Science Controversies - Recently Updated Pages

No - The Misanthropic Environmentalism Argument

k1james — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:16:07 CDT

by Alexander Wilson

Abstract

The system for composting Polylactic Acid (PLA) corn plastics requires the same fundamental behaviors of citizens as traditional recycling: sort, collect, and dispose of materials in the designated bins. Facing a global oil crisis, conventional Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) plastics, which compose the packaging of ubiquitous bottled water, is not sustainable at current recycling rates. Changes should be made at all levels, including individual behaviors, municipal governments, and state legislatures, with the ultimate goal of obtaining zero waste in a closed cycle of recyclable materials.

Introduction

Some 141 million tons of conventional Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) plastics were disposed of in the waste stream in 2006 alone (CRI). The bottled spring water that has become a staple of American culture is not sustainable at national recycling rates.

In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded Cargill Dow (“NatureWorks” today) a Greener Reaction Conditions Award for the “green” processes used to manufacture PLA (Polylactic Acid) corn plastic (EPA 2002). The corn plastic itself reached market in late 2006, when the Wal-Mart corporation adopted the technology for various food packaging. Corporate and environmental interests alike heralded corn plastics as the solution to the PET plastics that clogged America’s landfills in the form of clear water bottles. With government backing, proponents of corn plastics argue that expenses are spared on petroleum and on resources otherwise spent in the collection of conventional plastics.

Corn plastics, however, have met a larger, lukewarm response from recycling cooperatives and environmental groups whose doubts about the material’s “biodegradable” pedigree have contributed to the material’s stunted growth. Together these groups share the practical concern that consumers will mix corn plastics with conventional plastics, thereby contaminating loads and corrupting the recovery processes for both materials. Another concern is that bottles decompose prematurely. In the rush to “green” their public images, companies have hastily adopted several so-called “environmentally friendly” practices in recent years. Some of these mechanisms are less-than-elaborate facades, and even legitimate scientific advances have unintended consequences. Thus, the corn plastics revolution must be scrutinized.

The energy benefits of corn plastics would seem to justify their means. However, “compostable” corn plastics require constant 140-degree heat, a condition offered in merely 113 facilities nationwide. Getting materials to these scarce sites is a muddier logistical problem than training people to recycle using existing, prevalent infrastructure. Roughly half of U.S. communities participate in recycling programs (EPA 2007), yet in 2006, 141 billion beverage containers were trashed, a trend that persisted into the following year (CRI). So long as emergent technologies are placed in the hands of humans, the potential to corrupt and pervert their intended purposes is boundless. Recycling is a people problem that the technological solution of corn plastics fails to address. At its most egregious, this fix is an extra obstacle to the best solution: people taking ownership of their own actions. Practically speaking, there are measures to be taken to sure up existing infrastructure, and to make a closed system in which PET plastic resources contribute zero waste to the municipal solid waste stream (MSW) in communities nationwide.

The Inadequacies of Municipal Programs

There is a dark reality to the idea that a “fool-proof” solution to America’s recycling problem can be chemically engineered. Embracing such technology is, in a sense, acknowledging the futility of human endeavors. Engineering solutions take decision-making power out of the hands of ordinary citizens whose lives are increasingly, and often unquestioningly, impacted by an onslaught of new technologies.

Recycling systems were a latecomer to the twentieth century as a product of the Environmental movement, and have not come far since their inception. Originating on a small scale in the late 1970’s, these basic waste management systems were ill-equipped to deal with the cultural phenomenon of bottled water that bloomed in the U.S. According to Beverage Marketing Corporation estimates, bottled water consumption increased by a multiple of 25 from 1976 to 2007, from 354 million gallons to more than 9 billion gallons (Beverage Marketing Corporation via Cormier, New Internationalist, 2008). Today, about a fifth of North Americans rely exclusively on bottled water (Cormier).

Individual households are the source of the municipal solid waste stream (MSW) that is ultimately landfilled or incinerated en masse: some 70% of the MSW (Spiegelman). EPA reports that some 31 million tons of plastics—12.1% of total waste generation—were discharged into the MSW in 2007, about 14 million of which was containers and packaging. In contrast, the agency estimates that about 2.1 million tons of plastics—6.8% of total plastic manufactured—are recovered by recycling. If the U.S. can improve on the rate at which PET bottles are recycled (a 37% rate of recovery), there is an annually-unmet, high industry demand for recovered PET to be used in bottle production (EPA 2007). The EPA-sponsored Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) appeals to consumers to meet a nationwide recycling rate of 35% by 2010.

Intervention is needed at the lowest levels of government. Municipal officials are in perhaps the best situation to understand the needs of their neighbors and constituents. The research of scientific surveys demonstrates that to perpetuate the “one-size fits all” approach to recycling is to accept failure:

There is reason to believe that great recycling potential exists in virtually every demographic group if its resources, needs, capacities, and concerns are understood. But instead of tailoring campaigns for specific communities, municipalities often applied recycling programs city-wide—for simplicity, to avoid charges of discrimination, and because of a lack of reliable information about the needs of different groups.
(Howenstine 90).

This same study found that, as a result of poor policy-making, recycling rates fluctuated wildly among adjacent Chicago neighborhoods. However, no study has conclusively drawn correlation between the different social strata and their recycling habits.

Navigating the Waste Stream

Conventional recycling systems rely on a top-down process; manufacturers deliver their products to consumers, who (ideally) sort and dispose of materials appropriately. This seemingly elementary system—education programs begin in grade school—with considerably many variables, has a wide potential to fail, however. Abundant research states the problem: “Collecting, washing, sorting, and storing require time, effort, organization, space, and/or a vehicle; non-recyclers report that recycling is ‘too messy’” (Richard Day). The big difference between recyclers and non-recyclers is that people don’t know what to collect (Howenstine 6). The general rule deduced: people can’t handle recycling.

The New York Times reported, in May of 2008, that the gulf between recycling and conventional waste costs is narrowing as the expense of dumping at maxed-out landfills rises. Of NYC recycling rates, which peaked at 20% of the MSW and hover around 17% , deputy sanitation commissioner Vito A. Turso said, “There are plenty of other things on the metal, plastic, paper and glass side that can be recycled, and if people were more ambitious about recycling those materials, there would be less in the waste stream” (DePalma).

Gumming Up the Works

PLA corn plastics are infamously advertised to biodegrade at 140-degrees sustained heat. This is significant for three reasons: (1) confused consumers wrongly believe that they can compost the bottles at home; (2) corn plastic water bottles have been found to partially decompose before the end of their shelf-lives in rare cases when the bottles temporarily attain this temperature; (3) the contaminating corn plastic recyclants damage machinery and adulterate admixtures when, during the recycling process, conventional PET plastics are heated in the cleaning and drying stages. Perhaps the most damning statistic is that as little as one bottle in 1,000 can contaminate a load of conventional PET plastics in the recycling process (Learn).

Curbside recycling collection is “an educational nightmare,” according to Jerry Bartlett, vice president of the Cedar Grove composting plant, near Seattle, where recycling rates are among the highest in the country. “In order for the composting system to function,” Bartlett said, “residents must separate recyclable plastics from PLAs; NatureWorks contracted to accept 40,000-pound truckloads of PLAs, but has received none to date because ‘recyclers don’t separate PLA’” (Learn). Even the most progressive municipalities aren’t equipped to grapple with corn plastics. Furthermore, states that have enjoyed 66-96% recycling rates due to effective “Bottle Bills,” (discussed below) are most prominently threatened by corn plastic diffusion.

Legislative Measures

Municipalities and states nationwide have tried a variety of measures to encourage citizen recycling. Some have enacted economic incentives both positive, coming in the form of rewards and refunds to consumers, and negative, in the form of fines. Appeals to the altruistic duties of social responsibility and conservation are also popular historically, reinforced by grade school curriculums. And in the more progressive municipalities, “block captains” embarrass their non-recycling neighbors in door-to-door recycling campaigns.

Container-deposit Legislation (CDL), which makes producers and consumers equally responsible for collecting waste, is a trend on the cusp of widespread adoption. These so-called “Bottle Bills” encourage private infrastructures, owned by distributors and retailers alike, for waste management. Distributors pay a minimum refundable deposit, usually 5-10 cents, on the (glass and aluminum) beverage containers that consumers return to drop-sites and collection facilities. Among eleven states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont) that utilize CDL, the recovery rate for beverage containers is 66-96%. These means have succeeded in meeting the goal; says an Aluminum Association spokesperson, “States that have deposit programs have the highest can recycling rates, on average at 74% or higher, while the recycling rate in non-deposits states is around 38%” (CRI, 2008). CDL is an effective—albeit focused—collection method that targets problem areas, such as litter and the use of beverage containers outside homes, where conventional source-collection methods are not possible.

Recycling is big money, and state legislatures are getting hip to this revenue source. Currently, corporate interests trump public interests. Because it is cheaper to manufacture “virgin” bottles from petroleum than from recycled PET, the bottle-lobby campaigns virulently against bottle bills. Several states, including Connecticut and New York, are currently seeking to capture the collection successes of aluminum and glass by expanding bottle bill legislation to include plastic beverage containers. In Connecticut, legislators have proposed that distributors be required to track profits from container deposits in separate accounts that are then surrendered to the state. If passed, the law would collect considerable revenues for the state, making Connecticut’s CDL program an attractive model for other states. These funds could be used to expand collection and sorting programs, thereby increasing recoverable PET supply, and in turn to lower costs to bottle producers.

Production-Side Thinking

It is also important to consider corporate America’s place. Throughout much of the U.S. today, the production cycle—and the responsibility of the manufacturers—of consumable goods ends when those products are plucked from the shelves.

Corporate producers are largely overlooked for the role they play in the recycling of consumer products. Current recycling systems are production-side oriented [YUN2], meaning that the onus (collection, disposal, and transportation costs) to recycle is placed on the consumers of certain goods. Manufacturers, on the other hand, are free to determine production standards and packaging materials with little consideration given to the materials’ end destinations. Market forces have occasionally shaped the plastics industry to the benefit of the environment. “Source Reduction,” policies aimed at industry and encouraged at various levels of government, present clear economic and environmental incentives. One trend of these initiatives, termed “lightweighting,” has reduced the amount of materials in products over time; for example, today’s milk jugs are 30% lighter than those of twenty years ago (EPA). However successful, current public opinion suggests that producers should take greater and more direct interests in the wastage problem. As mentioned above, few programs like statewide Bottle Bills attempt to shift this burden back to producers by holding distributors monetarily responsible for collection.

Conclusion

A coalition of major recycling interests petitioned NatureWorks, the premier manufacturer of corn plastic, to postpone production and distribution of its corn plastics. The gist of the Memorandum was a call to plan the logistics of corn plastic collection and disposal before the blitz of products fell into the hands of unwitting consumers. NatureWorks neither complied nor answered. Thus, assuming that the government fails to impose a ban, it appears that corn plastics will test their weight on the American market. Should the bottle bill proposal being currently undertaken in Connecticut (and tentatively New York State) demonstrate a significant revenue potential, perhaps municipal and state governments nationwide will enact their own CDL to capture recycling monies. In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether small scale market forces will propel these products into competition with PET plastics. Ultimately, it is important to remember that ordinary people determine the success or failure of recycling phenomena.

