Archive for May, 2007
May 8th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
[Originally published 4/25/07]
Just as the Dubai Ports World fiasco (1, 2, 3) brought to public attention that the US has ceded control of our ports to international corporate control, the pet food contamination has brought to the fore problems with globalization, our food supply, and the ineffectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Those of you who have been following my coverage of this story know that I predicted this was going to be a very big story. Well it is growing by leaps and bounds.
After the story essentially went dark for four days in the US press, it has reemerged with a flurry of articles on the inadequacies of the FDA (CBS, CNN, AP and many others).
As this story emerges in all of its various renditions, not so subtle variations also emerge. For example, the hogs that ate contaminated feed may (or may not) have made it into the food the human food supply. The US press is either being nonspecific about what food the hogs ate (CNN) or stating the hogs ate recalled pet food (AP, and Atlanta Journal). Meanwhile the Toronto Star reports that the hogs were fed tainted livestock feed. One might argue that perhaps tainted feed of any sort is “disposed of” by feeding it to livestock. That is a frightening thought.
If tainted pet food somehow was disposed of (sold dirt cheap) to hog farmers, it was not isolated. Hogs in six or seven (or more) states have been found to have ingested melamine. Now poultry are also under question. Whether it was poultry feed, or poultry farmers are also on the dirt cheap pet food deal, is another question.
There is a theory that the melamine in the Chinese grains was a deliberate addition to artificially increase the protein content of the grain products. The motivation for this is purportedly that they were able to get a higher price for their products by doing this. As the presence of melamine has been found in wheat, rice, and corn products from China, then this practice could be said to be “standard.” Now Soy has been added to the list of products from China to be inspected. Increasingly India is cropping up in stories - implying that India may be using a similar “competitive advantage.”
On the other hand, tons of pet food have been recalled - the biggest company hit was Menu Foods. Were companies with recalled product looking for a way to cut their losses by moving the toxin containing pet food into the livestock (and poultry) feed market? Or is this too “standard practice?” According to the Atlanta Journal article:
“Ten pet food manufacturers sent unusable dog and cat food containing the toxic chemical melamine to hog producers in California, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and possibly Ohio, FDA officials announced during a late afternoon press conference. Contaminated pet food was also sent to one chicken farm in Missouri, the officials added.“
Based on this, one might pose the theory (assuming the hog farmers and who knows who else fed contaminated pet food) that this too is a “standard practice” among US producers - equally driven on all sides by profit. Perhaps bolstered as a (legally safe) practice as pet (and one presumes livestock) feed is under the FDA, but pork, poultry, beef (etc.) and byproducts are under the USDA. This might decrease the likelihood that such a practice would be discovered.
So the problem grows along the lines that the FDA really has no teeth and does virtually no monitoring (probably part of the same “corporation as customer model” that has resulted in various pharmaceutical disasters). For example, we now know that the FDA can’t issue a recall on dangerous foods, and that they do virtually no monitoring of either domestic food supply, nor of food and ingredients coming into the country from around the world. Further, they apparently have no way of tracking where ingredients come from or go to.
We now know that in the globalized food market there are virtually no effective safety standards. While there are sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreements through the World Trade Organization, apparently there is no monitoring to see that even those minimal, industry set, standards are met.
“Free market” globalized capitalism meets the food supply. “Free market” wins all the way around, and how many die? Given that at least a number of hog producers (and perhaps poultry) now have on their hands “contaminated” livestock, where will they end up? Likely in feed for cattle, sheep, chicken and pigs.
From Dictionary.com
Sham:
noun
1. something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax.
2. a person who shams; shammer.
3. a cover or the like for giving a thing a different outward appearance: a pillow sham.
-adjective
4. pretended; counterfeit; feigned: sham attacks; a sham Gothic façade.
5. designed, made, or used as a sham.
-verb (used with object)
6. to produce an imitation of.
7. to assume the appearance of; pretend to have: to sham illness.
-verb (used without object)
8. to make a false show of something; pretend.
[Origin: 1670-80; orig. uncert.]
