Viva la Tiny Revolution!

Blog Reflection:
Consider the evidence of Affluenza that you see around you. Do you see it in yourself, your friends, family, or North American society? Can you take action to combat affluenza?

Affluenza is a tough disease to beat because it has a very attractive exterior. It promises you wealth and happiness but really brings only emptiness and desires that can never be fulfilled. The definition we learned in class is "a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more." The evidence of this is definitely all around me, and unfortunately within me (although I've been trying to fight it).

In the past I have had a much stronger case of affluenza than I do now. I can even remember when it started, I was around 8 years old and began getting an allowance. My cousin Jenny who is around my age had a sticker collection, and I decided I wanted one too. From then on I spent every dollar I got on stickers, trying to build a more beautiful, bigger and better collection. It seems that the urge to compete is strong even at a young age! From then on I considered myself a "collector." I went through all the usual crazes...marbles, beanie babies, CDs, etc. But the addictions that have persisted are my DVDs and books. I'm ashamed but I'm going show you my DVD collection. The funny thing is a few months ago I would have been proud of it... I used to justify this by saying I would only let my "favorites" into my collection. I told my Uncle Mike this and he laughed and said, "Teresa and her 500 favorites!" I realized that something about the situation just wasn't right!

I made a New Years Resolution to not buy any more DVDs and have stuck with it so far. I mainly did it for financial reasons. It's a horrible thing to be a poor person with affluenza stuck in North American society. It feels like there is no possible way to be happy. If you think the only way to be fulfilled is through possessions and stuff, which you can never afford because you're in debt and work a minimum wage job, what a miserable life you will lead! My Grandparents and parents really drilled that into me when I was growing up. The absolutely crucial importance of getting a really high earning profession, preferrably a doctor. Then you will be happy with your huge house, 3 door garage, white picket fence and mountains of stuff. The thing is...that's exactly what my Grandparents, parents, and Aunts and Uncles have...but honestly they don't seem very happy with their lives a lot of the time anyways.

I've told some of my family members about voluntary simplicity, and my plans to gather as little material possessions as possible during my lifetime. My Grandma thinks I'm completely crazy. Definitely the "deviant" out of all her grandkids. She is all about the money. It could be because of her background...her family was very rich when she was young, but lost everything during WWII and became extremely poor. She worked very hard and became a doctor and improved her situation. I think many people who settled here in North America had a similar experience. They came from harsh circumstances, often oppressive countries, and worked extremely hard for what they have. If they can earn more it's always better of course....except it's gone way too far, and it's not getting better anymore. But because they have that mentality so ingrained, asking them to give up what they've worked so hard for is complete crazy talk. Of course nobody expects us to completely deprive ourselves...but we do have to realize the very big difference between needs and wants!

I do see affluenza in my friends. They are typical girls with overflowing closets and 50 pairs of heels each! I have some guy friends with overflowing closets too. (haha!) Despite this, I've noticed most of my close friends do not have as bad a case of affluenza as the older generation of people. They do have tons of clothes but don't have plans to amass a huge house with 3 cars, etc etc. I've spoken to my 2 best friends about it and we all agree that living in a smaller home, like an apartment or condo is best, and that we'd prefer not to get a house. We don't want to be tied down with a mortgage, bills, never really being able to leave, and all the other responsibilites. We want to effectively avoid the anxiety and debt, leaving ourselves open to possibilites, to travel, move, and so on. We'd all rather spend our money on travel and adventures than a mortgage. Eventually (when and if) we would start a family it would be small enough to fit into an apartment. One, maximum two, children! I do feel somewhat sad about this because I came from a big family and I love my 3 brothers dearly; when I was younger I always wanted a big family myself...but not having one is the responsible thing to do. And as my friend pointed out, each other's children can be like siblings to one another, which is a lovely thought.

One of my favorite ideas for combating affluenza so far has got to be the "Tiny House!" I am posting the link to the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. They build houses that are, well, tiny! They have everything 2 people NEED, and admittedly not room for much else. But I think it's so much better to be out there in the world living life than trapped inside with your stuff. The tiny houses are very good for the environment, they take very little resources to build, need less natural gas to heat and air conditioning to cool, use less electricity, and are very cheap (costwise, not quality)! These tiny houses embody a radical lifestyle change.

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses/fencl/

I wouldn't expect everyone to live in a house this small. But for me it represents the fact that we can live a life that is small, low impact, but still beautiful. Mountains of stuff and huge mansions mean that people (and the environment) out there are being exploited for our sake. Their resources are being depleted, they are sitting in sweatshops making our things, then dealing with our garbage when we throw it away. I don't want to live with that burden. I can't, and I won't. I feel overwhelmed by all the "issues" sometimes. But when I've calmed down I realize that the best way to combat affluenza is to lead by example. I'm going to live my own life in the best way I know how. I'm learning more and more all the time as I become more aware of the issues. I'm talking to everyone I know about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. Spreading the awareness and hoping that they will take it as personally as I do in time. I can't control what other people do, but I can control myself.