It is the opinion of this chapter's study that corn plastics are an inelegant solution to the materials wastage problem. The efficacy of a corn plastics recycling system depends on citizens diversely shaped by socio-economic, ethnic, educational, and political conditions--perhaps the foremost factor is their past recycling experiences. Thus far, no recycling system in the United States has reached a zero waste mark; until this communication gap is bridged, corn plastics may flounder, gumming up the works and leaching the patience of the eager and willing recycling newbie.

No- The Houdini Effect of Honey Bees : How Global Climate Change is Responsible for Colony Collapse

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:06:41 CDT

The Houdini Effect of Honey Bees: How Global Climate Change is Responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder.
By: Ryan McGinnis

Abstract

With the disappearance of the honey bees and Colony Collapse disorder, there are many question left unanswered as to what is happening to the bees. The argument that this article tries to put forth is that that honey bees are disappearing because of global climate change and how it has caused the emergence of new viruses and diseases within the hives of honey bees. These diseases, which are attributed to the fluctuations associated with global climate change, are the primary cause for Colony Collapse Disorder.

Introduction

The disappearance of the honey bee is one of the most important topics associated with the scientific community. One of the explanations for the bees disappearance is from global climate change. Within global climate change, there are a multitude of reasons that can help explain why the honey bee is rapidly vanishing. One of the better explanations for the Houdini effect of honey bees is from the new viruses and diseases that are killing off the bees. The evolution and emergence of these new viruses and diseases can be allocated to global climate change and how it affects the creation of disease. In order to better understand this problem, it’s important to understand why the disappearance of the honey bee will affect the rest of the world.

Why Honey Bees are Important

Since 2007, a new problem has emerged in the scientific community that has to be ability to affect every single person: the dramatic disappearance of the honey bee. Honey bees are one of the most important insects to humans. They are used by beekeepers to help produce crops across the nation by pollinating flowers. Yet, with the sudden disappearance of the honey bee, many farmers are now having trouble pollinating most of their crops. The burgeoning loss of the honey bee is beginning to affect commercial farmers who are having trouble producing crops such as almonds, avocados, and kiwis (Barrionuevo). This loss of bees affects everyone and how they will shop for fruits and vegetables in supermarkets in the future. Based upon a study put out by Cornell University, honey bees annually pollinate $14 billion worth of seeds and crops within the United States (Barrionuevo). Aside from the apparent catastrophic problem of not being able to produce crops, the major concern of beekeepers is what is it that is happening to the bees? Many colonies of honey bees are simply disappearing into thin air with no corpses or note left behind telling where they have gone. This disappearance of the bees has been dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder.

Colony Collapse Disorder

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) was a term first used in late 2006 when it was first noticed that the honey bees were vanishing. The symptoms that are associated with CCD include the complete absence of adult honey bees with no build-up of dead bees in or around the colony, presence of capped brood within the colony, presence of both honey and pollen which are not immediately robbed by other bee colonies, and delayed attacks of the colony by other insects (Wikipedia.org). Within the United States, 24 states have been affected by CCD. Essentially, the honey bees are just up and disappearing for no apparent reason. They are leaving their young behind and no other insect is even beginning to dismantle the hive or steal any of the honey, pollen, or brood. There have been a multitude of causes procured to determine and evaluate CCD. Of these causes, one of the more sound arguments that exists is the presence of global climate change and how it is creating new diseases from different pests that threaten the livelihood of the honey bee.

Global Climate Change

Global climate change has been argued as one of the leading causes of CCD. One of the more significant notices that global climate change is producing is the earlier on-setting of the seasons. The effects of global climate change are causing plants to flower much earlier in the year than they would normally (Lindsey). With the seasons changing more rapidly and at different times than normal, honey bees may be getting confused and having a hard time to differentiate when they should go out and search for honey. Therefore, when honey bees go out and leave the hive, they get disoriented because where they thought they would find flowering plants and pollen, they are finding nothing (Wikipedia.org). This could be causing the bees to become too exhausted and lost to find their way back to the hive. As new periods of growth begin to immerge, the honey bee has a much more difficult time in adjusting to the change in the season, thus creating more stress for the bee to have to deal with. However, as sound as this argument may be, it does not explain why other insects are avoiding the hive and the honey left behind by bees that have succumbed to CCD. In order to understand how global climate change may be affecting honey bees on a much larger scale, one must look at how new diseases that affect bees are beginning to appear in North America.

Nosema Disease

One of the diseases associated with honey bees is Nosema disease. Nosema disease is regarded as one of the more destructive diseases of adult bees (Ritter & Akratanakul). Nosema disease is capable of infesting and killing off an entire hive of adult honey bees during a season. This disease causes the bees to physiologically age much faster than normal, decreasing their life-span and deteriorating their hypopharyngeal glands, which rapidly dwindles the strength of the colony (Ritter & Akratanakul). How global climate change could be affecting the colony from Nosema disease is the way in which the disease will spread. During colder periods, many of the bees will not go and fly from the hive. Therefore, Nosema disease has the capability of spreading itself more rampantly through the hive while all of the honey bees are grounded. The way in which Nosema disease works is that the protozoan, Nosema Apis, infests the bees with its spores. These 5 to 7 mm spores are absorbed through the food and germinate within the mid-gut of the bees, causing their abdomens to swell and become shiny (Ritter & Akratanakul). Once a bee is infected with Nosema disease, there is nothing that can really be done for it except removing it from the rest of the colony before the disease spreads. One of the main problems with combating Nosema disease is that it is impossible to tell whether a colony is completely infected without killing the bee and running laboratory tests (Ritter & Akratanakul). Despite the immergence and catastrophic capabilities of the Nosema disease, it is not considered one of the front runners for CCD when being associated with global climate change.

Varroa Destructor

When looking at the argument for CCD associated with global climate change, the best bet for the cause of CCD is from one of the bees biggest natural predators: the Varroa Destructor mite. The Varroa Destructor mite is a very dangerous parasite for honey bees. They have the uncanny ability to thrive in both temperate and tropical environments, leaving no bee colony safe from their horrific effects. The Varroa Destructor mite is a rather large parasitic mite, measuring about 1.6 x 1.1 mm which can be seen by the naked eye. Adult versions of the mite can be found walking along the honey comb of the bees within the brood cell and can also be found clinging to the abdomen of adult bees (Ritter & Akratanakul). The way that Varroa Destructor affects the bees is by feeding directly from the adult honey bees. The mite pierces the bees’ body and sucks the bees’ haemolymph, otherwise known as the bees’ “blood” (Ritter & Akratanakul). What the mite is capable of doing is spreading viruses around through the blood stream of bees based upon how it feeds. Something that is characteristic of CCD and how the Varroa Destructor kills bees is how most of the bees affected are found to die outside of the hive while foraging or by flying to a neighboring colony and affecting that colony with the mite (Ritter & Akratanakul). One of the diseases that the Varroa Destructor mite transmits to the honey bee is the Deformed Wing Virus which causes bees to have smaller abdomens, deformed and useless wings, and paralysis (Wikipedia.org). This virus is one of the more crippling diseases that the Varroa Destructor mite is responsible for transmitting on to honey bee colonies. Recently in 2004, a new virus was discovered to be transmitted by the Varroa Destructor mite which is thought to be the leading cause of CCD in North America. This virus is known as the Israel Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV). IAPV acts in a similar manner to bees as HIV acts towards humans, in how it causes the bees immune system to be lowered making them more susceptible to disease. IAPV was found to be transmitted from Varroa Destructor in Israel and is now being reported as one of the leading causes of CCD in North America (www.sciencedaily.com). As this disease begins to run more rampantly in honey bee colonies in North America, more and more bees are becoming infected and dying off from CCD. How IAPV relates to global climate change is how it has only recently appeared as the global temperature has fluctuated. According to a paper produced by Jagadish Shukula from the Institute of Global Environment and Society inc. in Galverton, Md; global climate change is causing the dynamics of infectious disease transmission to change, creating an abundance of new diseases that the planet has never seen before (Emerging Infectious Diseases). This can be seen in how IAPV has been created and transmitted in bees as the peak of global climate change has come to fruition.

Conclusion

With the dramatic changes associated with global climate change, the presence of new seasons and new diseases can be thought of as the causes for Colony Collapse Disorder and the disappearance of the honey bee. The dramatic change in temperature can be attributed to the different times that the season are changing, causing bees to become more disoriented when they leave the hive in search of flowering plants. This could be one of the causes for why the honey bees cannot be found in their hives. Another possible cause of CCD is the strength and immergence of Nosema disease and how it has decimated bee populations in the past. However, one of the stronger arguments for the cause of CCD lies within the Varroa Destructor mite. Within this mite, the transmittal of an abundance of viruses to the honey bee are capable of causing CCD, primarily through IAPV. Yet, with no clear understanding of CCD diseases associated with global climate change can not be ruled out as the cause of CCD.

Yes- Pesticide Causing Negative Effects on the Honey Bee Population in the United States

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:04:19 CDT

Pesticide: Causing Negative Effects on the Honeybee Population in the United States
By: Rebekah Freeman

Statement

The recent decline of the honeybee can be contributed primarily to the use of pesticides on crops.

Abstract

Farmers use bees and pesticides in conjunction with one another to grow a healthy and productive harvest. In the United States, “approximately forty agricultural producing states where fruit and vegetable crops rely on honey bees for pollination and major crop production” (Hopwood). The recent disappearance of the bee has obtained a significant amount of publicity. While the pesticides have a negative effect on many of the unwanted insects, the pesticides also have a negative effect on the honeybee. The honeybees are needed to pollinate the farmers’ crops and without the bee, farmers will not be able to have as successful harvests. Pesticides slowly poison the bee over time, pesticides cause bees a slow and painful death, and if managed correctly, there would be less of an impact on the bee population. Countries like France and German are taking initiative to reduce neonicotinoid type pesticides. Neonicotinoid type pesticides are more prominently used in the United States than other countries. The United States and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) need to invest in regulating pesticides more thoroughly to prevent further damage to the bee population.

Introduction of Colony Collapse Disorder

Recently, beekeepers have been reporting a significant loss of bees in their hives. Since October 2006, some beekeepers have reported losses in numbers as great as 30-90 of their hive population (Kaplan). While the exact cause of the bee loss is unknown, a common term to describe the phenomena is Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Signs a bee colony has been affected by CCD include; “simply no or a low number of adult honey bees present but with a live queen and no dead honey bees in the hive. Often there is still honey in the hive, and immature bees (brood) are present” (Kaplan). Many theories exist on what triggers CCD but the two primary causes for CCD have been contributed to chemical and environmental causes. CCD has gained more attention in recent years, but other declines in the honeybee population have been recorded throughout history. Some years in which a decline in the honeybee population was recorded include the 1920s, the 1960s, and the 1980s (Kaplan). During each of these time periods, there was little or no research done on the disappearance of the honeybees so the cause of their disappearance remained a mystery. In a normal bee colony, “natural mortality of up to 100 dead adult bees per day is a normal die-off rate. When the rate exceeds 100 per day, then poisoning may be suspected” (Wilson, Sonnet, Stoner). Any bee die off larger than 100 per day is a cause of concern for beekeepers. For more information on CCD, visit the USDA.

Biological Effect of Pesticide on Bees

Contact with Pesticide

Honeybees can come in contact with pesticide in several different ways. A honeybee can encounter pesticide when pollinating plants or simply flying through the atmosphere. While an area may be thought to be free of pesticide, pesticide can contaminate areas through pesticide drift. Pesticide drift occurs when “small particles of pesticides often become suspended in the atmosphere as a result of wind currents or heated air rising” (Wilson, Sonnet, Stoner). A drift can occur over several miles leaving a large contaminated area. Honeybees then encounter the pesticides while flying through the atmosphere.