–Synonyms 1. pretense. 4. spurious, make-believe, simulated, mock. See false. 6. imitate. 7. feign, fake.
–Antonyms 4. genuine.
There is something fundamentally wrong, and that wrongness is not simply in the FDA, or the USDA, or FEMA, or pick your system that seems to be failing when needed most. The basic institutions have been hollowed while billions of dollars flowed through their accounts. Meanwhile, citizens have been turned into consumers with voracious appetites to fill a void of meaning. The country we thought we had, the government we thought our tax dollars supported, is repeatedly being shown as a sham.
Apparently, what the sham is hiding is an elaborate Ponzi scheme - “a swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks.” We are the victims, as are our pets, our environment, and even our planet.
This story is likely to fade from the news, as Dubai Ports did, and FEMA, and Mad Cow. It will not fade because it is resolved. It won’t fade because the food supply is safe, or China (and whoever else) stops using toxins in the food supply. People will assume that such a huge problem, and such a catastrophic failure, must have been fixed. It won’t have been, but more funds will go into FDA, or perhaps the FDA will be yet another agency rolled into the sham of Homeland Security. But the hollowing will continue. Finally, the sham will no longer be needed. Ultimately, the facade will crumble. By then all the power will be where it is already directed - the hands of the very few. The wealth and health of a nation will be gone, and the people will wonder “How could this have happened?”
Back to the issue at hand - “tainted” food
To make the whole issue even more complicated, it now appears that cyanuric acid has also been found in the tainted ingredients. It is now being speculated that this is the chemical which may be causing the damage and death in cats and dogs. Apparently, the most common use of cyanuric acid is in pools and hot tubs, but it is apparently also used as a fertilizer. This lends credence to my hypothesis, that this was a systemic food production issue. I speculated in that article that the application of cyromazine (a pesticide) might be ending up in grains from China. That a toxic fertilizer might also be involved only brings us back to the process of Chinese agriculture.
Agricultural practices in China are certainly under a cloud as was reported by the BBC - Pollution ‘hits China’s farmland’. As stated in the article:
More than 10% of China’s farm land is polluted, posing a “severe threat” to the nation’s food production, state media reports.
…
Excessive fertiliser use, polluted water, heavy metals and solid wastes are to blame, the reports said.
And this is where the United States is getting millions of tonnes of food products.
It should not come as a surprise that the FDA is starting to test human food products. Of the “ingredients” now in question we have wheat, corn, and rice glutens, concentrated rice protein, and soy. Take a look at the ingredient lists of the food on your shelf - or the grocery store’s. These are common ingredients in thousands of products. The frightening thing is that for some unknown reason this was not on the FDA’s “to do list” as a common practice. However, as noted earlier, the FDA is being shown as another sham.
May 8th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
[Originally published 4/22/07]
As predicted, corn gluten has joined wheat and rice in the pet food recall. Also, it is now believed that the contaminant has entered the human food chain via pigs out of Sacramento, California - they ate contaminated food.
Since tons of pet food is now under recall, or questionable, it is critical that people not dump their contaminated food. That could cause an even larger environmental issue. Melamine is a significant danger in water supplies.
The possibility is being floated that the gluten was intentionally contaminated. Apparently, melamine can artificially increase the protein readings and so there is an economic benefit in adding it. If this is the case, then it has become a standard process in China as we are dealing with multiple manufacturers and multiple grains (wheat, rice, and corn). By this logic, it would make sense that the same thing be done with foods destined for human consumption.
Corn is also a big feed for poultry and beef. One assumes that if it ended up in pig feed, it is likely to also show up in other animal feed. Since those animals are slaughtered, especially if they seem to be possibly failing, then these animals may enter the food stream before they are diagnosed. [To the best of my knowledge, there are still downed cattle entering the food chain.] If those meat and meat products pose a threat to human food, then that is yet another problem.
This is a story that is going to continue to grow. I am dumbfounded that it is not being better covered by the corporate press. One assumes that it is ti avoid a “panic,” but given the risks involved, lack of information could quite literally be deadly.