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

-C. S. Lewis

I am completely willing to admit that I've made horrible misjudgments and mistakes in the past, but now it's time to move on and embrace a better way of life. Would it be such a horrible thing if we as a society did the same? I like to think of it as true progress.

Works Cited:

Brainy Quote. C.S.Lewis Quotes. 2010. Found at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/c_s_lewis_3.html Retrieved on: March 22, 2010.

Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. 2008. Found at: http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses/fencl/ Retrieved on: March 21, 2010.

Restoring Rivers

Summary of Selection 24

Our water systems are being abused. Rivers are becoming increasingly polluted, as well as surface and ground water which are being way overdrawn. River restoration means restoring their ecological and social functions. These include mitigating floods, providing clean drinking water, removing excess nutrients and sediments, and supporting fisheries, wildlife, etc. But the restoration process needs a lot of work. Current projects are not being monitored or implemented properly, and are not being done for the right reasons either. The US needs policy reform on this matter.

Historically rivers became polluted because of increased industry and city growth around them. Currently, poor land stewardship is the main cause. Examples of this are the erosion of farmland, input of toxins from cities and agriculture, increased overland runoff because of paved surfaces causing "flashy" stream flows, floods, and droughts. Some progress has been made, but far from enough. Our goals need to be improved water quality, managing/replanting riparian vegetation, improved habitats, help fish passage and to stabilize river banks. There are many ways to achieve these gials but proven methods should become restoration standards to ensure efficient use of money and resources that goes into these projects.

Federal, state and local agencies must adopt restoration policies. Regulations and laws are required in 4 areas.

1. Federal agencies must be directed to adopt and abide by the standards for successful river restoration. Ecological success must also be defined. The restoration standards are that the design of a project should be based on an image of a healthy river; the river's condition must improve; the river must be self-sustaining and require little maintenance; and assessments must be available to the public.

2. A coordinated tracking system for restoration projects must be implemented. This would help restoration efforts by allowing them to learn from past efforts. It is important to be connected to the other projects going on because many rivers are interconnected. All projects should be monitored and checked for effectiveness.

3. Undertake a national study to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects. This is needed to find out which methods are most appropriate and most likely to succeed.

4. Use existing funding for river restoration more efficiently and supplement funding. Preferrably a Water Resources Restoration Act could be developed and this would help authorize and fund river restoration projects. This way money flow can be prioritized and coordinated for maximum efficiency.

Current funding also falls short of what is needed to effectively restore rivers. This is a necessity, not a luxury, and should be thought of in much the same way as highways and buildings need maintenance...an essential responsibility. Changes in agency policies and practices are required and requires congressional oversight and wise spending. With these goals as a priority hopefully our rivers will be clean once again.

Controvery at Love Canal

Summary of Selection 23

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 50,000 hazardous waste sites exist in the US. 90% of these pose potential health threats due to poor location and poor management. 2000 are currently threatening the health of communities. We can learn from past experiences such as the disaster at Love Canal.

Hooker Electrochemical Corporation filled the canal with toxic chemicals and then covered them up. Years later the land was sold to the Board of Education. Schools and homes were built on top of and around the site of the canal. The residents could tell that something was wrong because toxins could be seen seeping through the dirt into their basements, strange puddles and odors, and some people and children were getting very sick and had chemical burns. At first the Niagra Falls Health Division took no action, but the residents pushed for it. Eventually the homes immediately surrounding the canal were evacuated and a fence put up. The families in the other homes were told they were safe by the Health Department; but they didn't believe it, they knew there was evidence that chemicals had moved beyond the fence. Beverly Paigen was a scientific researcher and began to survey the people living nearby for birth defects, illness, miscarriages, and so on. She found that there was a much higher than normal frequency among families who lived in homes that had been along former stream beds (since filled in), "wet homes." She reported her findings, and the Health Department decided to evacuate only families with children under 2 years of age or women who could prove they were pregnant. This was far too little, but the department seems to have been stalling over the "controversies."

The 2 opposing sides in the controversy were the community vs. the health department. This has happened at a number of other hazardous waste sites. Once the antagonism there were several factors causing delay, impeding a resolution:
1. Either side may have something to gain by not resolving the controversy. Money and precedent would have been lost by the state.
2. Opponents don't agree on the question that needs to be answered, or even what an answer might imply.
3. More than one group should be in charge of gathering and interpreting information/data, since the outcome will be greatly reflected by this. Preferrably a neutral third party.
4. People who express dissident and minority opinions must be allowed to do so. They should not be demoted, transferred, or harassed. This does not resolve the problem!
5. Scientists should follow proper protocol such as openness of data, peer review and criticism, publication of data, and experimental replication. This will give accountability and allow errors to be detected.
6. Both sides should agree on what facts need resolving, who should resolve the controversy, the procedures by which those people will do the research, interpret the data, etc. and they must agree to abide by what is implied by the findings. Unethical conduct should be severely penalized. Some examples by the state on the Love Canal controversy are appointment of a secret decision panel, manipulation of health data, huge unexplained delays, harassment of employees with different views, and discouragement of independent, professional health studies.