Honeybees could simply be exposed to pesticide when they go to pollinate crops. At a congressional hearing, Entomologist Dr. Maryann Frazier testified, “46 different pesticides including six of their metabolites were identified out of 108 pollen samples analyzed. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average of 5 different pesticide residues each” (Hopwood). In another part of Frazier’s testimony, Frazier stated, “97.2% of pollen samples had pesticides and only three (2.8%) of the 108 pollen samples had no detectable pesticides” (Hopwood). While there might not be high levels of pesticide in each pollen sample, each time a bee goes to pollinate a plant; they are exposed to the pesticide.

Pesticide Poisoning

Pesticide affects honeybees in a similar way to which it affects humans. Pesticides “can cause cancer, alter genes, and damage the reproductive, endocrine or nervous system” in both honeybees and humans (Hopwood). Several factors can indicate pesticide poisoning in a beehive. Often, dead bees lie on the floor near the hive or almost dead bees roll in circles on the ground near the hive entrances. Bees also begin to lose their appetite and become disorientated.

The primary sign of pesticide poisoning in a beehive is the absence of honeybees in the hive. Most bees do not die near the hive, so the cause of the missing bees is often unknown. Poisoned honeybees that do not return to the hive are beneficial since they do not bring the contamination near the other bees.

Nicotinyl Insecticides

What are Neonicotinoids?

Historically, “nicotine in the form of tobacco extracts was reported in 1690 as the first plant-derived insecticide” and neonicotinoids are a new type of insecticide named after its similarity to the original nicotine insecticide (Tomizowa and Casida). Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies Neonicotinoids for general use against insects (Fishel). Examples of neonicotinoids include “acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam“(Dropdata). Nicotinyl Insecticides are a neurotoxin meaning they attack the nervous systems of insects. Neonicotinoids work by binding at the receptor sites of insects attempting to cause paralysis. While neonicotinoids are proven to be extremely harmful to insects, neonicotinoids have little effect on mammals. For more information on the chemical make-up of Neonicotinoid Pesticides read NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDE TOXICOLOGY: Mechanisms of Selective Action.

How a Honeybee Encounters Nicotinyl Insecticides

Nicotinyl Insecticides seem to be the primary type of pesticide causing negative effects on the honeybee population. The company Bayer produces most Nicotinyl insecticides. Nicotinyl insecticides target all parts of the plant, going all the way down into the roots and flower. Since neonicotinoids are water soluble, neonicotinoids move quickly through plant tissues (Fishel). In addition, Nicotinyl insecticides stay in the environment by getting into the soil through the root of the plant. The bee is exposed to the pesticide while pollinating plants.

The Bayer CropScience Company, which produces neonicotinoid pesticides, states that an error made by the seed company is responsible for the damage to the bee population (Benjamin). Bayer CropScience stated, the company “failed to use the glue-like substance that sticks the pesticide to the seed, led to the chemical getting into the air” (Benjamin). While the pesticide poisoning could have been accident, it is just as likely that the bees contact the poison whether the poison is glued to a seed or not.

Affects of Nicotinyl Insecticides on Honeybees

Out of all pesticides effecting bees, Nicotinyl pesticides seem to be the pesticide most studied in a laboratory. A study done by French scientists shows the primary effects of nicotinyl insecticides:

“French scientists led by Dr. Marc Colin (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA) in 1998 videotaped one set of their experiments on bees exposed to low ppb concentrations of imidacloprid to demonstrate that the honey bees became too groggy and intoxicated effectively impairing their short-term memory in smell and theoretically blocking normal foraging behavior. After only a few days, the honey bees exposed to low ppb levels of imidacloprid stopped feeding and their numbers sharply dropped compared to the control groups. Dr. Colin compared videotapes of exposed bees and unaffected control bees to dramatically demonstrate the powerful sub lethal effects of imidacloprid. If the bees stopped their feeding behavior, they will quickly die.” (Hopwood).

Since the honeybees are not exposed to the pesticide at lethal levels initially, the chemical stays in the bees system and poisons the bee over time. While the study at the Institut National de la Rechereche Agronomique was performed in a laboratory, similar effects on the honeybee population could be happening in nature.

Another affect of nicotinyl insecticides on the honeybee is the contamination of a hive. When the insecticide poisons a honeybee, traces of the insecticide have been found in the wax of the hive. This causes any bees encountering the contaminated wax to become contaminated as well.

Other Countries Reactions to the Decline of Honeybees

Germany and France

The CCD has not only affected the United States. Germany and France have seen a significant decline in the honeybee population and are working together to make the world more habitable for the honeybee population. The German Professional Beekeepers association stated that “ 50-60% of the bees have died on average and some beekeepers have lost all their hives" (Benjamin). Since 2002, both Germany and France have taken regulator actions against the use of certain pesticides on crops.

The company Bayer produces most of the pesticides Germany and France have deemed a threat to the honeybee population. The suspended neonicotinoid products include Antarc (active ingredient imidacloprid), Chinook (active ingredient imidacloprid), Cruiser (active ingredient thiamethoxam), Elado (active ingredient clothianidin), Faibel (active ingredient imidaclorpid), Mesurol (active ingredient methiocarb), and Poncho (active ingredient clothianidin) (Hopwood). The two ingredients most commonly used in the neonicotinoid products banned by Germany and France include imidacloprid and clothianidin. Studies done at the German Research Center for Cultivated Plants reported that 29 out of 30 bees have been killed by contact with the neonicotinoid clothianidin (Hopwood). To read more articles on the effects of Bayer pesticides in Germany and France visit Bayer-Kills-Bees .

Conclusion

The United States and EPA need to investigate ways to prevent further harm to the bee population. Other countries are regulating neonicotinoid pesticide use, and the use should do more research on the affects of pesticide on bee colony size. While there have been no significant studies done on pesticides affecting bee colony size in the United States, there is enough evidence from other countries for there to be a concern. Most studies in the United States on CCD have been done based on beekeepers surveys; there is no way for one to tell the scientific validity of the studies. Since farmers need the honeybee to pollinate their crops, it is extremely important to do research on ways to help honeybee colonies battle pesticides.

Honeybees and Crop Pollination: a look at how Colony Collapse Disorder is detrimental to farmers and

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:02:33 CDT

Honeybees and Crop Pollination: a look at how Colony Collapse Disorder is detrimental to farmers and crop yield
By Sarah Harman

Statement

The recent phenomenon, Colony Collapse Disorder, can be attributed to many factors. Evidence suggests that pesticides may be a factor but probably not the ultimate cause.

Abstract

The paper touches on elements of pollination and how honeybees are vital to farmers and crop yield. The paper also explains how Colony Collapse Disorder is affecting bees and David Hackenberg, the beekeeper unofficially credited with discovering Colony Collapse Disorder in the U.S.

Introduction

The Colony Collapse Disorder is a recent phenomenon sweeping the U.S. and many other countries. Colony Collapse Disorder is the term used for the massive disappearances of honeybees. The honeybee is quickly disappearing from hives across the globe and no one quite understands why. This means that farmers are in danger of losing their primary crop pollinators. The Colony Collapse Disorder could drastically affect crop yield and thus the agricultural economy.

Pollination Basics

In order to understand how the Colony Collapse Disorder came to the forefront of public concern, one must first be refreshed on some basic biology. A plant’s basic goal in life is to produce its seed. In order to do that, the plant must pollinate its flowers. Flowers are the reproductive center of a plant. A biotic plant has two different kinds of flowers: boy flowers and girl flowers. The boy part of the flower is called the stamen and contains the pollen (sperm) on several pads outlining the center of the flower. In the center of the flower, the pistil (location of the ovule) collects pollen on its sticky top. Once pollen is transferred from the stamen to the pistil, the plant’s flower is fertilized and the flower will develop into a fruit.

Plants that need to be pollinated by the flowers of another plant require external forces to pollinate them. This is where pollinators come into play. Sometimes flowers can be pollinated simply by the wind or by animals brushing past the plants. In most cases though, plants are pollinated by the various insects that visit them looking for nectar. Insects can move from flower to flower, collecting nectar very easily and frequently during the day. As the insect moves to and from each plant, it brushes against the pollen and inadvertently transfers the pollen to another flower as it is feeding.

Pollination and Crops

Now that the reader understands a little about pollination, he or she can see why pollination is so important to commercial farmers. Pollination is necessary for their crops to produce the fruits and vegetables that they do. The reader can see why the various pollinators are very important to farmers too. While wind and animals can pollinate their crops, farmers know that insects will pollinate more of their crops, faster and more efficiently than the wind or animals could. Most insects are solitary—meaning that they spend their lives alone unless mating—and may only need to feed on a few plants a day. Instead, farmers rely heavily on social insects to pollinate their crops. Insects that stick together throughout life and forage together would be very beneficial to a farmer with a field full of crops, especially if these social insects lived near the crops. It is precisely because of this fact that farmers use honeybees.

Honeybees and Crops

Honeybees are very unique creatures. A group of honeybees live in a hive together. There is a queen in every hive who is in charge of reproducing bees for the hive and ordering the worker bees about. Worker bees are sterile female bees responsible for foraging, creating honey, and building the comb that the honey will be stored in. When these worker bees are foraging, they are attracted to flowers by their color and/or fragrance. Once a worker bee has found a new area to forage, it will return to the hive and communicate to the others where they can find food by way of the “bee dance”—a very unique communication strategy.

The social nature of the honeybee makes it a very useful insect for a farmer to have around when the growing season comes around. Bees usually choose the closest flowers to forage for nectar in; therefore, one might logically assume that if a hive of honeybees was placed next to a farmer’s field of crops, they would forage almost solely on that field. Since each honeybee is collecting nectar for an entire hive of bees, the honeybee can also be expected to visit a large number of plants per outing. The number of plants visited multiplied by the sheer number of foraging bees officially makes honeybees the most useful insects to a farmer wishing to maximize his or her crop yield.

Farmers also use honeybees because they manageable. Since honeybees live in a social unit, they tend to stick together when foraging and come back to the same place when they are done. It is for this reason that honeybees are easily transported. This can be good for a farmer if he or she has either multiple crops or a very large crop. The bees are given a few days to forage in a particular area of the crops and then they are moved to either another side of the crop or to other crops completely.

Since honeybees are such a vital component to producing crops, farmers often keep hives of honeybees themselves. However, it is more likely the case that farmers will hire professional beekeepers to bring their own hives to pollinate the crops. Professional beekeepers not only keep bees to sell the honey, but also to help out farmers who need their crops pollinated. These professional beekeepers can be seen traveling from farm to farm in many different areas, allowing farmers to use their truckloads of bees to pollinate their crops. Sometimes a beekeeper’s entire lively hood is dependent on using his or her hives of honeybees to pollinate crops for commercial farmers.

By now, the reader can see why the honeybee is such an extraordinary insect to a farmer. Honeybees, because of their social behavior, prove an excellent means of maximizing crops yields for farmers. Honeybees are used in virtually every crop producing country in the world. In the U.S., honeybees are the chief pollinators for 95 types of fruits and vegetables. In 2000 alone, honeybees contributed $14.6 billion of extra crop yield for farmers. So, it’s not necessarily that other factors do not contribute to the pollination of crops, but honeybees are such efficient pollinators that farmers would be considered very simple-minded if they did not use honeybees to pollinate their crops.