No cases of contaminated gluten or concentrated vegetable protein has yet been reported in human foods directly.
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The usual use of the concept of “negative space” is the utilization of the space around an object, the background, or even “white space.” It is the space in which the object or image takes form. Edgar Rubin’s vase is the classic example. Often people think of such uses of negative space as an “optical illusion.” However, the contrasting images are not really illusions - just different ways of seeing.
Negative space can also be a heuristic conceptual tool. In a word, it can be seen as “context.” It can be understood as a way of seeing, or perhaps of thinking. In this context, “negative space” is the broader terrain of the social background (space) which contains the meanings and understandings which shape and direct the social world. Negative Space becomes a place to explore and examine the disparate events and realities of the world around us.
Edgar Rubin’s vase from Wikipedia
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
I share with many of you a growing sense of anger and frustration at the constantly worsening situation in Iraq. Now, the “surge” is in place, and “gated communities” are being delineated over the objections of both Shia and Sunni residents. The Democrats have put on a good show of trying to rein in Bush, and have been rejected. However, are they really trying to rein him in, or just playing their part in an intricately choreographed deception?
The bill that Bush vetoed contained certain “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government. Among them was the approval of the “PSAs” (Production Sharing Agreements) initiated by the US Coalition Provisional Authority [see Troop Surges and Bloody Oil]. The oil agreement was moving through the approval process, but has now met representatives within the Iraqi parliament.
There has been a lot of pressure to get these agreements into law, and they turn over the majority of profits from Iraq’s oil to transnational oil companies. In other words, the development and exploitation of Iraq’s principle resource will lie in the hands of others. It was expected that these agreements would be in place sometime in May of this year. Once those agreements are law, then there is little incentive to maintain a U.S. occupation of Iraq. The oil companies have benefited handsomely from the dramatic disruption of Iraq’s oil production. They are likely willing to wait a long time for things to “stabilize” in Iraq, before actually calling in their PSA chits.
The fact that the PSAs were included in the supplemental funding bill is a clear signal that there is more than a Republican vested interest in who controls (and profits from) Iraq’s oil. Further, the foot dragging to get another bill through only buys time as the occupation continues, and the PSAs have time to become law. Further, as Jeremy Scahill points out, no one in Washington is addressing the issue of the private army we are funding. Even if U.S. forces are withdrawn, the (estimated) 48,000 mercenaries we have brought into Iraq are unlikely to be defunded - or removed. In fact, the size of that force may actually grow.
Meanwhile some more ominous changes are in motion. One area of concern is what is happening with the Kurds? It seems that outside the boundaries of the government of Iraq, the U.S. is engaged in separate negotiations with the Kurds. I guess we might have anticipated this since the Kurdish area is oil rich. However, it does seem to run counter to supposed efforts to create a unified Iraq. Further, it could run the U.S. right into the middle of another conflict. This one between Turkey and the Kurds in Iraq.
As you may recall, Turkey has a long history of conflict with the Kurds. This reared its head when the U.S. was trying to position U.S. forces in Turkey prior to the invasion of Iraq. Turkey withdrew its permission - partially because of public pressure in Turkey. However, underlying that was concerns about the creation of a Kurdish state. Those concerns have not been allayed over time. Certainly, the discussion of creating three “states” in Iraq are alarming to Turkey. In fact they have promised to invade if a Kurdish state is created along Turkey’s boarder.
So, what we have here is a growing independence of the Kurdish region from the “unified Iraq,” enhanced by separate relations between the Kurdish government and the United States, while Turkey moves from simmer towards boil. If Turkey invades the Kurdish region, what would be the response of the United States. This would be a sticky wicket indeed.
The other alarming shift is the possibility that the U.S. is going to end up actively engaged in genocide in Iraq. Purportedly, U.S. forces (particularly in Baghdad) are under the authority of Iraq. While that may be a legal fiction, what happens with the Iraqi forces are significant. Therefore, there should be some alarm that al Maliki seems to be purging the Army and police force of leaders who have aggressively gone after Shi’ite militias. Even prior to this purge, there have been concerns that Sunnis were the primary target of both Iraqi police and military, as well as the primary target of U.S. forces.
