The burgeoning global demand for quinoa may be negatively impacting the people who grow it, reports columnist Joanna Blythman for The Guardian.
Until recently, the ancient seed was primarily eaten by the rural poor of Bolivia and Peru. Now the superfood indigenous to the Andes mountain range of South America is showing up in restaurants and grocery stories across the U.S. and in recipes all over the web. It is commonly recommended as a compliment to fish or lamb, or to bolster the heartiness of a fresh salad or pan-seared greens.
Indian Country Today Media Network’s food columnist Dale Carson, Abenaki, has likewise written about the healthy pasta substitute—rich in iron, protein, fiber, potassium, zinc and essential amino acids.
“[T]he Inca called quinoa chisa mama, ‘mother of all grain…,’” she writes, offering recipe suggestions for quinoa and beans, as well as a quinoa salad with avocado.
But this sudden championing of quinoa has its drawbacks. The price is soaring, and the Peruvians and Bolivians who have subsisted on it for centuries can no longer afford it.
The New York Times reported in 2011 that increased demand for quinoa had driven up the price three-fold in the past five years. Meanwhile, Bolivia’s consumption fell by 34 percent over the same period.
Costs have shot so high that now in Bolivia and Peru, “imported junk food is cheaper,” writes Blythman. “In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken.” And even more devastating, climbing quinoa prices have been blamed for a rise in malnutrition among children in quinoa-growing regions.
There’s no denying the seed is nutritious and widely touted. The United Nations even declared 2013 the Year of Quinoa, and Bolivia’s President Evo Morales attended the U.N. ceremony on February 20.
But given its ability to cripple food security among South America’s poor, enthusiasm for the seed “looks increasingly misplaced,” Blythman writes.
On the flipside, capitalism buffs like Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail have contended the economic boost from quinoa exports is reviving the impoverished communities of Bolivia and Peru.
And Edouard Rollet, co-founder and president of Alter Eco—a company that has spearheaded the fair trade and organic quinoa markets—proposes another perspective. The issue at hand, he says, is not whether or not to develop the quinoa market—it is how it is done:
“Giving the poorest of the poor in Latin America—farmers that grow quinoa—access to income or ‘protecting’ this region from globalization, is a false choice,” he said in a recent conference call, reported Mother Nature Network’s Sami Grover. “It’s up to everyone involved, especially companies, to determine if they will operate in a way that fairly benefits those at quinoa’s origin—or if they will operate business as usual.”
The Obama administration’s decision last week to delay a mandate for large employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine is both meaningless and significant.
It’s meaningless because it impacts such a small number of employers. Nearly all employers with more than 50 employees already provide health insurance. And those that do not, are unlikely to change course because of the penalty (even at $2,000 per full-time employee that costs far less than insurance).
But it’s significant because it highlights The Great American Health Care Mistake. This country should have never forged health care to work. It was an accident, a way to avoid wage controls during World War II. No other country in the world has such a crazy system. And it makes no sense to let our employers make decisions about our health care. All the basic stuff: What kind of coverage we buy, what should be covered, or even our provider networks and, therefore our doctors.
Mark Trahant
This mistake let Americans “pretend” that health insurance did not have a cost. It was a quiet part of our compensation, but because it’s not measured by the employee (although that will change soon), it wasn’t something we were willing to spend money on ourselves.
But employer-sponsored insurance is declining. It’s a trend that began before federal health care reform. The percentage of Americans who receive health insurance through employers dropped from 69.7 percent in 2000 to just 59.5 percent in 2011, according to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
And even when company insurance is offered, more employees are saying, “no thanks.” In 2000, 81.8 percent of employees who were offered coverage enrolled. A decade later, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study reported, only 76.3 percent did.
The reason for the decline in both employer and employee participation is simple: Insurance costs are out-of-sight. The study said the premium for employee-only coverage doubled from 2000 to 2011, increasing from $2,490 to $5,081. Family premiums went up by 125 percent, from $6,415 to copy4,447, during the same time period.
Across the country, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study did not find a single state where employee-sponsored insurance actually increased, and 22 states saw decreases of 10 percent or more.
And Indian country? Only about four-in-ten workers and their families have employer-sponsored health care. Remember that many tribes and tribal enterprises are large employers that offer competitive benefit packages.