Colony Collapse Disorder

Now that the reader sees how vital honeybees are to crop producing around the world, he or she might now understand the gravity of the situation with the Colony Collapse Disorder. For decades, farmers have looked for ways to improve crop yields. Today there are many utilities available to farms for this kind of job. Among these, there are honeybees, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified crops, and pesticides to fit every occasion. It now seems apparent that all of this synthetic twisting of nature is having repercussions. What the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) entails is that the honeybees are rapidly disappearing from hives around the world. This is a very recent, very alarming phenomenon that has every beekeeper and crop producer scrambling for a remedy to this dire situation. David Hackenberg, a professional beekeeper in Pennsylvania, was one of the first people to notice the CCD occurring in the U.S. Around 2007 he lost 2,000 of his 3,000 hives of honeybees that he used to pollinate crops in Florida (BBC News). Hackenberg is very concerned about his bees, because he is seeing a general fall in the health of the honeybees. Since Hackenberg discovered this loss of bees, the U.S. has discovered that it has lost a third of its total honeybee population (60 Minutes).

No one seems to be able to pin down what exactly is happening to the disappearing bees. Usually when bees die, their bodies can be found littering the ground below a hive. In CCD, this is not the case. When Hackenberg first noticed a large number of his bees to be missing, he searched every nook and cranny of the hives and surrounding areas and yet found not one single bee corpse. He said that it was like looking at a “ghost town” (60 Minutes). So, not only are these bees leaving their hives and never coming back, but also entire hives of bees are not even showing up dead; they’re just coming up missing. This particular aspect of CCD is problematic for those instigating the causes of the CCD, because there are not many bees to analyze and discover their cause(s) of death.

Unhealthy Honeybees

What scientists are seeing is that honeybees in general are not in good health. Honeybees these days are being attacked from a myriad of foreign invaders. Viruses, antibiotics, mites, poor diet and various pesticides are weakening the immune systems of the honeybees, making them susceptible to a rapid and unpredictable mortality rate. A weak immune system creates many problems for the honeybees and may be related to why the bees are “disappearing” rather than showing up dead.

The fact of the matter is, what is causing CCD is most likely not completely lethal. Honeybees are being infected by something or something(s) that destroy the bee slowly and indirectly. What may be affecting the bees could be affecting their navigation system. Normally, honeybees have an excellent navigation system that uses the sun and landmarks to orient the bee of its location in relation to the hive. Perhaps the reason why the bees don’t die at the hive is because whatever is affecting them, affects their navigation system. Essentially, if bees become disoriented while foraging, they may never make it back to their hives. The cause(s) of the CCD might also distort their communication methods and thus create miscommunications with other foraging members of the hive. There are countless factors involved in CCD, which is why scientists, farmers, and beekeepers around the world are very unsettled by this growing problem.

Findings and Conclusion

While no one factor has been singled out as the ultimate cause of CCD, there has been a rapid rise in another aspect of farming that contributes some of the symptoms the bees are exhibiting. Pesticides are used consistently alongside the use of honeybees to maximize a farmer’s crop yield. While scientists insist that pesticides are harmless to honeybees, one might wonder how this is so when pesticides are designed to kill the honeybee’s relatives (60 Minutes Pt. 2). According to a journal produced by the Entomological Society of America in 2001, the “sublethal effects, which reduce longevity and adversely affect foraging, memory and navigational abilities,” of pesticide usage has been long overlooked by scientists in the past (Drummond and Stubbs 37). So it is possible that these so-called “sublethal” characteristics of pesticides have been overlooked long enough to be a factor leading up to CCD.

More evidence that suggests pesticides may be a factor in CCD exists in a little town in Highland County Virginia. A local beekeeper there says that the honeybees of this county remain virtually untouched by the effects of CCD. Bill Harman, a local beekeeper there said, “the bees here have mites and viruses and all that, but I haven’t had any bees go missing that I couldn’t find.” Highland County is one of the few rural communities that has no commercial farming. That means that Highland County’s honeybees are not exposed to large (or even small) amounts of pesticides and, though they are exposed to other factors like mites and viruses, the honeybee population remains constant.

Though proven factors leading to the Colony Collapse Disorder have not been clearly identified, the reader must still understand how dire this situation is. The beginning of this paper has already proven how vital bees are to pollination and agriculture. The faster the honeybees decline in number, the less crop yields any farmer will have. Consequently, the CCD will cause an economic downturn for all involved in in agriculture—which includes everyone who goes to the supermarket looking for fruits and vegetables in the produce aisle. Scientists all over the world are scrambling desperately to keep this from happening so farmers and beekeepers can continue to do their work and so the reader can continue to buy fruits and vegetables at a reasonable price.

Honey Bee Works Cited

RMcGinnis — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:28:08 CDT

Works Cited

“60 Minutes: Why are honeybees disappearing Pt. 1.” Youtube.com. 2007. Online Encyclopedia. 12 May 2009 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
VRBJf57aNp4&feature=related>.

“60 Minutes: Why are honeybees disappearing Pt. 2.” Youtube.com. 2007. Online Video Database. 12 May 2009 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
_RZv9BvQJ-A&feature=related>.

Barrionuevo, Alexei. “Honeybees Vanish, Leaving Keepers in Peril.” 2007. NY Times. 3 Mar. 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/business/27bees.html>.

Britannica Encyclopedia: “The Honey Bee Crisis”. 18 June 2007. http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/06/who-killed-the-honeybees/.

“Colony Collapse Disorder.” Wikipedia.org. 2009. Online Encyclopedia. 12 May 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder#Antibiotics_and_miticides>.

Emerging Infectious Diseases. “Global Climate Change and Infectious Diseases.” 12 May 2009. <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol4no3/colwell.htm>.

Green Earth Friend: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) Honey Bees Dying By the Millions. 19 Jan. 2009. http://www.greenearthfriend.com/2009/01/colony-collapse-disorder-ccd-honeybees-dying-by-the-millions/.

Scientific American: “Solving the Mystery of the Vanishing Bees”. 31 March 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=saving-the-honeybee

Lindsey, Rebecca. “Buzzing about Climate Change.” Earth Observatory. 2007. NASA.
Mar. 2009. <http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Bees/printall.php>.

“Pollination.” Wikipedia.org. 2009. Online Encyclopedia. 12 May 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollination>.

Ritter, Wolfgang & Pongthep Akratanakul. Honey Bee Diseases and Pests: A Practical
Guide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006.

ScienceDaily. “Virus Implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder of Bees.” 2007.
Sciencedaily.com. 12 May 2009.
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm>.

Stubbs, Constance S., Francis A. Drummond, Eds. “Bees and Crop Pollination—Crisis, Crossroads, Conservation.” Thomas Say Publications in Entomology. Maryland: Entomological Society of America, 2001. 37-38.

Wells, Matt. “Vanishing Bees Threaten U.S. Crops.” BBC News. 11 March 2007. Online Newswire. 12 May 2009 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6438373.stm>.

Group 3 Conclusion

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:14:58 CDT

Conclusion

National security is extremely important, especially after September 11, 2001, to not only the United States, but all other countries around the world. Because of the way war is conducted has now changed, so has the means and equipment to protect one’s country. In one particular instance, even though sonar has been used by the United States since World War II, the practice of it has changed from being used in deep, off-shore water to as close as four miles off shore. Unfortunately, innocent marine life, particularly species of whales, are being severely harmed and even killed because of the use of sonar.

The feeding, mating, and daily communication functions are being severely affected, causing some whales to leave their normal area all together or beaching themselves and dying onshore.
Since sonar is so widely used more and more frequently whales are beaching themselves and after further studies, have been found to have sever bleeding and around the brain. However, the members of the United States Navy have been doing their part to protect the whales by turning the sonar completely off and halting training exercises when whales are in the area. The Navy is also the largest fonder of whale research in the country. Since their most likely will never be a time where sonar becomes obsolete, the Navy and other marine biologists are each doing their part to reduce the number of whale fatalities. Whales should be respected kept off the endangered species list, but at what point are whales live more important than humans?

Group 3:

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:39:47 CDT

Introduction

Sonar is a useful and important tool for the U.S. Navy, and is strictly necessary for modern submarine warfare to be successful. Marine wildlife, such as whales, is an important part of the environment and the marine life cycle, and it is a common idea that this life needs to be protected. Unfortunately, recent science has uncovered a link between the use of sonar and the detriment or death of nearby marine wildlife. This project will serve to examine both sides of this argument to fully reveal the complex issues contained within. On one side, we will examine the importance of the use of sonar, the necessity of training in its use in areas inhabited by whales, and the measures that are currently being taken to prevent harm to the local wildlife. On the other side, we will examine the many ways that naval sonar interacts with whales, the effects that this sonar has on them, and review studies and expert testimonies on the subject. Although this issue has been legally settled in court, these examinations into the importance and effects of sonar should provide the reader with a more complete understanding of the controversy that eventually led to the court case, and provide a more complete picture which allows the reader to decide and understand if the decision of the court was a fair and appropriate one. After all, the issue is still a relevant one to all of us for as long as sonar continues to be used, and as long as whales still exist in the waters to be potentially affected by the use of it.

No-Genetically Modified Crops Do More Harm Than Good

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:35:26 CDT

By: Josh Poovey

The Multi-Billion Dollar BioTech Companies

There is much reason to believe that these BioTech companies have been dishonest when regarding the testing of their products. Companies that produce GM seeds, such as Monsanto, invest heavily into research and development for new products. It is only natural that these companies seek to make a profit for their investments and labor. The research produced by these companies in turn always results in the GM crop being easier to grow, or produces more than a regular crop. Many critics of GM foods believe that this data may be skewed, or is incomplete regarding the potential health and environmental hazards. This is because of the fact that these BioTech companies are profit driven entities, and they wish to market their product favorably.

What makes it possible for these companies to do this is the lack of regulations on GM foods by the FDA. This is because the FDA considers GM foods to be “substantially equivalent” to other like food crops. For example, all corn, GM or not has the same FDA regulations. These companies are not required to report to the FDA regarding new products, and even if they decide to, the GM companies do not have to follow the FDA's suggestions. This causes a great amount of concern to many, as there are many fears regarding the safety of GM foods. The controversy over the matter is further stimulated by the lack of regulations, which is associated with a lack of testing and safety.

In 1998, the top ten GM seed manufacturers controlled an estimated 30-40% of worldwide seed sales. The combined annual profit for these companies reaches around forty-five billion dollars. With this much money involved, as well as a lack of regulations, makes many people nervous regarding the honesty of these companies (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html).

GM Food Hurt Small Farmers

These BioTech companies claim that their products help small farmers, as the crops require less pesticide and they are resilient to other environmental factors. However, the small farmers are usually no better off than they were before they started using GM seeds. One of the reasons for this is that large companies like Monsanto patent their crops. Farmers must pay every growing season for the rights to grow these patented GM crops. In addition, they are not allowed to save seeds, which is an age-old tradition among farmers. If farmers are caught growing GM crops without having paid for the rights, they risk legal action. Monsanto is currently involved in several lawsuits regarding this matter. The farmers defend themselves by claiming that the pollen merely blew in from other fields and pollinated their plants.