This places U.S. troops (and by extension the United States) possibly actively engaged in a genocidal offensive against Iraqi Sunnis.
All of this takes us back to the resistance of the Kurd and Sunni representatives in the Iraqi government to the PSAs. While I agree with the resistant “bloc” in regard to the PSAs, one has to wonder at the pressures that may be being brought to bear on both groups.
Is the price of the US friendship with Kurds support for the PSAs in exchange for protection against a possible Turkish invasion? Is the the tacit U.S. participation in a Sunni genocide a “lever” to get Sunni support of the PSAs? Or is the U.S playing of both sides of the fence in case the Shia end up in control of oil in the Sunni region of Iraq?
Meanwhile, the “bi-partisan” interest is still in the corporate control of Iraq’s oil regardless of blood, cost, or genocide. I am more than disgusted by the prospect and trends. I am sickened and enraged.
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
More and more people are aware of “peak oil,” or at least the concept that oil is an increasingly limited resource. Numerous discussions are flying about addressing the issue of oil, and responses to its increasing costs. The issue overlaps with global warming, and decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel replacements from nuclear, to biofuels, to hydrogen, to “clean” coal, to natural gas, are all put forward a viable replacements. Underlying this approach is the belief that we can just “swap” energy sources and continue as if nothing has happened. People are led to believe that we are just hitting a technological bump in the road. It is much more than that.
It should be on the front pages of every paper, and the top of each newscast, but it is not. The IEA (International Energy Agency) has sent out the warning of a “global gas shortage.” The basis of the IEA warning was that there is not adequate investment in natural gas to meet the swelling global demand. While they recommend that nations lay in “emergency supplies,” they also state this will not solve the emerging crisis. However, for those nations having natural gas this may been seen as an economic boom. (Boom and bust is the more likely scenario.)
The truth not mentioned is that shifting from oil to natural gas as a “replacement” fuel is also not a “silver bullet.” In fact, shifting from oil to natural gas will only accelerate the depletion of natural gas. Those who have explored the peak oil issue are well aware of the fact it is intimately linked to peak gas.
The same depletion scenario stands true for replacements such as and coal. Each of these also have their own toxic side. However, both radioactive materials (uranium, plutonium, etc.) and coal, are exhaustible resources. If we dramatically increase the demand for these resources to meet our energy needs, we also dramatically increase the rate of their depletion.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be jumping on the biofuels bandwagon. Amazingly, it has not taken long for the problems with this to be recognized:
Biofuels: The great green con
Ethanol Fuel Greener, But Not For Lungs
Palm Oil: The Biofuel of the Future Driving an Ecological Disaster Now
There are certain realities that must be faced here, and few are wanting to do so.
It is a bad idea to put food supply in conflict with energy supply.
- The demand for “biofuels” is driving destruction of forests and plains, and any place that can be cleared for biofuels crop production.
- This, in turn, will result in destruction of habitat and species extinction. It will also further disrupt water and natural drainage systems.
- Fuel crops will replace food crops resulting in dramatically increasing food costs, and mass hunger as food is simply not available.
It has been argued with some legitimacy that advancements in human development have been based on exploiting “cheap” energy sources. However, we seem to be on the brink of running out of cheap energy sources. Does this mean the collapse of humans and human societies? Perhaps.
The “West” took domination of much of the planet. This was not simply a physical conquest with exploitation of resources and people. It was the conquest of a paradigm, an ideology. Daniel Quinn frames it in his classic , as a civilizational split between “Takers” and “Leavers.” The Cliff Notes summary of the argument would be that Leaver societies live within the natural laws, and Taker societies live as if the laws of nature do not apply to them. Of particular significance in Ishmael is what Quinn refers to as the “peacekeeping law:”
- “You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them to access food.” (129)
- “No one species will make the life of the world its own.”