So what does all of this mean? Sure, the U.S. made a huge mistake linking health care insurance and work. Ideally we would have fixed that with health care reform, but that was politically impossible. So we came up with a sort of dual track, encouraging employer sponsored plans (including the large employer penalty that will now begin in 2015) and giving consumers a choice through state exchanges.
It is those exchanges that should be the focus now. In just a few weeks, people can sign up for insurance through an exchange if it’s not offered by an employer or if a policy costs too much. Starting next year there will be good health insurance coverage available with many subsidies for low and moderate income families. (Considering the demographics of Indian country, buying health insurance through an exchange will likely be either free or a really good deal. More on that later.)
Critics say that the Obama administration’s delay of the employer mandate shows that ObamaCare is unraveling. I think the opposite is true. It’s far more significant that both state and the federal exchanges seem to be moving forward and that individuals can sign up beginning in October with insurance options starting in 2014.
It’s true that the Affordable Care Act doesn’t fix The Great American Health Care Mistake. But it least it opens an alternative route.
Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He lives in Fort Hall, Idaho, and is a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Join the discussion about austerity. Comment on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/IndianCountryAusterity.
(Courtesy photo) Fallon Blackbull will join 150 other young people from across the country in Washington, D.C. as the group will urge lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue funding Type 1 diabetes research.
Alysa Landry, Navajo Times
Thirteen-year-old Fallon Blackbull has a busy schedule.
The incoming freshman at Rebohoth Christian School splits her time among varsity track, soccer and 4-H activities, including competitive archery and showing lambs in the county fair.
But Blackbull’s daily routine also includes waking up at 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. to check her blood sugar.
Blackbull, of Hosta Butte, N.M., was 10 years old when she learned she had Type 1 diabetes and that she’d be pricking her finger a dozen times a day for the rest of her life.
“I hate living with diabetes,” she said during a phone interview. “It’s a lot of work, a lot of extra things put into my day.”
Blackbull on Monday will join 150 other young people from across the country in Washington, D.C., where they will urge lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue funding Type 1 diabetes research. It’s part of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation’s Children’s Congress, an event that happens every other year and allows children and teens with Type 1 diabetes to interface directly with senators and representatives.
This year’s Children’s Congress also includes young delegates from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, said Cindy Adams, executive director of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
“We’re asking Congress for support so we can find a cure,” Adams said. “Our goal is to cure, treat and prevent Type 1 diabetes.”
Type 1 diabetes, previously known as juvenile diabetes, usually is diagnosed in children and young adults. Only 5 percent of people with diabetes have this form, which occurs when the body does not produce insulin, or the hormone needed to convert sugar into energy.
I’ve lingered at the fringes of the debate over genetically modified foods since the ’90s, hoping that some solid fact would filter out and show me clearly who was in the right. But that hasn’t happened. Every shred of information, it seems, is contested, and all this turbulence keeps the water muddy.
Now the debate is coming to a head again. Britain is reconsidering its restrictive position. Here in the U.S., bills to require the labeling of GM foods were introduced to the legislatures in 28 states this year. Now that I’m writing on food for Grist, I can’t keep waiting on the sidelines for someone else to clear this up. I’m going to have to figure it out for myself.
A project like this requires humility. Many people — including, I’m sure, many of you — may have greater expertise in this area than I do. If so, let me know where you think I should be pointing the searchlight. Or, if you’re like me, and just want to get reliable information from someone who’s not bent on convincing you one way or the other, well, come along for the ride.
My goal here is to get past the rhetoric, fully understand the science, and take the high ground in this debate — in the same way that greens have taken the high ground in talking about climate. It’s hard to make the case that we should trust science and act to stem global warming, while at the same time we are scoffing at the statements [PDF] of *snort* scientists on genetic modification.
Now that doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking, and simply accept everything that the voice of authority lays in front of us. I’m going to look at the science critically, and take into account the efforts of agricultural corporations to cant the evidence. When Mark Lynas made his speech saying that he’d changed his mind about genetic engineering, I was unconvinced, because he didn’t dig into the evidence (he provides a little more of this, though not much, in his book). Lynas did, however, make one important point: There are parallels between opposition to GM crops and other embarrassingly unscientific conspiracy theories. If there are grounds to oppose genetic engineering, they will have to be carefully considered grounds, supported by science.