In addition, GM crops are more expensive than regular crops, this being directly related to how much time and effort goes into the research and manufacturing of these products. This is a concern of the critics to GM foods, as it could potentially increase the gap between the rich and poor in developing countries. Not only are they more expensive to purchase, in many cases these crops required additional maintenance and pesticides. Recent studies have shown that farmers growing GM crops are using just as much pesticides and herbicides as conventional farmers. This is because GM crops are resistant to these sprays, while all other plants will be killed by them. Scientists even estimate that herbicide-resistant plants will triple the amount of herbicides used in agriculture (Cummins). Furthermore, in India, higher yields resulted from using GM crops, but expenses were much higher. The result was that these farmers were no better off than before they obtained GM seeds. Many of the farmers lost money, or were forced off their land.

Another problem associated with GM crops is that they will further our reliance on mono-cultures, or farms that contain large amounts of one particular crop. Currently, just 15 food crops today supply 90% of the worlds food and energy intake. Not only does this reduce biodiversity, but it reduces their insurance against pests and drought. Many small farmers around the world produce a large variety of crops that are on different cycles, as to protect from environmental factors. With a mono-culture, there is no such protection. This may be devastating to people in developing countries when considers pests and diseases. In the 1970's a corn blight devastated US corn production, as in 1975 the rice hopper devastated rice production in Indonesia (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html).

With this many potential problems for small farmers, it becomes a complex issue regarding whether or BioTech companies should be able to continue to distribute these products. In these developing countries, there is already a great deal of famine occurring. If the risk for large-scale destruction of crops increases at all, this will only increase the amount of people that starve to death.

Why GM Foods Won't Solve World Hunger

BioTech corporations say that the use of GM crops could help combat the issue of world hunger. However, in reality most people that go hungry live in countries that have food surpluses rather than deficits. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, there is already enough food being produced worldwide to food one and a half times the current population. However, one in seven people in the world are currently going hungry.

There are several reasons for this problem. A main reason is the fact that since BioTech companies are profit driven, they focus their efforts on cash crops. These are crops that have a wide variety of uses, and therefore are grown in larger quantities than other crops. This means that BioTech companies are focused on advancing these crops, and not focusing on crops that could alleviate world hunger. So rather than growing foods to meet the needs of local communities that supply a healthy diet, farmers are growing crops to export. Crop production has tripled since the 1950's, yet more people go hungry now. In addition, farmers being forced off their land because of cash-hungry BioTech companies, this will only decrease the amount of food to supply local populations. For example, in Argentina, the number two producer of GM crops in the world, exports millions of tons of GM soya every year. Only 2% of harvested soybeans go to a national market, whereas 30% are exported as grain and 68% are processed by the national oilseed industry (Page 29 http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2006full.pdf). Yet, there are millions of people that live in Argentina that are going hungry.

The main reason for world hunger is actually poverty and a lack of available resources. Many of the people that starve have no access to natural resources, such as land or water sources. In addition, they have no money available to purchase the things they need. They might not even have access to the technology required to supply an adequate amount of food for a community. These are people that live in rural areas, and that are more than likely politically marginalized. Therefore there is no one to rely on when their crops are destroyed, or if there is a large drought.

Another contribution to this problem is the uneven distribution of wealth in developing countries. For example, in Latin America 80% of agricultural land is owned by 20% of the farmers. On the other hand, the other 20% of the land is owned by the rest of the population (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/feeding-the-world-facts-vers). This imbalance leaves very little land for the poorer portion of the population to grow food on, as the land owned by the rich farmers if most likely being used to export. With the heavy use of cash crops, it may further this distribution of wealth, resulting in even more people going hungry worldwide.

Germany Bans GM Maize

Germany has recently become the sixth European country to ban GM Corn. As stated by Greenpeace International President regarding MON810, a strain of corn marketed by the US BioTech company Monsanto “There is a justifiable reason to believe that … MON810 presents a danger to the environment” (http://us.oneworld.net/article/361908-germany-bans-gm-corn). This statement come from the fact that scientific studies have shown that the pesticides produced in MON810 have negative effects on the environment and biodiversity. Considering the fact that this strain of corn was the only crop that could be commercially grown in the area; there must be validity to this decision, as the government is cutting a large amount of money from their economy by doing this.

The USA, on the other hand, is the largest producer of GM foods in the world. As previously discussed, they also have very little regulations on the GM foods. These GM foods are not even required to be labeled in the USA, and consumers really have no way to tell what kind of crop they are eating. When looked at regarding the lack of long term testing done on the GM foods, if a person does indeed become ill from a GM food, there is no way to trace it back to the source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html). These problems are why Germany has become the sixth European country to outlaw MON810, following the example of France, Greece, Austria, Hungary, and Luxembourg.

Illegal GM Maize Being Used in India

Recently in India, tests conducted from products found in local supermarkets confirmed that Pepsico's Doritos Corn Chips contain GM MON863 and NK603 variety corn ingredients. Both of these crops contain a bacterial gene to give the plants a higher resistance to pests. However, tests done have shown that both of these strains pose a serious health impacts. The debate over these varieties led European countries to stop the cultivation of GM corn, and neither of these strains have been approved for human consumption in India (http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news/greenpeace-uncovers-illegal-gm).

The fact that these products being used are against the law shows how little regulation there truly is. Even though the two strains being used have shown to pose a serious health risk, they still are being consumed by people. This shows that it is very possible for this to be occurring elsewhere, without knowledge of it. This is a major problem with GM crops, in the fact that in developing countries it is very hard to determine just who is using hazardous GM crops. It is also entirely possible that those using and consuming the crops do not know the potential dangers of what they are growing; This relating directly to their lack of technology and scientific research. This implication is great, as it shows that there are dangers to any GM crop produced in the world. For every GM crop, even if it is found to have health risks, people in developing countries will continue to use the product. With their lack of technology, these potential health risks pose an even greater risk to people consuming GM foods unknowingly.

Our Works Cited

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:31:56 CDT

Works Cited and Consulted

"Arguments." Harvest of Fear. 2001. PBS. 14 April 2009 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html.

Bailey, Ronald. “Dr. Strangelunch.” Reason January 2001: 298-309. Print.

Cummins, R. "Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium -- by Ronnie Cummins / Rural America / In Motion Magazine." In Motion Magazine ® - A multicultural, online U.S. publication about democracy. 15 April 2009 http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/geff4.html#Anchor-Increased-57913.

Galun, Esra, and Eithan Galun. The Manufacture of Medical Products by Transgenic Plants. London: Imperial College Press, 2001.

"Germany Bans GM Corn | OneWorld.net (U.S.)." OneWorld.net (U.S.) | beyond your own borders. 12 May 2009 http://us.oneworld.net/article/361908-germany-bans-gm-corn.

"Greenpeace uncovers illegal GM food in India." Greenpeace | Greenpeace USA. 25 April 2009 http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news/greenpeace-uncovers-illegal-gm.

"Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium -- by Ronnie Cummins / Rural America / In Motion Magazine." In Motion Magazine ® - A multicultural, online U.S. publication about democracy. 21 April 2009 <http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/geff4.html#Anchor-Increased-57913>.

Kang , Manjit S. (Ed.). Genetic and Production Innovations in Field Crop Technology. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press, 2005.

McHughen, Alan. Pandora's picnic basket: The potential and hazards of genetically modified foods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc., 2000. Print.

Miller , Henry. "Scary food: fear of biotech may get you sick." Policy Review. No. 137. June 2006: Print. National Research Council, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants Science and Regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

Peairs, F. B. . "Bt Corn: Health and the Environment, no. 0.707." Colorado State University Extension. 4/07. Colorado State University. 12 May 2009 <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/CROPS/00707.html>.

Pence, Gregory. Designer Food: Mutant Harvest or Breadbasket of the World. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002. Print.

Thomson, Jennifer A.. GM Crops The Impact and The Potential. Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 2006.

Vines, Randy . "Plant Biotechnology." Virginia Cooperative Extension Educational Programs and Resources 443-002Mar 2002 4 Mar 2009 <http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/biotech/443-002/443-002.html>.

Our Conclusions

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:29:11 CDT

Since the mid to late twentieth century, advancements in biotechnology have allowed scientists to manipulate deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), creating Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and when applied to agriculture, GM crops. These advancements in bioengineering have presented scientists with many questions. Will genetically modified crops have adverse effects on consumer health, or will they provide a new forum for medicine production? Will transgenic crops create “superweeds” and devastate the environment, or will they help to exponentially decrease pesticide usage and assist with solving world hunger? For decades, scientists have been debating these questions and more.

Many believe that Genetically Modified crops have the potential to change agriculture as we know it to be, providing more efficient techniques for solving the world hunger crisis and allowing new methods of medicine production and administration. However, other scientists are concerned that there is little evidence of the long-term health effects of GMOs on humans. They also fear creating antibiotic resistance and the detrimental of GM foods introducing foreign allergens into food.

Not only is the medical field concerned about the effects of bioengineering, but environmentalists are also. Many scientists and agriculturalists believe that Genetically Modified crops will help to decrease pesticide use, promote environmentally responsible farming techniques, reduce pollution from animal waste, while creating crops that are better overall. GM crops have environmentalists worried; little known are the effects of these crops on non-target organisms, like the monarch butterfly. They also worry that herbicide-resistant plants will become “superweeds” that cannot be controlled.

At this point in time, scientists do not know enough about the effect of bioengineering and genetic modifications. The potential benefits of Genetically Modified crops are impressive—ending world hunger and malnutrition, while also improving the environment; however, the potential threats posed by these crops are to weighty to ignore. In order the public to make better decisions about GM product consumption, there need to be more unbiased studies about bioengineering crops. As it stands the possibilities for GM crops are endless, both positively and negatively.

Yes-Genetically Modified Crops Benefit the Environment

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:20:43 CDT

By: Amanda Thomas

Abstract

The term bioengineering was originally defined as the use of an organism or its products for commercial purposes; however, in the mid to late twentieth century, advancements in technology allowed scientists to manipulate deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), resulting in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). When applied to crops, bioengineering presents scientists with many questions such as: Will transgenic crops create “superweeds” and devastate the environment, or will they help to exponentially decrease pesticide usage and assist with solving world hunger? Although scientists continue to debate the pro’s and con’s of genetically modified crops, like Bacillus thuringiensis corn (Bt corn), it is clear that GM crops can decrease agricultural chemical with herbicide-tolerant plants and embedded insecticidal proteins, encourage to-till farming, reduce runoff and soil leeching, and decrease animal waste pollution. Though some scientists are concerned about the effects of GM crops on non-target organisms, specifically Bt corn and monarch caterpillars, studies show that there is little reason to worry.

Introduction

Every time an organism reproduces sexually, that organisms’ gene pool mixes and changes. In some instances this mixing forms new genetic variations and mutations within the species. In these cases genetic mutations occur naturally, and they can either help or harm an organism’s ability to thrive. Over the years, Science has learned to manipulate deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in the laboratory at a rate which nature could not achieve. The natural progression of genetic change has been sped up by science and is commonly referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Scientists soon realized that biotechnology would allow them to genetically modify plants, and in 1983 the first GM plant was created. It was a tobacco plant that was resistant to an antibiotic. Since then scientists have developed many varieties of GMOs, many of which, when applied to crops, present scientists with many questions. Will transgenic crops create “superweeds” which devastate the environment, or will they help to exponentially decrease pesticide usage and assist with solving world hunger? Will genetically modified crops have adverse effects on consumer health, or will they provide a new forum for medicine production? Today scientists continue to debate the answers to these questions and more. GMO

Environmental Impact

One of the most notable environmental benefits of Genetically Modified crops is their ability to reduce the use of agricultural chemicals like insecticides and herbicides. Scientists have developed varieties of plants which produce insecticidal proteins and others which are resistant to herbicides. The GM insecticidal protein plants are partially protected from insects; therefore, they help to decrease the amount of insecticide spray used on crops. Herbicide tolerant plants also help to decrease pesticide use. These plants are not affected by herbicides and other weed-killers, allowing farmers to use one broad-spectrum herbicide as opposed to several less effective sprays. (Vines, “Biotechnology and the Environment”).