An official process should be developed to ensure that the next time this happens (as it inevitably will), it can be dealt with in the most effective way possible. These issues are not just scientific, but also ethical...people's lives are at stake and that needs to be recognized. Dealing with these issues in a methodical way will ensure fewer people are harmed and that the state's money is used in an effective way.

Understanding the Concept of "Voting with your Wallet"

Analysis of My Purchases for One Week (Activity from the Resource List

I kept track of all my purchases for one week between Friday, March 12th and Thursday, March 18th. Below I have listed what the item purchased is, where it was purchased, and the cost of the item/service. I am also supposed to classify each item with a screening criteria, "good, bad or ugly." This should force me to weigh all the factors involved such as: environmental impact, social impact, local or foreign, corporate or small business and so on.

1. groceries from Superstore: $33.12 -UGLY-
2. documentary film "No Impact Man" at the MB Eco-network film festival: $10 -good-
3. raffle "donation" at film festival: $20: $20 -good-
4. organic apple cider at film festival: $2 -good-
5. donation to the homeless through UMSU: $2 -good-
6. groceries from Organza: $44.31 -good-
7. cell phone bill from Rogers: $52.11 -bad-
8. stamps from Canada Post: $7.03 -good-
9. coffee from Tim Hortons: $1.57 -UGLY
   

Good: $85.34 (49.6%)

Most of the items in the good category seem fairly intuitive. I went to the MB Eco-network's first environmental film festival last Friday night and it was great. I feel that my money was well spent because I met and talked with other environmentally-minded people and got to know them, so it was a very social event; also the money raised goes to the Eco-network (a smaller, local organization) and so helps support environmental issues. I was actually considering putting the raffle ticket that I bought in the bad category though, because although I wasn't really expecting to win anything (and thought of it more as a donation)...but in my heart I think I actually did want to win something, which is somewhat selfish. I think my own personal motivations should also count to some extent in the classification! I also donated some change to the "5 Days for the Homeless" campaign that UMSU had put on this week, which has positive social impacts. And I bought some stamps so I can pay my rent. I classified this under good because there really is no other way to pay my rent except by cheque. I pay my other bills by direct deposit to mimimize paper waste.

Last in the good category...Organza. I blogged about my struggles of shopping there last time. The cost and the distance to get there were my main issues. But I did it! It did hurt a little, but I did it. It mostly hurt because it was very very expensive. The broccoli cost ~$6.50 and somehow I accidentally picked up a cucumber that was $5.49! One cucumber! $5.49! As I exited the store, crossed the parking lot, waited at the bus stop, and rode the bus home I was chanting to myself..."You're doing a good thing. This is just how much food should cost. You're doing a good thing." Over and over. So yes, I had some anxiety, but I am proud of myself, and do plan to go back. I am going to shop for what I can from this grocery store from now on. But they definitely don't have everything so I will still need to shop at places like Safeway and Superstore. I also made a customer service call to Safeway requesting more variety in their organic produce section. In any case, I had never realized before that where and what I spend my money on really matters. And now I want to vote with my dollar. Every time I spend my money on something I want to be able to say, "I am proud to be supporting they way this product was produced, the people who made it, and the business that's selling it." I feel like I am making a small but significant mark on the economy. And more importantly, when I talk to others about my decisions, I will legitimately be able to say, "This is important..." and be able to back up my statement since my actions reflect my values. This is important enough that I will spend the little money I have on what I believe in. I hope it will help the other people in my life to think about the power they have in their spending habits as well.

Bad: $52.11 (30.3%)

The lone item in my bad category is my phone bill. My provider is Rogers and I truly detest them. In the past it has just been for their money-grabbing ways and horrid customer service. But now I realize there are many more reasons to detest them. We learned about "planned obsolescence" in class and I realize that this is exactly what Rogers and other cell phone providers do. They deliberately plan to have their cell phones go out of style and be outdated to prod the consumer/user to abandon it far before the end of its useful life. Or they are just poorly made! I'm SURE there is a way to make phones that aren't so easily damaged by water/condensation/temperature fluctuations.... Lately I've been noticing the Blackberry craze spreading like wildfire. I feel like screaming sometimes! "Don't you people realize it will never end!?" The next time I need a new cellphone (hopefully not for a long long time) I am getting one of those big, old clunky ones in protest!

However, I put this in the bad category because I really have no choice but to have a phone....and from what I hear, one provider is just as bad as the next. I am giving myself a break since there isn't really a better option.

Ugly: $34.69 (20.2%)

I put my Tim Hortons coffee in the ugly category. First of all, the cups that Tims gives out are not recyclable anywhere that I know of in Winnipeg. If you check out the Tim Hortons FAQ it says that their cup can be recycled but is not accepted for recycling everywhere at this time. My thought is that that could be said of pretty much anything. As far as I'm concerned, if it is not "practically" possible to be recycled it is bad, and they should redesign it so it can be. Also, Tim Hortons does not technically have fair trade coffee. It does support growers through "sustainability programs" though. The difference is that Fair Trade means that the growers are certified and are paid a certain amount for their beans, while the sustainability program means they are "building relationships" with farmers and providing them with financial assistance. Personally I would be happier knowing that the coffee producers were being paid a decent wage. Tims is a Canadian business, but not a small business by any means. And lastly I consider this an ugly purchase because I feel it's a nutritional waste.