Of course people who are concerned about genetic engineering don’t have a monopoly on error and overstatement. As the journal Nature put it in a special issue in on transgenic crops:
People are positively swimming in information about GM technologies. Much of it is wrong — on both sides of the debate. But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude. (With GM crops, a good gauge of a statement’s fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered.)
Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of pieces, attempting to highlight legitimate concerns and identify the arguments that should be taken out back and … retired. In the courtroom, a judge will often work with both sides to determine a set of facts that all can agree upon, before moving on to argue about how the law should apply to those facts. I’d like to do something similar here: sort out established facts, and gain a sense for what the bulk of the science indicates.
I’m going to start with the most politicized issue: Is there any evidence that genetically modified food is directly harmful to people who eat it? There’s a one-word answer to this: no.
If you aren’t prepared to take my word for it (especially that particular word), things get a bit more complicated. The most persuasive evidence is that millions of people have been eating genetically modified foods for the past 20 years without any obvious ill effects. If anyone exhibited acute symptoms after eating GM food, we would have seen it.
At the same time, the absence of evidence of harm does not prove safety. If the effects were subtle and chronic, and showed up in only a small subset of the population, it’s possible that we could have missed something. And we don’t know what to look for.
That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops.
“People need to understand how hard it is to use the scientific method to address the issue of, ‘Is genetic engineering safe?’” she said.
The problem: It’s not a yes or no question.
“It does not appear,” Mellon said, “that there’s any risk that applies across the board to all genetically engineered food and to all people. Each plant is different, each gene insertion is different, each person’s response is different.”
In other words, every GM food could be wonderfully healthy until one particular gene insertion causes things to go awry in just such a way that it messes with the immune system of one particular person. How do you deal with this?
“You need to make a list of all the things that might be potential problems and analyze each of these risks in a wide variety of genetically engineered products,” Mellon said.
Dozens of scientific advisory panels have done this sort of brainstorming. The World Health Organization [PDF], for example, reached the fairly common conclusion that the problems in genetically engineered foods are fundamentally the same as the dangers that arise naturally in plant breeding. Each relies on mutations randomly mixing up the genome. Each sometimes provides unexpected outcomes — try to make corn disease-resistant, end up with too many toxins in the kernels. In both GM and conventional breeding, scientists rely on screening to weed out the bad cobs.
However, researchers generally acknowledge that there’s something a little different about genetic engineering. The United Kingdom’s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review [PDF], led by David King, puts it this way: “By virtue of the different processes involved, there will be some sources of uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge that are more salient with respect to GM food production techniques.”
If you have no idea what that means, that’s because it’s incredibly vague. Sure, King is saying, there’s something unusual about transferring a firefly gene into a tomato — that kind of thing doesn’t happen very often in nature. (Although it does happen, amazingly– scientists have found examples of genes moving between different species.) But we don’t know what that difference implies. The report goes on to say that the science so far suggests that those implications have amounted to nothing so far. All the same, this unique technique does create “uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge.”
The quest for greater certainty on genetic engineering leaves you chasing shadows: When you’re dealing with gaps in knowledge, rather than hard data, it’s hard to tell what’s an outlandish hypothetical, and what’s the legitimate danger. Anything, of course, is possible, but we shouldn’t be paralyzed by unknown risks, or we’ll end up huddled in our basements wearing tinfoil hats. Exhibit A:
There’s no way to completely eliminate risk. The real question is, have we thought through the realistic potential for problems, and put regulatory safety nets out to protect ourselves?
Trying to answer that opens another can of worms. Critics like Mellon say that, right now, the producers of GM crops aren’t required to do any testing at all. GM boosters say that regulations are so onerous they stifle innovation. Clearly, someone is wrong here. I’ll take that up in my next post.
Please don’t take this as an endorsement. But when it comes to avoiding cancer while you gulp down a sugar-blasting brand-name cola, Coke is it.
Pepsi has been lagging behind its main competitor in removing carcinogenic meth from its flagship cola product. Well, 4-methylimidazole, to be precise.
The chemical can form in trace amounts when caramel coloring used in cola is cooked. It has been found to cause cancer in rats.