An additional benefit of fewer chemical applications is decreased farm equipment fuel consumption. Genetically modified crops also encourage environmentally responsible farming techniques like no-till agriculture. No-till agriculture is a cropping system which is steadily becoming popular among farmers. Quite simply, farmers do not till their fields; farmers harvest their crops and leave the residue on the soil. The crop residues remain there through the planting and growing. With the use of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant plants, fields require only a broad spectrum herbicide, one that targets a variety of weeds, and allow an increase in post-harvest crop residue. The no-till system has been proven to reduce run-off anywhere from 75-99%. (Vines, “Biotechnology and the Environment”).

According to a Conservation Tillage Study, conducted in 2001 by the American Soybean Association, “73% of [452] soybean growers were leaving more crop residue on the soil surface than they did in 1996, meaning that there was an increase in no-till agriculture.” (Vines, “Frequently Asked Questions about Biotechnology”). When asked about the increase in crop residue, more than half of the growers attributed this change to using herbicide-tolerant soybeans. (Vines, “Frequently Asked Questions about Biotechnology”).

No-till agriculture also helps to reduce levels of phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium application to fields—three soil chemicals required for proper growing conditions. When one chemical lacking or being in excess and the soil’s chemical balance is off, farmers must regulate chemical levels with additional applications. With no-till cropping, residue acts as a natural fertilizer and as a ground cover to prevent soil leeching.

Scientists also believe that genetically modified crops can help farmers to reduce phosphorus levels in livestock waste. Animals require a certain amount of phosphorus in their diets; however, they are unable to metabolize phosphorus stored in the grains that they eat. Thus farmers must supplement animal diets with metabolically available phosphorus. Although this practice solves the animals’ diet dilemma, excess amounts of dietary phosphorus and non-metabolized phosphorus exit the body with manure and become environmental pollutants. In recent years scientists have begun experimenting with biotechnology and phytase, an enzyme which helps animals to metabolize the phosphorus stored in plants. By genetically modifying plants to produce phytase, scientists hope to decrease the phosphorus levels in livestock waste and ultimately reduce phosphorus run-off. (Vines, “Biotechnology and the Environment”).

Bt Crops

Some of the most common Genetically Modified insecticidal plants are known as Bt Crops, which include variations of corn, cotton, and potatoes. These plants produce a protein, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is commonly found around the world in soil bacterium. For decades farmers have used the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein sprays as an alternative to chemical insecticides. (Vines, “Biotechnology and the Environment”). Scientists know of about 280 different strains of Bacillus thuringiensis. These Bt strains produce forms of delta endotoxins, which when consumed by certain insects are fatal. Delta endotoxins are only able to attack sites in a few groups of insects, and they are therefore thought to be safer than most insecticides. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies them as Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) and has approved them for the majority of organic certification programs. (Peairs) Another benefit of Bt crops is that they protect the delta endotoxins from UV light exposure; UV light exposure breaks down the delta endotoxins rendering them ineffective against pests. (Peairs)

In the late 1990’s Bt Corn received intense criticism from scientists after a study found its pollen to be fatal to monarch caterpillars in laboratories. However in 1999 the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that “Bt corn posed a ‘negligible’ risk to monarch caterpillars in field situations.” (Vines, “Biotechnology and the Environment”).

Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed plants which typically grow alongside corn fields. A study conducted which compared Bt cornfields and non-Bt cornfields locations in the Midwest and Ontario showed no differences in caterpillar survival, except with the now discontinued event 176. Event 176 is a strain of Bt corn which produces the most toxic pollen. A lethal dose of event 176 for a monarch caterpillar is 2500 pollen grains per in2 of milkweed leaf. Bt corn pollen levels on milkweed plants within cornfields were between 500 and 2500 grains per in2 of milkweed leaf. Bt corn pollen gives little threat of traveling; milkweed plants 15 feet from the field averaged 9 grains per in2 of milkweed leaf. Later studies also showed higher monarch caterpillar survival in Bt corn fields than insecticide-treated fields. (Peairs)

Conclusion

The possibilities for genetically modified crops are endless, and their benefits to the environment cannot go unnoted. Though some scientists are concerned that they will have negative effects, these effects have not yet been proven. Along with the further development of biotechnology, more studies should be conducted in order to better understand the full effects of Genetically Modified crops.

Yes-Genetically Modified Foods Help Humans

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:19:28 CDT

By: Jessica Watahovich

Abstract

In 2050, the population is expected to double from the current 6 billion to nearly 12 billion people. With this growing population, also comes a shortage of land and food. Genetically modified crops could be the answer to this crisis. Opponents claim that eating genetically modified crops are unsafe and unnatural, but the only apparent difference between genetically modified crops and ordinary crops seems to be the way the genes are transferred (McHughen, p. 11). The resulting crops are identical.

If scientists are allowed to experiment with genetically modified crops, the benefits to humans could be limitless. Genetically engineered crops carry health benefits such as higher-nutrients and lower sugar contents. In addition, genetically modified crops undergo more thorough testing than traditional varieties because of the stigma associated with them. Genetic engineering also has the potential to help farmers by producing higher crop yields while using less land. The most prominent argument in favor of genetically modified crops is the potential to solve the world hunger crisis. However, significantly more unbiased research needs to be done on the engineered crops to determine their effects on humans before they can be widely accepted as a “safe” alternative.

Health Benefits

One of the major health concerns for many people in the United States is that genetically modified foods are unsafe to consume. A primary argument shouted by opponents of genetically modified foods is that if you eat genetically modified foods, then you are “eating DNA.” However, most people are unaware that nearly all foods contain DNA. The only foods that do not carry DNA are highly processed foods such as oil, starch, and sugar (McHughen, p. 87). Furthermore, most people are unaware that all foods contain bacteria and fungi even after pasteurization and sterilization. When Thomas Hoban, a Sociology professor at North Carolina State University, conducted a public opinion poll on whether or not people thought that ordinary tomatoes contain genes, he found that most people knew that genetically modified foods contained genes, but did not know that ordinary tomatoes contain genes too (McHughen, p. 87).

In addition to the presence of DNA, both genetically modified foods and “ordinary” foods contain impurities. According to Alan McHughen, no food, even pure water, is “pure” in the scientific sense (p. 89). It is important to note that all foods carry some additional substances such as contaminants (p. 89). When a food is classified as “pure,” it simply means that “contaminants are present within a certain limit of tolerance” and will not harm consumers (p. 89). According to the USDA handbook, a United States Sample grade of mixed grain can contain “two or more pieces of glass...four or more pieces of an unknown foreign substance or recognized harmful or toxic substance, and ten or more rodent pellets, bird droppings…” (McHughen, p. 93). Although the USDA is allowing Americans to consume fecal matter in their ordinary grain, most Americans are still more afraid of the contents of genetically modified foods.

Because Americans continue to fear genetically modified foods, genetically modified foods undergo more rigorous testing than ordinary foods. Scientists start by comparing a genetically modified plant with the same kind of plant in an ordinary plant form (PBS). They test to see if the gene alters the genetically modified plant’s chemical make-up or nutrients (PBS). If the protein that is made from the new gene is the only observable difference, scientists test the protein for toxicity by feeding it to animals (PBS). To ensure that the protein is undeniably safe for human consumption, scientists give the animals protein amounts that are a thousand times higher than a person would ever ingest (PBS). Also, scientists test genetically modified food for allergy-inducing potential by checking the chemistry of each new protein against those of about five hundred known allergens (PBS). When researchers discovered that a protein in one type of genetically modified corn might be allergenic, the corn was only used for animal feed and never reached the consumer (PBS).

In addition to the advantage of thorough testing, genetically modified foods also carry many other health benefits. Genetically modified foods have the potential to be more nutritional than traditional alternatives. For example, scientists are working on products such as high-fiber corn and high-starch potatoes (PBS). Scientists are also experimenting with healthier food options like low-calorie sugar beets and oils with lower saturated fat contents (PBS).

Solving World Hunger

Across the world, 963 million people are hungry. Every five seconds, a child dies from hunger. Each year, 500,000 children go blind due to Vitamin A deficiency. If we allow them to, genetically modified crops have the potential to drastically decrease and possibly eliminate these human tragedies.

In America, the public has not readily accepted genetically modified crops because we have a vast number of traditional crops to supply our nutritional needs. Most Americans do not view food as a complex issue. In the United States, food is viewed as simple, but in most parts of the world food is not so simple. According to Gregory Pence, “in many developing countries of the world where starvation is always possible, food is not just a simple need but rather all needs and everything” (p. 152). Essentially, food is power. The countries that control the growing, storing, and distributing of food in poor countries control almost everything in those poor countries (Pence, p. 152). This is why America cannot merely give developing countries handouts of food. If the United States keeps giving them food without helping them to produce their own crops, developing countries will continue to rely solely on developed nations for their food supply.

According to Florence Wambugu, a plant geneticist in Africa, people have attempted to change the cultural practices of farmers for years, but it has not worked (Pence, p. 166). However, she states that “with biotechnology, all you have to do is give them a seed.” Wambugu believes that the choice to use genetically modified crops should be up to Africa rather than Greenpeace or Europe (Pence, p. 166). She also argues that organic farming methods will not stop the famine in Africa, but biotechnology will. Food is getting cheaper in developed countries because of the biotechnology advances, but in Africa, food costs are on the rise because the food is manually produced (Pence, p. 167). With the use of biotechnology in Africa, citizens could become independent from “super powers” like the United States.

Along with a more abundant food supply, genetically modified crops could provide people in developing countries with a more nutrient-rich diet. Basic nutrients are difficult for them to get because they typically rely on one source such as rice for all of their nutrients. Currently, 947 million people in the developing world are undernourished, which means that they consume less than the minimum amount of calories essential for sound health and growth (World Health Organization). Scientists are attempting to solve this problem by developing genetically modified crops like rice that is fortified with beta-carotene, which the body converts to Vitamin A, and additional iron (Pence, p. 165). This rice is known as Golden Rice because it could potentially prevent over 500,000 children from going blind each year due to Vitamin A deficiency (Pence, p. 165).

Genetically modified crops can be used to deliver nutrients, as well as, vaccines to developing countries. Researchers are attempting to inject vaccines into native crops such as bananas and tomatoes (PBS). Traditional vaccines are expensive to produce, difficult to store, and unsafe to transport in most developing nations. However, with “eatable vaccines” the storing, shipping, and administering issues will be solved. In addition, children would be able to eat while simultaneously receiving a much needed vaccine.

Helping Small Farmers

The dilemma of global food supply shortages began many decades ago. The world hunger issue cannot be discussed without mentioning the Father of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug. The Green Revolution occurred in the mid-20th century. It was the great increase in production of food grains, specifically wheat and rice, due to the introduction of high-yielding varieties of crops and technologies (Pence, p. 159). Borlaug’s work with genetic engineering has helped billions of humans to live over the past few decades (Pence, p. 159). However, proponents of genetically modified foods dismiss the benefits to people, as well as, farmers.