My last ugly purchase was groceries from Superstore. I tried to minimize the ugliness by getting as much organic produce as I could, but some of the things I needed were not available organic. Superstore is another big business, generating tons of waste. I've seen first hand the plastic waste that is used for delivering shipments of goods, etc. and it is not pretty. Their cardboard is likely recycled because they would get money back for that. But the majority is ugly and I can't deny it. Since my dollar vote revelation my shopping here will be at the barest minimum.

Grand Total: $172.14

The largest percentage of my purchases were from the good category (49.6%). I think that if I did this over a month this percentage would be much higher because my rent (and tuition) is where the majority of my money goes. So this is a good thing...although I know I can do better! I want to do better!

I've always tried to keep a budget but I've never quite looked at it this way before. This Environmental Science class has me looking at everything in a new way. I was aware of many of the issues before but now I feel much more involved, and like I actually have an impact... I am wondering if what I do will make little ripples in the pond or add up to a big splash! I'm not going to hide it...I'm hoping to save the world. Hopefully this Supergirl's attempts to fly don't end with me falling on my face!

Works Cited:

Business Dictionary. Planned Obsolescence, 2010. Found at: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/planned-obsolescence.html Retrieved on: March 19, 2010.

Tim Hortons. FAQ, 2009. Found at: http://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/about/faq.html Retrieved on: March 19, 2010.

Towards Sustainable Development

Summary of Selection 39

The main idea behind sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. With this idea in mind we can see that the needs of the present poor people of the world must have priority; their essential, most basic needs are not being met. This development requires a transformation of our economy and society. All people can have living standards above the basic minimum IF developed countries reduce our consumption. We must better distinguish needs and wants, and have a change in our values. Then the economy in these countries should grow. Their population should also remain stable or ideally decrease to reduce the strain on resources.

Sustainable development must not endanger our natural systems, as we have up until this point. Unlimited population growth combined with resource use can only lead us to an ecological disaster (even worse than the one we are experiencing now). Physical ecosystems can be used, but responsibly! All the factors and relationships must be considered first. The regeneration and natural growth of environmental resources should be greater than the depletion we cause. Non-renewable resources should be used to a minimum...however, we can use them up as long as there are new technologies/resources available for future generations. We must prevent extinction of species on Earth...once they are gone, they're gone. Common resources such as air and water must be preserved.

We need to find ways to get people and businesses to not exploit "the commons" (our common resources), and also to not exploit other people (especially the poor). Ecological interactions don't have property boundaries, making the commons far too easy to take advantage of. We should have some kind of enforcement for the "common interest." This could be through education, laws, taxes, subsidies, etc. This needs to be global and regional, not just local; although it could be difficult since there is no superauthority to resolve issues and conflicts that will arise. Unfortunately, most "solutions" inevitably leave some better off than others...making it hard to promote the "common interest." We should try to avoid this social injustice. Technological development should be concentrated on helping developing countries first (ex. arid land agriculture). All new technologies/upgrades should be checked for environmental impact first; public policy should encourage this through incentives and disincentives (for commercial organizations as well).

Sustainable development requires economic and environmental considerations both in decision making. A healthy environment actually improves the long term economic prospects. We need to avoid short sightedness and isolated thinking. The intersectoral connections/interdependance must be reflected in our policies. Community support and participation are needed to make this model work. It would help if our environmental objectives were built into taxation of private and public enterprises- which should be on an international as well as local level. If carried through, the sustainable development goals/requirements are an effective strategy for bringing balance between all human and natural systems.

Faster, Fatter, Bigger, Cheaper

Reflection on "Food Inc."

This movie makes me sick to my stomach because the food industry is something of which my family is a part of. The opening of the film explains how the general public is being decieved; that they are led to believe that their food is being produced on a lovely country farm, with a red barn and green pastures, while in reality, this is a complete fantasy. The ironic thing is that this is exactly how my family farm is! We have a red barn, lovely green fields, and some of the happiest cattle you ever did see. At least until we sell them at the auction mart. I asked my Dad and he said they are sold to a feedlot after that. He has personally never seen a feedlot though. I wonder if he would still want to sell them if he knew. I wonder if most farmers around my hometown would. Although my Dad believes that humans are "above" the animals (in his traditional Catholic way), he has always treated the animals on our farm very well. Any time us kids wanted to shirk our chores he would yell out, "Do YOU like to eat and drink?! Well, the cows like to eat too!" Clearly the people running these industries don't have a fraction of the concern for the animals my Dad does. And if they aren't caring for the animals WE eat, then they aren't caring for us either. The sad thing is that as much as my Dad might care, he is not the end of the line. I need to believe there is some way he could be, and want to find out how to make that possible.