Everybody who drinks corporate soda has been drinking the stuff for years. That was supposed to come to an end after California began requiring cancer warnings on products containing elevated levels of 4-methylimidazole. The new regulations prompted Coke and Pepsi to announce early last year that they would take steps to remove the chemical from their products nationwide.
But the Center for Environmental Health tested colas and found that while Californians are drinking safer sodas than they were before, some of the colas sold outside of California still contain high levels of the substance. From the nonprofit’s website:
If you live in California, Coke and Pepsi products are made without 4-MEI, a chemical known to cause cancer. But in testing of cola products from ten states, CEH found high levels of 4-MEI in ALL Pepsi cola products, while 9 out of ten Coke products were found without 4-MEI problems.
Pepsi said its caramel coloring suppliers are changing their manufacturing process to cut the amount of 4-Mel in its caramel. That process is complete in California and will be finished in February 2014 in the rest of the country. Pepsi said it will also be taken out globally, but did not indicate a timeline.
You know, Pepsi and Coke, you could also just stop using caramel food coloring in your colas. But, then, clear cola would just be caffeinated sugar water. And that would be much harder to market as a sexy elixir.
Native Americans in the northern great plains have the highest cancer rates in the United States, particularly lung cancer. It’s a problem that the United States government has woefully ignored, much the horror of the men and women who must carry the painful, life-threatening burden.
The cancer rates started increasing drastically a few decades after uranium mining began on their territory.
According to a report by Earthworks, “Mining not only exposes uranium to the atmosphere, where it becomes reactive, but releases other radioactive elements such as thorium and radium and toxic heavy metals including arsenic, selenium, mercury and cadmium. Exposure to these radioactive elements can cause lung cancer, skin cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, kidney damage and birth defects.”
Today, in the northern great plains states of Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, the memory of that uranium mining exists in the form of 2,885 abandoned open pit uranium mines. All of the abandoned mines can be found on land that is supposed to be for the absolute use of the Great Sioux Nation under the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty with the United States.
The Area Agreed Upon in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (photo republicoflakotah.com)
There are also 1,200 abandoned uranium mines in the Navajo Nation, where cancer rates are also significantly disproportionate. In fact, it is estimated that 60 to 80 percent of all uranium in the United States is located on tribal land, and three fourths of uranium mining worldwide is on Indigenous land.
Defenders of the Black Hills, a group whose mission is to preserve, protect, restore, and respect the area of the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties, is calling the health situation in their own territory America’s Chernobyl.
It’s not far from the truth. A nuclear physics professor from the University of Michigan, Dr. K. Kearfott, Ph. D., who studied the situation in northwestern South Dakota as well as the situation in Japan has said,
“The radiation levels in parts I visited with my students were higher than those in the evacuated zones around the Fukushima nuclear disaster…”
The contamination from the mines escapes into the air. It poisons grain that is fed to cattle that provide milk and beef for the rest of the nation. The abandoned uranium mines of the Cave Hills in northwestern South Dakota empty into the Grand River which flows through the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Three villages are located on the Grand River and their residents have used the water for drinking and other domestic purposes for generations. The water runoff from the Slim Buttes abandoned uranium mines empty into the Morreau River which flows through the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. Both of these rivers empty into the Missouri River which empties into the Mississippi.
Defending their lands, their food, air and water, defending their health and right to thrive as a people, the Defenders of the Black Hills have written legislation, The Uranium Exploration and Mining Accountability Act, calling for study and remediation. This legislation proposes to place a moratorium on any processing or approval of new licenses for uranium exploration or mining operations until all abandoned mines in the country have been cleaned up.
In the last years, uranium mining interests in the United States for use at nuclear power plants has been growing. Being sold as a safer, cleaner and renewable energy, nuclear energy is on the table for America’s desire for energy independence.
However, as it has been witnessed by the Native communities suffering from the health impacts of these mines, who have also lost access to sacred sites, hunting and fishing territory, and land to grow crops, nuclear energy is just another extractive industry with serious adverse health and environmental effects.
The proposed legislation can be found at the website of Defenders of the Black Hills, along with a letter to representative Raul Grijalva from Arizona, urging him to sponsor the legislation. The uranium mines within the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty territory were never consented to by the Native American communities who now have to suffer the effects of the poisons these mines emit.