The widespread use of genetically modified crops during the Green Revolution led to several benefits for small farmers also. The use of genetically modified crops leads to higher-yields of crops using less land (Pence, p. 163). The previous slash-and-burn techniques, which are still used in Africa, required a steady supply of new land that was not available to small farmers. New high-yield crops require less land cultivation and less deforestation. In addition, traditional farming methods require a large number of people to harvest the crops. This is another issue in Africa right now. African farmers are forced to have more children because they need children to help harvest crops (Pence, p. 163). However, if they used more advanced technologies such as genetically modified crops that produce a higher-yield with less land then they would be able to have fewer children, and they could possibly educate the few children that they have.

Genetically engineered crops also produce higher-yields because they are resistant to many common pests that feed on the crops (PBS). Also, genetically engineered crops do not require multiple applications of weed killers. Large amounts of weed killers are expensive and take a long time to apply. With genetically engineered crops, farmers save money because they usually only have to make a single application of weed killer (PBS). Scientists are also researching other crops that could help farmers produce a higher-yield. For example, researchers have experimented with putting antifreeze in tomatoes to ward off losses from frosts (PBS). In addition, they are attempting to design plants that are drought and salt resistant for areas such as sub-Saharan Africa where irrigation is poor. According to Monsanto, genetically modified crop yields of cotton, corn, and soybeans have increased by between five to eight percent in the United States alone. In new conventional varieties, there has only been a one to two percent increase in crop yields.

Conclusion

Genetically modified crops have existed in approximately seventy percent of our food supply for the past decade without significant harmful effects. However, Americans still need a solid scientific foundation to build this controversial debate upon. The public deserves significantly more unbiased research on genetically modified foods in order to form an educated and solid decision. Until this research is done, the benefits of genetically modified foods, which include nutrition-rich crops, land preservation, and increased food supplies, will continue to be overshadowed by fear and doubt.

Conclusions

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:13:43 CDT

The issue of what to do about growth hormones in cattle is complicated, and has not clear-cut solution. There are many factors involved with making a decision as to what to do about growth hormones.

First, there is the environment to consider. Grazing land for cattle, as well as fertilizers, affect the environment by allowing heavy metals to enter the soil and water. It seems that growth hormones, which allow for greater retention of protein in cattle, could possibly reduce the amount of land needed for grazing. This would have a positive influence on the environment, but possible negative influence on humans, as some believe that growth hormones are bad for public health.

Certain hormones are believed to be deleterious to human health. Links to cancer and thyroid cysts have been associated with certain FDA-approved hormones. However, no conclusive evidence suggests that these findings are accurate. As of yet, evidence is not strong, one way or the other, for the effects of growth hormones used in cattle production on human health.
Economically, growth hormones make sense. Naturally occurring hormones like testosterone or BGH are used to increase yield in beef and milk production, respectively. Considering hunger problems of the world, and the current economic slump of the United States, farmers and consumers need maximum cattle yield, as long as it is safe for the public. The use of growth hormones is highly regulated by the FDA; the practice of routine hormone injections has been approved by the FDA, and farmers would lose money if they veered from the FDA-approved dosage of hormones. This fact effectively cuts out a black-market for growth hormones amongst farmers.

The fact that certain hormones, like BGH, are banned in some areas of the world is an issue that needs to be resolved. Genetic modification is a part of the future, and global organizations need to begin setting standards for how to deal with new innovations in agriculture and cattle production. It makes no sense that some foods are deemed safe in one country, while deemed unsafe in another country. Some consensus must be reached by countries like the US, Canada, and European countries in the near future.

Yes - PLA Can Save the World

k1james — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:13:03 CDT

by Meredith Magdsick

Abstract

Polylactic acid (PLA) corn plasticis a leader among the alternatives to petroleum-based products. It is the only existing plastic made with 100% of renewable resources and is 100% biodegradable. Huge corporations like Google, Wal-Mart, Sony, and Toyota have adopted the environmentally friendly topic, and others will soon join them. Starbucks also plans to use the product for some of its new food packaging. As with any new product, corn plastic faces controversy in the specialized facilities needed to recycle the product. However, as more corn plastic is developed and produced, producers of the plastic and recycling facilities are developing new ways to make PLA the leading plastic in the United States.

Introduction

Throughout the last decade, the United States and the world have taken great initiative in “going green.” Almost every company posts a “green” or environmentally friendly label on at least one of their products. Advertisements and commercials encouraging people to recycle have become popular, and many celebrities have recently become advocates in recycling and becoming more environmentally friendly. The world is finally realizing how vital it is to Earth’s future to recycle and take care of the planet.

In doing so, farmers, environmentalists, scientists, and engineers have worked to develop alternatives to using petroleum, and they might have come up with a solution: corn. NatureWorks, located outside Omaha, Nebraska, is the largest lactic-acid plant in the world and is the largest developer and supplier of Polylactic Acid (PLA) plastic . The plant transforms corn into white pellets used as an industrial resin to provide an alternative to petroleum.

Decreasing Costs

In the past, about twenty years ago, is cost over two hundred dollars to produce one pound of PLA corn plastic. Because of the high expense, corn plastics were not used for broad, commercial application. In 1989, however, Patrick Gruber, a chemist for Cargill (an international producer and marketer of food, agriculture, financial and industrial services), invented a process to create the polymer needed to produce PLA plastic more efficiently. Since Gruber’s first prototype of PLA plastic, the price has dropped from over two hundred dollars per pound to being less than one dollar. PLA plastic is manufactured at a lower heat than traditional plastics, which also brings down the manufacturing costs of the biodegradable plastic. With an increase in oil prices, corn plasticsare predicted to be even cheaper. Because PLA is starch-based, instead of petroleum based, the cost of PLA plastic is not subject to fluctuation based on the price of fossil fuels. Today, the United States uses over 200,000 barrels of oil a day to produce all of the plastic the United States consumes. Using PLA corn plastic instead of traditional plastics would save the United States $11,726,000 per day, and $4,279,990,000 per year.

Increasing Popularity

So far, huge corporations like Google, Wal-Mart, and others have adopted the product. Google uses PLA corn plastic to package foods in their employee cafeterias in offices across the country. Wal-Mart started using the corn plastic to package foods and high-end electronic and has extended the use of corn plastic for grocery bags, gift cards, and calling cards. They also have started using corn plastic for the windows on their cake and doughnut boxes. The corn plastic “breathes” better than regular plastics, preventing condensation from forming inside the boxes. During a test, the corn plastic increased sales.

Overall, Wal-Mart plans to use over 114 million corn plastic containers next year, which will save 800,000 barrels of oil. Saving 800,000 barrels of oil will also save them $46,904,000 and “will reduce more than 11 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions,” according to Matt Kistler, vice president of brand product development for Wal-Mart. He states, “[Corn plastic] has a smaller packaging footprint, it’s completely biodegradable, and it costs less.” Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest grocery seller, and according to an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, “the adoption of environmentally friendly packaging at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has an unparalleled ability to mandate change in the consumer products world.”

Wild Oats, an organic grocery store in the United States and Canada, has also switched to using corn plastics. As an early adopter of corn plastic, they now use six million containers every year. “Our employees loved the environmental message of the containers, that they came from a renewable resource, and our customers had a strong reaction when we told them they were compostable,” says Sonja Tuitele, a Wild Oats spokesperson. The transition to corn plastic boosted their deli sales by 17%.

Newman’s Own Organics is also a corn plastics consumer, using the material to package all of their salad mixes. In adopting biodegradable corn plastic, Peter Meehan, the CEO of Newman’s Own Organics, issued the statement, “We felt strongly that everywhere we can get out of petroleum products, we should. No one has ever gone to war over corn.”

Several other companies have made the transition,too. Fujitsu, has commissioned its manufacturer Toray Industries to use corn plastic to make the shell for all of their personal computer series. Net-Corp is also using the biodegradable plastic to make the case for NTT DoCoMo’s (Japan’s largest mobile communications company) mobile phones. The new phone is called the “ECO mobile phone.” Sony is also a consumer of the product and is using the plastic for several small components of their products and is looking to use more of it. Toyota is also using corn plastic to make parts for their hybrid cars. NatureWorks also provides trays for Del Monte,and fruit containers in Meijer’s stores.

Starbucks is the next huge client for NatureWork’s biodegradable product. Starbucks will soon introduce the new packaging for their chocolate candies. Switching to the biodegradable plastic will eliminate harmful, bleached paperboard and will only use the half the material of the previous packaging. Margaret Papadekis, senior buyer of packaging for Starbucks Coffee Co., stated, “Environmentally friendly packages are not always more expensive.” She continued to state that Starbuck’s switch to corn plastic “is expected to save $500,000 a year.”

Hunger Issues

The adoption of biodegradable plastic by so many companies has given the product and the NatureWorks company a lot more attention and publicity. Many environmentalists are concerned that the use of corn for plastic is a waste of food for the millions of starving people across the world. However, PLA corn plastic is made with a low-grade corn. This low-grade corn not only reduces the cost of corn plastic, but it does not take anything away from the food supply because it is not corn for people to eat. NatureWorks uses every part of the stock, including the stalks and the husks. It is corn that would be used for animal-feed, not for starving people to eat.

Recycling PLA

It is made with 100% of renewable resources, and, under the right conditions, is completely broken down into carbon dioxide and water within as few as 90 days. It just cannot be beat. No other plastic is completely biodegradable like PLA corn plastic is. There are currently 113 corn plastic composting facilities in the country and more will be constructed as more corn plastic is produced. Right now, there is not enough corn plastic being circulated around the country to create a need for more facilities.

Norcal Waste Systems, headquartered in San Francisco, is the largest composting facility for corn plastic. In order to decompose the corn plastic, microbes must digest the plant scraps and turn them into fertilizer. Decomposition requires a lot of oxygen, which is extremely difficult to supply. However, in order to fix the problem, Norcal already has plans to convert its composters into anaerobic digesters that will break down the corn plastic without oxygen. They will use the resulting methane for fuel.

Until Norcal develops these composters, alternative ways to recycle the plastic have been developed. Because corn plastic containers can contaminate recycling systems of traditional plastics, corn plastic makers are labeling their containers much more clearly so that corn plastic containers can be easily separated from traditional plastics. Milk jugs, food containers, soda bottles, and water bottles are sorted and baled at places called “material recovery facilities,” or MRFs (pronounced merfs). Corn Plastic’s clear labels will enable the plastic to be sorted separately and will prevent them from becoming contaminates to the recycling of traditional plastics. When a material recycling facility collects enough corn plastic to fill a truck, NatureWorks promises to buy the corn plastic back and move it “to an industrial composter or haul it back to [NatureWorks headquarters] where the polymer can be broken down and remade into fresh PLA,” says Bridget Charon, a NatureWorks spokesperson.

Also consuming companies of the product are starting to collect used corn plastic containers so that the plastic can be recycled correctly. Wild Oats is the leader of this and accepts used corn plastic containers at eighty of their stores. After collecting a certain amount of corn plastic, Wild Oats sends it back to a proper composter. Again, more companies are starting to follow this trend.