The overweight family of 4 also made me sad. I agree that generally speaking "bad food" at the grocery store is cheaper than fruits and vegetables. But then again, they spent $12 at a fast food restaurant when they could gotten much better value for their money at the grocery store. For example, 1 loaf of bread for $3, 1 jar of peanut butter $3-5 (depending on the jar), 1 bag of apples $5, and 1 bag of carrots $2. This is a quick, easy and cheap lunch. Maddening to see them going for the soft drinks and denying their little girl some pears. If I was offered 20 bottles of pop or just ONE pear I would choose the pear hands down. Why? Because the pop has NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE! It is completely worthless. It's several moments of pleasure that equal a lifetime of pain. It's really the biggest scam that ever existed. These companies are making people PAY to get themselves sick. And they do it so so well! I have read many articles on the combination of sugar, salt, and fat that food companies layer into food so that we crave it again and again. Basically these combinations stimulate the brain to release dopamine which is an instant pleasure rush. Food addiction is very real. And the public needs to be better educated about it, otherwise they have no way to escape. Breaking the cycle IS possible and absolutely wonderful. But that choice can't be made until they know there is another option! I also want to note that it's not just the "lower-class" that needs to be educated. There is so much tricky labelling, decieving advertising, misunderstandings/debate about what is healthy or not that absolutely everyone needs to learn. My Mom is a doctor and tried to teach me everything she knew but I still ended up this way...until I continued my food education. It's fundamentally a food problem, not a weight problem.

Inspiring evidence?

Me at ~242 lbs! =(

Currently me!

~160 lbs! (in 10 months and still going!) =)

The patenting of genes by Monsanto is also very disturbing. It seems that they have an even firmer grip in America than in Canada, because they are suing farmers and actually getting away with it. We learned about the case of Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto in a lawsuit over some Round-up ready canola getting into Percy's seed (by unknown/accidental causes), and Monsanto thereby suing him for patent violations. Thankfully Percy won his battle in Canada; his case can now be applied to other farmers in similar situations. From what I've heard Monsanto sounds like a complete monster. I went to their website and found out that their headquarters is in Winnipeg! Monsanto monsters among us!? Personally my family hasn't had any issues with Monsanto. My Dad has been using "Round-up Ready" canola for quite a few years now. (And he is getting aggravated by all my questions!) But it seems to me Monsanto only really has a problem with you if you are one of those few farmers who isn't using their product. Those farmers are getting fewer and fewer...90% of soybean crops are round-up ready in the US (Source: Food Inc.), and 50% of canola crops in Saskatchewan are round-up ready (Source: Schmeiser vs. Monsanto website). This is a trend we definitely want to reverse since pesticide use period is very bad for the environment; just one of the plethora of negative methods used on our land by conventional farming.

And the last part of this film that made me feel even worse was the honest plea to "use your money to vote" for healthy (for the people, planet, and animals), sustainable ways of growing food. Especially since in my last blog reflection I wrote about how I couldn't always shop organic because of x, y, and z reasons. Well this movie just put one more weight on my shoulders that I feel strong enough to bear! I'm going to suck it up and take a very long bus ride to the Organza Market on Osbourne once a week. "If the people demand good, wholesome food the farmers will provide it." (Food Inc.) Here I am, demanding!

Works Cited:

Livewell 360. Sugar, Salt, and Fat: An Additive Combination? Nov.29/09 Found at: http://livewell360.com/2009/11/sugar-fat-salt-an-addictive-combination/ Retrieved on:

Mar.11/10

Monsanto Canada. Our Pledge. 2006-10. Found at: http://www.monsanto.ca/about/pledge/default.asp Retrieved on: Mar. 11/10

Schmeiser, Percy. Monsanto vs. Schmeiser. 2009. Found at: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ Retrieved on: Mar.11/10

Women's Indiginous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation

Summary of Selection 41

Gender and diversity are linked. Traditionally in society there is a hierarchy system with men on top. Women and the environment are lower/inferior, without intrinsic value. Diversity is lost due to this hierarchy system, leading to the formation of monocultures, uniformity, and homogeneity. Diversity is the basis of women's politics, and the politics of ecology. This is part of the reason why women are so important in environmental issues.

Economies of 3rd world countries traditionally have sustainable lifestyles which maintain biodiversity while meeting their own needs. But there is a general misconception that diversity based production systems have low productivity. This may be true only in a linear, one- dimensional, short term sense, and only for those who have the economic, commercial interests as their priority. Crop uniformity reduces diversity and reduces the labour required to grow food. Labour displacement is actually unproductive because it leads to poverty.

Women's work and knowledge is central to societal systems and agriculture. They have multiple tasks of great volume (usually not paid) which include farming, housework, raising children, cooking, outside work such as gathering and hunting and much much more. Their work is usually discounted by economists and statisticians. Gender bias has also allowed women's work to become invisible. Time allocation studies are more accurate and give them proper credit. Women have complex knowledge and physical strength and skills. They are used in many different areas related to the environment, including the production and preparation of plant foods, in the dairy industry, and even forestry (use of biomass for food/fertilizer). It can be said that women's work links the 'sectors' of agriculture.