Children need access to healthy food all year long, because good nutrition provides the sound foundation they need to learn, grow and thrive. As USDA’s Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, it pleases me to say that during the regular school year, America’s schoolchildren can depend on the science-based nutrition provided by National School Lunch Program meals and the healthy choices now available at school. But when school is out during the summer months, it’s another story. Many kids don’t have access to even one nutritious meal a day.
USDA’s summer meals programs work to reach those children by providing free, nutritious meals at sites throughout the nation. Unfortunately, millions of eligible low-income children are still missing out. That’s pretty clear when you stop to consider that although about 21 million children nationwide receive free and reduced-priced meals through the National School Lunch Program during the regular school year, only about 3.5 million kids are reached through our summer meals programs.
Job one is to make sure that eligible children get information about the program. Summer feeding sites are located in many communities across the country, especially in low-income areas. USDA needs your help to get the word out and connect eligible kids with summer meals. Schools, community groups, and religious organizations can help with this effort. To find a summer meal site serving children in your community, call 1-866-3-Hungry or 1-877-8-Hambre or visit the National Hunger Clearinghouse resource directory.
If you or your organization is interested in helping us get the word out about summer meals, please visit the Food and Nutrition Service Summer Food website, www.summerfood.usda.gov, for more information and resources. The SFSP toolkit, available in both English and Spanish, includes templates, customizable flyers, door hangers, letters to parents, activity sheets for children, and attendance certificates. Promising practices and tips for success are also available on the website.
You can help other ways, too. While providing children with nutritious meals is our top priority, the key to success is keeping kids coming back to the sites throughout the summer. Offering fun, age-appropriate physical activity at summer meal sites is a proven way to ensure attendance and encourage healthy habits. And that takes volunteers – LOTS of them – especially in June, July, and August. Volunteers can help with basics, like transporting food, setting up or cleaning up a site. Volunteers can also plan and lead educational or recreational activities with the children. Go to www.serve.gov/endhunger to find an opportunity to volunteer in your community or to post a volunteer opportunity if you operate a summer meal program.
Have you seen these photos by Peter Menzel and Faith D’Alusio? They show what a family eats for a week in countries around the world. They’re a quick and fascinating window in the differences in the quantity and the quality of food people eat.
Just look for a second at all the colors in this Mexican family’s food:
·Keep kids away from hot grills and campfires – have a fire extinguisher handy
·Know the fire danger level before starting a campfire – keep water close by
·If fireworks are allowed where you are, remember that even sparklers reach 1800 degrees Fahrenheit
The Sheriff’s Office is committed to making Snohomish County the best place to live, work and play in Washington State. More safety information and resources can be found at http://sheriff.snoco.org. Contact Shari Ireton, Shari.Ireton@co.snohomish.wa.us.
Established in 1959, the Snohomish Health District works for a safer and healthier Snohomish County through disease prevention, health promotion, and protection from environmental threats. Find more information about the Health Board and the Health District at http://www.snohd.org. Contact Suzanne Pate, spate@snohd,org.
In order to bring greater awareness to the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the United States Senate designated June 27 as National PTSD Awareness Day. In addition, June has been designated as PTSD Awareness Month by the National Center for PTSD.
According to the PTSD Foundation of America, one in three service members returning from deployment will suffer from severe post-traumatic stress. Fewer than forty percent will seek help. The overall lack of understanding, awareness and available treatment options in this country is a national disgrace.
Following trauma, including combat service, most people experience stress reactions but many do not develop PTSD. Mental health experts are not sure why some people develop PTSD and others do not. However, if stress reactions do not improve over time and they disrupt everyday life, help should be sought to determine if PTSD is a factor.
The purpose of PTSD Awareness Day and Month is to encourage everyone to raise public awareness of PTSD and its effective treatments so that everyone can help people affected by PTSD.
National Center for PTSD
All veterans and their family members should visit the National Center’s website, Ptsd.va.gov. The abundant resources on the site can tell you about PTSD, where to get help and how to help someone who may suffer from the disorder.
Veterans Health Administration AboutFace
Learn about PTSD from Veterans who live with it every day. Hear their stories. Find out how treatment turned their lives around, go to AboutFace www.ptsd.va.gov/AboutFace. Also see the PTSD video playlist to hear veterans share their stories of recovery and growth and g>et answers from professionals about PTSD treatments that can help. For the YouTube video playlist click here.
