks Zone" for salt consumption is between 4 and 6 grams per day. Greatly more than the FDA's recommended 1.5 and 2.3 grams per day. As more studies are conducted the truth about how much salt we should consume will be identified. Today it would appear that the studies being conducted are pointing towards the same conclusion, that too little sodium can be just as detrimental to health as too much. Just some food for thought.

#Blog

via Instagram http://ift.tt/17E9nxG

Food labeling through time

              Over the course of the last 150 years our food labels have undergone drastic changes. If we go all the way back to the 13th century we will find the first steps toward food labeling. When the king of England made a proclamation of The Assize of Bread, which basically stated that bakers could no longer add ground peas and beans into their bread mix. Moving forward to modern times with President Lincolns Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Chemistry (the predecessor of the FDA). We see the first large scale attempt of government regulatory organizations. Jumping ahead again to 1971 we see the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) adding saccharin to its list of GRAS or (generally recognized as safe).  In 1977 we see the first and sadly not the last demonstration of the power that big industry hold over political policies. The Saccharin Study and Labeling Act is passed by Congress, this act stops the FDA from banning saccharin. This act does however require that any food that contains saccharin to be labeled stating that saccharin had been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. In 1990 the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act is passed. This is where the labels we see today first come into fruition. The NLEA requires foods to have nutrition labels, and that any health claim to be consistent with the terms set by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2010 nutrition labels only need to consider 4 main nutrients as directed by the Institute of Medicine. Calories, Saturated Fat, Trans-Fat, and Sodium are the 4 nutrients that are to be considered. Also in 2010 the USDA requires meat to show nutrition data starting in early 2012. As of 2014 the FDA has proposed changes to nutrition labels of food. Some of these changes are to focus more on calories, update the serving sizes and to change how sugar is displayed. Specifically to have the serving sizes more in line with actual consumption values, and to have added sugar shown apart from natural occurring sugar.

                The FDA has many guidelines for food labels, such as just how much space of the package is devoted to the nutrition labels. The location and placement label statements, and getting as nitty gritty as to what fonts can be used, the font size of greater the 1/16th of an inch based on the lowercase letter "o". Looking at the nutrition label itself we can see 6 main areas; the Serving Size, Calories, area 3 and 4 are lumped together into the Nutrient Section, the Footnote Section, and finely the Percent Daily Value area. The serving size area is the guideline for the calorie and nutrition sections. Depending on how many servings the consumer is going to consume determines what the other areas must be multiplied by in order to obtain an accurate measure. For instance, if the consumer is going to have 2 servings then the total calories of the food must be multiplied by 2. The Calorie section contains both total calories and the amount of Calories from Fat. This area requires simple division to determine the percentage of from fat that the calories are coming from. The Nutrient section is broken into two parts. The first part is the nutrients that should be limited, such as Total Fat which has subdivisions of Saturated Fat and Trans Fat. Also Cholesterol and Sodium are included in this section. The other part is the nutrients that we should get enough of. This is where the Vitamins and Fiber percentages are located. The Footnote section does not always need to be included, if for example the label were to be too small. The Footnote area contains the Daily Recommended Values for a 2000 calorie and 2500 calorie diet. The last section is the Percent daily Values that are contained in the package. These values are based on the Recommended Values from the Footnote section.

                 Food labels give a lot of information that is necessary for making healthy choices of what we consume. They have changed drastically over the last few years, and will continue to change as the battle between industrial food and public health continues to wage on. It will be interesting to see how nutrient labels will change over the next 10 years.

                 

#Blog

via Instagram http://ift.tt/1wJOHcj

Crude Oil "Rail or Pipeline"

                Over the last few years crude oil shipment within the United States has been sky rocketing. With rail and pipeline among the largest transportation avenues. The reason for this market uptick is to do with the innovation of hydraulic fracturing or better known as "fracking". With the discovery of the Bakken shale fields in North Dakota and Montana, and the Barnett fields in Texas just to name two. The United States is approaching the record high for crude oil extracted per day that we set back in the 1970's of 9.6 million barrels per day. In 2013 we were at 7.5 million barrels per day, a massive increase from the 2008 level of 5 million barrels per day. This upward trend is still going on. Currently the United States is in a reverse bidding trend with Saudi Arabia and Russia. Each country is trying to drive the price lower in an effort to force their competition out of business by out lasting them. As of 2013 Russia sat at the top of the list for crude oil production with 10.05 million barrels per day. Where Saudi Arabia was around the 9.8 million barrels per day mark, in 2014 how ever Saudi Arabia took a downward trend with production at 9.6 million barrels per day. A difference of around 200,000 barrels per day.

                With production on the rise, the question now becomes how to transport it? Currently many of the refineries are located along the coast, or in major city centers with the large industry areas. The drilling areas where the crude oil originates in many cases is on the other side of the country. So the only viable ways to get the oil to the refineries is either by truck, rail or pipeline. There are pros and cons to each method. Looking at trucking; While it is the most flexible amongst the three, it is also the most expensive for the least amount moved. Pipeline is the most widely used, it is the cheapest method for transporting, but is ridged. With the pipeline it is impossible to change which market you are sending the oil to, also pipelines are notoriously dangerous and involve a lot to maintain and construct. In areas like North Dakota the current pipelines lack the capacity to keep up with crude oil production. The last option for cross country shipping is rail. Rail has become a very popular choice in the last few years. With originating carloads in 2012 at 152,676, compared to the number of originating car loads in 2013 being 299,652. That's an increase of almost 96 percent. These numbers were looking at the first 9 months of the year, the expected year end totals for 2013 are projected to be around 400,000 originating carloads. While rail is a great choice for the oil companies, it may not be the best choice for us. There is an ongoing debate on just how safe crude oil shipped over rail is. While pipelines have more accidents and spills compared to rail, that does not necessarily mean that rail in inherently safer. by just looking at the numbers pipelines spilled almost 20 million gallons of oil from 2002 - 2012. while rail spilled just 95,000 gallons over the same time frame. While these numbers are vastly in favor of rail, we must take into account the volume of oil transported by each. During these years pipelines were transporting billions of gallons of crude oil, where rail was only at a fraction of that amount. As it stands rail is much more dangerous not only to the environment, but also to population centers. Much of the pipelines in the United States travel through unpopulated areas, through no man's lands as it were. However rail passes through almost every major city, including Athens Ohio. The rail line Norfolk Southern transports Bakken crude oil through Ohio enroot to the east coast refineries. One of the things that makes Bakken crude oil so desirable is how easy it is to refine. Unfortunately the reason that it is so easy to refine is also what makes it so volatile and explosive. Millions upon millions of gallons of this hazardous material passes through urban centers on a daily basis. Rail companies are attempting to ease the public mind by trying to either phase out or upgrade the existing tanker cars, and adding new cars that have more advanced safety systems. They are also pushing for stricter guidelines for the transportation of crude oil. But these policies only are put in place after an incident has happened. For example, when the Lac-Megantic rail disaster happened the a new guideline prohibiting leaving a train unattended was implemented. This guideline could have saved lives had it been implemented before the accident. But with the current regulations and secrecy on the part of the railway companies the next Lac-Megantic disaster could happen anywhere, even in rural Athens Ohio.