Diversity is produced and conserved through the reproduction and conservation of culture. Village women are integral in the festivals and rituals during which tests for seed selection and propagation are performed. 3rd world women produce through biodiversity. Corporate scientists produce through uniformity. They breed seeds that cannot reproduce so farmers cannot save their seed to plant the next year. They also patent their hybrid and/or GMO seeds, which puts further restrictions on seed-saving, since the companies claim intellectual property rights. But their claim that they 'create' life is unjustified. This is also because nature and 3rd world countries 'made' the seed first!

Genetically engineered food is advertised as safe in North America. But there are risks whether or not people are aware of them. They include:
-toxicants added
-decreased nutritional quality
-organisms composition is altered
-proteins are added which could cause allergic reactions
-decreased effectiveness of antibiotics for humans because of antibiotic genes added to food
-deletion of genes may cause side effects we can't anticipate or even dream of
We shouldn't trust pesticide producing companies either (such as Monsanto). Remember, wolves can't turn into green sheep!

My Marvelous Meals

Blog Reflection: Food and You
Write down your food intake for the next 48 hours. What foods do you eat regularly? What environmental concerns relate to your diet?

Here is what I've been eating...I took a few pictures too.
Sunday, March 7th
Breakfast:
shredded wheat
2 T. walnuts
1 T. raisins
1 c. skim milk
1 grapefruit

Lunch:
2 slices whole grain bread
1 T. peanut butter
1 T. jam (no sugar added)
1 c. snap peas
55 g. carrot sticks
celery sticks
2 T. hummus
Activia yogurt
1/4 c. granola
apple

Supper:
2/3 c. brown rice
3 oz. chicken (breast meat and wing)
1 1/2 c. broccoli
1 tomato
mushrooms
1 c. skim milk
1/2 c. grapes

Monday, March 8th
Breakfast:
1 c. Kashi Go Lean cereal
1 c. skim milk
1 hard boiled egg
1/2 grapefruit

Lunch:
1 c. rice
3 oz. chicken
1 c. green beans
1 c. broccoli
Activia yogurt
1/4 c. granola
apple

Supper:
2 slices whole grain bread
1 T. peanut butter
1 T. jam
55 g. carrots
cucumber slices
mushrooms
1 c. snap peas
celery
2 pc. light Laughing Cow Cheese
1 c. skim milk
banana

So as you can see, I have extremely healthy eating habits. I have 3 meals a day, no snacks. Every meal I have whole grains, tons of vegetables, a fruit, and a serving of low fat dairy. I have 6 oz. or less of meat, fish, poultry, and meat substitutes (such as cheese, cottage cheese, tofu etc.) per day. I eat very little red meat, usually I have chicken or turkey breast or salmon. I also eat 2-3 servings of healthy fats per day (such as nuts, peanut butter, olive oil, margarine etc.) I drink a LOT of water. I try to stay away from processed foods as much as possible; and I rarely eat out anymore. I plan my meals in advance, write everything down and stay within a calorie limit for the day (1500-1700 calories). I've been eating this way since May 2009, and combined with a regular exercise routine, change of lifestyle habits and mentality have lost 80 lbs!

Approximately half the volume of my food intake is fruits and vegetables. I have had some difficulties getting organic produce at the grocery store for 2 reasons- availability and cost. Safeway does not have the wide variety of organic produce that I would like to see. Many of the fruits and vegetables I want to eat are not available as organic. Trying another grocery store isn't really an option for me. Since I changed my lifestyle I decided to get rid of my car; I walk and/or bus to the grocery store now. It is very important that I have good access to the grocery store because I am there 2-3 times/week to get fresh food. Then there is the issue of cost. I am a full-time student, living in an apartment, with no support from my parents, and a paltry student loan. I am honestly already stretched to the limit buying the groceries I already do, nevermind organic! For example, take a look at the website for "Eat It, Canada's Online Organic Store." http://www.eatit.ca/default.asp I might be able to afford the produce, even though the apples for example can cost $0.75-1.00 each! But there is no way I could afford the canned food, cereals, pastas, etc. A can of diced tomatoes is $4.99, whereas I could get the same for $1.00 non-organic.

It is very frustrating to be in this position. All people should have better access to organic food, and at better prices. If more farmers decided to grow and sell their produce organically and locally, it would be much better for the people and the environment which we are a part of. I don't want to support the tons of pesticides and herbicides that are sprayed onto the land every year. Having those good fresh foods available would also benefit people's health. It seems to me that the rising obesity levels and disease caused/related to obesity (such as diabetes, heart attacks, stroke, etc.) are clear warning sign that humans are not in harmony with our environment. Clearly the processed foods packed with salt, sugar, and fat are not good for anyone. But it seems that not everyone is as keen on having the idea of having a farmer's market nearby as me. I asked my roommate if she would go a few times per week to get fresh produce if there was one nearby. She said no, and that she didn't have enough time to get to Safeway once a week as it is. She has an office job and works a lot of overtime. More evidence for unhealthy lifestyles that lead to unhealthy eating and an unhealthy environment....so that made me quite sad to hear. My boyfriend has been trying to follow my eating habits whenever possible. He makes a lot of faces, but really has been very good about trying new things. Shopping from a Farmer's Market for healthy food just might be something that people would have to learn to include in their daily routine. Just like regular exercise or taking the time to cook healthily at home, it's a matter of priorities. Personally, I've learned to put my health first, understanding that before I can take care of anyone else, I have to take care of myself. And ultimately taking care of myself equates to taking care of everyone...if it means I push for organic food to be more available, more community gardening space, more Farmer's Markets, etc.