- “The world was not made for only one species.”
- “Humanity was not needed to bring order to the world.” (145-146)
The “Western” paradigm breaks each aspect of this “law.” However, the Western paradigm has become the framework of “development” and the standard for much of the world. As nations enter “development” phases, they follow this regime. China and India, both in the throws of explosive development, have embraced the western “development” path with a vengeance. China, which is an economic giant at the moment, has chosen to set itself in head to head competition with the United States for increasingly scarce resources - including energy resources. In the process, it is destroying the environment of China and spreading the effluents across the globe.
What all of this points to is that the “energy” crisis is but a facade for a much different crisis which we are refusing to address. That is a crisis of paradigm and “path.”
The crisis we must confront is that we cannot continue on the path we are on - with or without “cheap” energy. We cannot continue to view the Earth and all life on it, as here for our exploitation. We cannot base an economy on the consumption of goods, and we cannot view ourselves as separate and disconnected from the world we live on.
We have to change our ways of life, and we have to change our conceptualizations of our relationship to life. We have to use a different yardstick of “development” and “success.” I have a feeling that this is a much bigger crisis than the energy crisis. However, we may destroy the planet and ourselves before we become aware of this much more difficult issue.
We must acknowledge at some point that we are terraforming the only habitable planet that we know of. It is our home and we are destroying it.
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
According to a new study released by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the climate change models have significantly underestimated the amount of arctic melting that occurred from 1953 - 2006. The estimates had been based on a melt of 2.5% per decade. The new measurements by NSICD show a 7.8% melt. The impact is that current projections are off by about 30 years.
The figure is from the NSICD press release. It is clear from the figure that the actual amount of melt has been greater than the estimates. Further, starting somewhere in the mid to late 1990s the acceleration moved totally outside the range of the standard deviation (significance level of estimates) of existing models. If you follow the trend of the melt delineated by the red line, will “land” approximately 2050 with zero arctic ice versus the lowest range of the deviation which leaves approximately 2 million square miles of ice in 2050.
We have been told that the world has approximately 10 years to stop and change direction on our contributions to global warming. Using the new data, one would assume that the 10 years has just shifted to six years or less.
There are also significant changes happening with the polar currents. Researchers published an article in the Geophysical Research Letters. According to this study, the salinity and bottom pressure is changing at the Arctic. This “suggest(s) a shift from a clockwise to a counterclockwise pattern prevalent prior to the 1990s.”
This is very troublesome news indeed. The ocean circulation is a key ingredient in global climate and weather. The shift being noted in the above research, is not just a slowing of the current , but a reversal of the current. Such a change is likely already having significant effects, but it could throw all the models into the garbage. While ocean currents and climate are complext, certainly the massive melt of the Arctic polar ice is decreasing the salinity, which decreases the specific gravity, which impacts current flow and direction.
We could be past a point of no return, or we could be seeing the beginning of a “tipping point.” In other words, we might well overshoot global warming and move right into an ice age.
Meanwhile, the news being trumpeted out of the IPCC climate report is positive. Namely that there is time to change course, and that the change can be implemented without extreme economic impacts. I must say that I am baffled at such “optimism.” In light of the ongoing updates that indicate massive changes happening much faster than modeled or predicted, the message seems to be politically massaged. There has been an ongoing debate about whether presenting the realities of the challenge might be make the public seem hopeless.
The presentation by the co-chairs of the IPCC Working Group III gives and array of steps that can be taken to improve the situation. They suggest primarily energy efficiency measure for transportation and home/business, and less polluting energy production. They recommend policy changes, as well, as creating economic incentives (taxes and trading) to move industries and nations towards a smaller carbon footprint.
Earlier articles at UTJ discussing climate collapse and tipping points:
8/27/03 Tipping points - environment and global issues
2/04/04. Environmental collapse - sooner not later
5/27/04 Global Warming on Cats Paws
8/12/05 Global Warming - Have We Hit the “Tipping Point?
3/06/06 Global Warming - A Frightening Thought
Next Posts