Something I am seriously discussing with my Dad and brothers right now is switching over our farm from conventional to organic. And by discussing I mean it's basically me trying to convince them that this would be a good thing! I am very excited to go to the Environmental Career Fair on Wednesday to see if there is anything I can learn that might help my argument. I believe the Organic Food Council of Manitoba is going to be there so I hope to get some information from them. It seems that this idea is especially hard for my Dad to grasp. Suggesting that he reduce the amount of land he has, sell most of his machinery, and drastically change the way he has been farming for years feels like a step backwards to him. Especially since he has worked so so hard his whole life to get where he is right now...learning that it hasn't been the best path is very difficult to hear. I think many farmers in the area where I grew up would feel quite similarly. What I think is needed is a consultant/educator to come and pitch the idea in a realistic way; one that includes exactly how switching over from conventional to organic farming would work. It's becoming my dream more and more that my family farm becomes organic, and hopefully someday my brothers and I might be selling local, organic produce at a Farmer's Market near you!




Works Cited:


Eat It, Canada's Online Organic Store. http://www.eatit.ca/default.asp Retrieved on: Mar. 10/10

Health Canada. Obesity. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/obes-eng.php Oct 2006. Retrieved on: Mar. 10/10

The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture

Summary of Selection 27

The old way of life has all but disappeared. There once was many small family farms throughout the countryside. They grew their own gardens, produced meat, milk and eggs, and grew a variety of grain crops. "Minor surpluses" were sold locally to neighbors, such as extra eggs or cream. Workmanship and thrift were ideals to be proud of. This was not a perfect society, but had many good qualities and values. Sadly, this way of life has been scorned and abandoned by "modern" society and its people. It has been labelled as an outdated, outmoded, and unscientific way of life.

There have been many changes in the farm system. They are much larger and more mechanized, with fewer owners total. More land is owned by city-dwellers. Many of the better farms are deteriorating for lack of manpower, time, and money. Mainly the elderly are left farming, and their children will typically not want to stay on the farm. Who can blame them? The lifestyle is too costly, too much work, stressful and perhaps "unfashionable." Most people's goals in life are now leisure/comfort and entertainment. There is no market for minor produce anymore , all in the name of "sanitation." There is a connection between the "modernization" of agricultural techniques and the disintegration of the culture/communities of farming. Millions of people who used to live in the country were/are displaced to cities. The saying "get big or get out" has been forced onto them, and many have indeed gotten out. Even those who "got big" are driven out by those who got bigger. These ideas did not come from farmers, they came from institutions, university experts, bureaucrats, and "agribusinessmen." Ultimately this has led to the state we are now in, where we have "efficiency" at the expense of community, and quantity at the expense of quality.

Food is a cultural product. It cannot be produced by technology alone. To believe this greatly oversimplifies the nature of agriculture. A healthy farm culture has many aspects of knowledge. It must grow among people established on the land. The movement from farm to city has caused a simplification of the human mind and character. A competant farmer is his own boss. He has personal discipline, experiences, judgement and a vast knowledge base. He works according to necessity, interest and obligation. For a man to move from this lifestyle to a "simple" job in an industry in a city is very easy, but he will lose his knowledge and values. Going back from a "city/simplified" lifestyle to a "farm" lifestyle is very difficult. If we are to transition back to a farm based society it could take generations because of this. Farmers have extremely complex knowledge and it would take a long time to build up that knowledge base again.

In a natural system, whatever affects one thing ultimately affects everything. In a good agricultural system, this should be recognized. This should also be recognized in our cultural system. Our concerns and enterprises must not be fragmented or exploitive. We need cooperation in our relationships, with competition reduced. We need to recognize that there is no such thing as an entirely limitable or controllable effect. Recognition of this makes us responsible for our judgements as well as facts. The fragmentary culture/mindset is destructive because the true/total effects of an action are not considered. We cannot continue to have this "moral ignorance" driving our agricultural progress.

Environmental, Energetic and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems

Summary of Selection 29


Our agricultural system depends heavily on synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, which have negative public health, environmental, and economic effects. Some of these are contaminated streams and groundwater, huge health care costs ($12 billion/year in the US), nutrients from the fertilizer and manure destroy water ecosystems, soil erosion and more. Certified organic agriculture with integrated pest and nutrient management will reduce reliance on chemicals while helping the environment and remaining economically sound. Organic agriculture uses ecological processes to help plants grow while conserving soil and water.


An experiment was done to compare organic and conventional farming. 3 cropping systems were used:
1) Conventional cropping- synthetic fertilizer and herbicide use
2) Organic "animal-based" cropping- used animal manure as nitrogen source (fertilizer), no herbicides
3) Organic Legume based- used a nitrogen fixing legume crop for fertilizer, no herbicides

Crop biomass, weed biomass, grain yield, nitrate leaching, herbicide leaching, percolated water volumes, soil carbon, soil nitrogen, and soil water content were measured and compared. Generally, results were very positive for the organic methods. Yields under a normal rainfall were close to the same for all methods (after a 5 year transition period), and under drought conditions the organic methods produced higher yields (due to increased groundwater recharge, decreased runoff and increased soil water content.) Some field tests from Europe and New Zealand indicate a 30-50% decreased yield using organic farming. This could be due to low nitrogen-nutrient levels; although during the first few years of the Rodale study the yields were lower too (transition period). In the long term there should be no difference- providing crop legume rotation and manure fertilization is done properly.

Crop yields and economics of organic systems do vary based on crops, regions and technologies used. However, the environmental benefits are much greater in organic systems. Reduced chemical inputs, decreased soil erosion, water conservation, increased soil organic matter and biodiversity, reduced crop diseases, increased microbes within the soil, decreased oil and natural gas inputs (helping to prevent climate change) are some of the many environmental benefits. There are also economic benefits. Organic produce can sell for 20-140% higher in many countries across the world. Labour inputs are higher than conventional farming, but are more evenly distributed throughout the year allowing for more regular/dependable income for workers.

Some challenges are the it can be difficult to maintain soil fertility (nitrogen levels). The results of the Rodale study may not be universally applicable. Pest and weed control can also be difficult. These difficulties inevitable affect yields negatively. To make adoption of organic farming easier we would require increased knowledge/technology to help. Off season cover crops and extended crop rotation would be needed. We can use natural biodiversity to reduce the use of chemicals (even if it is just slight decreases at first). There are many benefits to organic farming that seem to outweigh the difficulties that may be troublesome at first as we work out the kinks of the method...organic farming is more sustainable and ecologically sound!

Food Scarcity: An Environmental Wake-up Call

Summary of Selection 28

As environmental damage increases it will inevitably affect the global economy. Every kind of environmental degredation has consequences. Deforestation leads to soil erosion and flooding; carbon released leads to climate change; overusing our aquifers lead to water shortages; overfishing to fisheries collapsing; overgrazing to deforestation; plant and animal decline to ecosystem collapse. Agriculture is the link between environmental deterioration and economic decline. Rising prices of food will be an indicator that economic decline has begun, which will lead to social and political instability. The high prices will have an especially bad effect on the poor of the world; riots would probably ensue, affecting corporations, stock markets and stability. These effects would ultimately affect affluent countries as well. It is becoming more and more difficult to feed the world population (which is growing at 800 million/year), and there are already over 800 million people malnourished in our world. If food prices rose, this number would certainly increase.

Farmers across the world have used methods to increase the land base for farming. Some examples are irrigation, terracing, drainage, fallowing and more. Through these ingenious methods, grain production has increased over time. However, it hasn't kept up with population growth. The grain-land area/person has been shrinking since mid-century. In 1996 there were 0.2 hectares/person. If our grain-land area remains stable and population continues to climb, it is projected that by 2030 there will only be 0.08 hectares/person.

Farmers face the threat of water scarcity. There is a battle between the demand for water for irrigation vs. residential demand. Irrigation is crucial in grain production; grain production was increased by 3X from 1950-90 due to irrigation. Most wheat and rice is grown on irrigated land, although the growth of irrigation has fallen behind population growth. This trend will continue due to the extensive aquifer depletion in the China, India, and the USA (which produce 1/2 the world's grain harvest) and also due to the competition between the cities and countryside for water. Typically the cities win, decreasing production, causing the country/city to import grain.

We can already see the evidence of food scarcity all around us...in the decreased production of oceans (fisheries) and grainland, in the fact that world carryover stocks of grain cannot be replenished, and increasing food prices. Should we take food scarcity as an environmental wake-up call? We must find a balance between food and people. This means finding a balance regarding population control and stabilization, finding environmental solutions, developing technology to help with climate change, and increasing our efficiency in all areas. We need to make better choices and improve our land use policy. For example, there is currently a debate going on in China over auto transport vs. bicycle/rail- there isn't enough land to both feed people and build huge roads and parking lots, so activisits are campaigning for a bicycle and rail system instead.

Food security may mean that the "American Dream" isn't at all realistic. Until recently we have had 3 world food reserves to draw on in case of scarcity.
1) cropland idled under farm programs
2) surplus stocks of grain in storage
3) 1/3 of total world grain harvest that is fed to livestock, poultry, and fish
The first 2 have have been depleted. Drawing on #3 is the "unpopular choice" because people do not want to give up meat...but realistically if the grain was used to directly feed people instead of to feed livestock (which are then fed to people), many many more would be fed. Perhaps there should be a tax on the consumption of livestock products. Our food security depends on creating an environmentally sustainable economy.