Conclusion

Overall, PLA corn plastic is a vital alternative to petroleum-based fuels. It provides a great future for the planet and can help alleviate the amount of traditional plastics being dumped into landfills. As mentioned, it is 100% biodegradable and is made with 100% of renewable resources. It is the future of our world. Kathleen Bader, the former CEO of NatureWorks, states, “We’re offering companies a chance to preempt embarrassing demands for responsible packaging. Brands that wait for legislative fiat will be left behind and exposed.” Other environmental activists are in full support of corn plastic, and although he calls it “visionary,” Eric Lombardi, president of the Grassroots Recycling Network and an advocate in the international Zero Waste movement states, “True, there are problems with corn plastic, but let’s not kill the good in pursuit of the perfect.” We have to start somewhere, and it starts with corn plastic.

Yes - Corn Plastic is an Important New Technology

Anonymous — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:12:51 CDT

by Justin Cocchiola

Abstract

The need to “go green” has become a very important and highly debated issue in society within the last couple of years. Many large companies are feeling the pressure from government agencies to incorporate more energy efficient policies and products into their businesses, and countless dollars of research are being funded for greener technologies that look to help clean up the environment. Polylactic Acid (PLA) corn plastic is one of those up and coming technologies, and many companies are beginning to take notice of the product. Corn plastic is a biodegradable plastic that can be composted back into the earth, or it can be recycled for re-use. Corn plastic’s main competitor is traditional plastic, which takes thousands of years to decompose and continues to dominate landfills across the world. This article takes a look at the many benefits of corn plastic, and how the plastic is recycled, and the concerns companies have with corn plastic. Corn plastic is a relatively new technology that is produced from renewable crops. Company’s interest in corn plastic is growing at an accelerated rate, and the product is set to take the place of traditional plastic in the future.

Introduction

For years people have been recycling, and for years people have been recycling incorrectly. Recycling is typically thrust upon children in their elementary school classes at a young age, so they can go home and participate with their families and learn how to recycle. However, the problem is how do you recycle? Millions of plastic water bottles each day are being recycled improperly. In order to recycle a plastic water bottle properly you must remove the lid of the water bottle. A simple task, but one that isn’t always completed because it’s an unknown fact that the lid of a water bottle is made of a different type of plastic, and people’s good intentions go unnoticed. As plastic continues to fill up landfills and use up our limited natural resources, scientists are looking at different ways to produce plastics. Corn plastic became a realistic possibility in the early 1980’s, but the products were expensive to make and far inferior to that of traditional plastic. However, as time went on scientists found ways to reduce the cost of producing corn plastic, and now Polylactic Acid (PLA) corn plastic is being used in stores all across America. There are many advantages to using corn plastic that heavily out-weigh itsdisadvantages. For example, switching the means of plastic production would provide a big investment for companies. Therefore, this chapter looks into why manufacturers should switch from traditional plastic to corn plastic.

Benefits of Corn Plastic

If asked to invest more money in a product that is bio-degradable, saves natural resources, reduces our dependency on foreign oil, and causes less pollution, what’s the answer many would expect? I hope it would be yes. People get into trouble by their lack of prowess, or an unwillingness to take a chance on something new. The benefits of corn plastic are endless. A company that is already making the transition from traditional Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) plastic to corn plastic is Wal-mart, which the corporation uses in food packaging Many of the containers that are on their shelves are made of corn plastic. Everything from the plastic in which Wal-mart wraps deli meats ; to the packaging of the high-end electronics they advertise, is made from corn plastic. The switch has caused Wal-mart alone to save over 800,000 barrels of oil annually. Many customers have heard about Wal-mart’s efforts to “go green” and have begun shopping there on a more regularly—leading to an increase in sales for the company.

Biodegradable Plastic

One of the most beneficial aspects of corn plastic is its biodegradability. The plastic decomposes into carbon dioxide and water in 90 days. However, it’s not as easy as it sounds. The plastic will biodegrade, but it must be done in a controlled composting environment. This means there needs to be factories set up for corn plastic to be recycled to its maximum capability. Ideally the controlled composting process consists of an environment where plants scraps are digested into the earth at about 140-degrees Fahrenheit. Obviously this isn’t something that people are going to be able to do on their own domestically, but all they would have to do is place corn plastic products in a bin and take the plastic to the necessary location. There are 113 facilities in the United States that recycle corn plastic. Of these 113, about one-quarter collect food scraps from cities. Colleges and prisons that collect their own recyclables run some facilities.
Some people are arguing that recycling corn plastic is too complicated and people won’t be willing to put forth the effort. However, we have millions of people each day recycling plastic that will end up in landfills for the next few thousand years because they didn’t remove the lid from off of their plastic water bottle. To give you an idea of how much trash is actually plastic, which was either recycled improperly or just thrown away, 12.1% of all generated waste is traditional PET, or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) polycarbonate plastic water bottles. When you stop to think about that for a second you should see where the problem lies. We’re quickly running out of space in our landfills, and if just over 12% of our trash right now is plastic that isn’t biodegradable, where are we going to put all of the trash that people produce in the future. Another way to look at this problem is the amount of natural resources being used to create a one-time use products Even if corn plastic isn’t properly recycled, the plastic took 65% less energy to be produced, released 68% fewer green house gases, and used absolutely no petroleum.

Environmental Concerns

One of the growing concerns of the biodegradability of corn plastic is whether or not it is harmful to the environment. NatureWorks insists that since there is such a little amount of corn plastic being produced that it is in no way harming the environment when it’s recycled. The main concern is that when corn plastic is recycled the plastic reverts into lactic acid, which could potentially make the compost more acidic. This process could only potentially result if high amounts of corn plastic were being recycled in one place, causing the compost to be over exposed to the amount of carbon dioxide and water being released from the product. NatureWorks, which is the leading producer of corn plastic, introduced the product to retailers in 2003. The company is aware of the growing concerns of the recyclables of corn plastic, however, NatureWorks has stood behind theproduct, and continueto work with companies on producing new corn plastic products. For example NatureWorks and Primo, a distributor of bottled water, have struck a deal to sell the bottled water in a corn plastic container. However, NatureWorks is aware of the growing concerns that the government and scientists have with this newly discovered product, so they are taking it slowly in terms of producing and proliferating corn plastic products throughout the market. Taking it slowly is basically NatureWorks’s way of showing the recycling industry that corn plastic is a safe alternative to traditional plastic.
Scientists are also concerned that recycling corn plastic water bottles with traditional plastic will contaminate the recycling process, in much the same way that comingling traditional materials requires extra resources prevent spoilage by the ton. But corn plastic is versatile, a product that can be recycled in more ways than one. Corn plastic can be recycled in such a way that it’s used for compost, or it can be recycled like traditional plastic, the materials recovered for re-use. NatureWorks conducted a study in 2006 for the German government thatfound that recycling corn plastic in the traditional manner was the most environmentally friendly way to recycle the product. Corn plastic was found to be more beneficial in every way, minus water pollution, over traditional plastic if the corn plastic wasn’t recycled at all. Another way to look at corn plastic from a recycling standpoint would be how it’s produced. Corn plastic is made mostly corn unsuitable for food consumption; and switchgrass, which is a low-water plant. These crops can be re-grown over and over again, compared to using billions of barrels of oil each year in producing plastic. Corn plastic products are already being used in many cafeteria and sport’s parks around America. All of the plastics that are contaminated by food are made from corn plastic, thrown into trash bags made of corn plastic, and in turn are shipped off to the appropriate recycling plant to be composted back into the environment.

Recycling Struggles

The main problem with recycling corn plastic comes in the household. In order to recycle corn plastic on a home-by-home basis the corn plastic must be divided from the traditional plastic into separate bins. Thus it is left up to the consumer to know whether the plastic s/he is recycling is a corn plastic or a traditional plastic. Educated recyclers are proficient at categorizing and sorting many materials, but as of now they still don’t know where to take the corn plastic they are trying to recycle. This poses problems that NatureWorks is working to resolve. Corn plastic also has a much lower melting point than traditional plastic, which is another growing concern for mixing the two plastics in the recycling process. NatureWorks says no problems will result, and thus far no problems have occurred in any form of the recycling process of corn plastic. Since the product is newer, people are skepticalmainly because there’s a lack of information on how itis used. States such as Oregon, New York and Connecticut have bottle bills in their respective states, so they consider the mix of corn plastic and traditional plastic to be contamination. The reason is simple: all recycled plastic that is bundled and tested for purity. Mixed plastics lower the purity of the whole, and it takes extraordinarily low incidence of mixing (one bottle in a sample of 1,000) to contaminate a bundle. This results in the state receiving less money for the plastics their residents have recycled. Typically states that force people to recycle, by law or incentive, recycle 74% more than the states that don’t put as much emphasis on recycling.

Concluding the Corn Plastic Argument

Corn plastic is the plastic of the future. If corn plastic isn’t the dominant plastic within the next 50 years, a hybrid or byproduct of Polylactic Acid (PLA) corn plastic that is considered to be a “green” product, and biodegradable, will be on shelves everywhere. Basically the only problem so far with corn plastic, as far as a production standpoint is concerned,is the age of the product. Corn plastic dates back to the 1980’s, and then Patrick Gruber, a Cargill chemist, created the first corn plastic product on his stove in 1989. However, the polylactic polymer that we have today was introduced to the world in 2003. That makes the product about six years old, which means people are going to be skeptical about using such a new product that varies a great deal from its competitor. The benefits of corn plastic are great. Corn plastic is produced using non-edible corn and switchgrass, while using no petroleum in the product whatsoever. The product is more energy efficient to produce, using 65% less energy during the production process; and pollutes the environment with 68% less greenhouse gases. Public opinion tends to make political battles out of environmental issues. This ought not to be the case at all. In this situation you have to look at the present facts : the world is running out of natural resources, most vital petroleum. When crude oil skyrockets at different points throughout the upcoming years, many companies will entertain the possibility of corn plastic . Corn plastic is much more energy efficient, and costs about the same to produce when crude oil is expensive. What needs to happen is schools, companies, and the government need to start educating people on how to recycle, not only corn plastic, but traditional plastic. Different companies plan to slowly introduce corn plastics to diverse communities in the upcoming future. If corn plastics prove clean, harmless, and in a word, an effective form for recycling, then companies will begin to adopt the technology more often. For the time being, as corn plastic looms on the horizon, society must do a better job of educating the general public on necessary recycling techniques. In our everyday lives there should be a premium on preserving material resources for posterity.

No - Scienfic Negative Effects of Hormone Growth in Meat and Dairy Production

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:12:43 CDT

Jessica Razumich

As early as the 1930s, it was discovered that hormones injected into an animal would result in faster growth and production. Since then the use of hormones in meat and dairy production has taken off and the FDA has approved six hormones that are used in meat production in the U.S. today. Those six hormones are: estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate. Three of the six are natural sex hormones, the other three are synthetic growth promoters. The growth hormone that is currently being used in dairy production is called bovine growth hormone (rBGH). rBGH speeds up the cows pituitary glands, which in turn allows the cow to produce more milk. Basically, according to Cornell University, these hormones can make young animals gain weight faster, thus reducing the waiting time and the amount of feed eaten by animals before slaughter. According to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service,: in 2005, 32.5 million cattle were slaughtered to provide beef for U.S. consumers and scientists believe about two-thirds of American cattle raised for slaughter today are injected with hormones.

Even though a variety of hormones are produced by our bodies and are essential for normal development, synthetic steroid hormones like those used in the food production industry have been found to effect human health. For example, Diethylstilbestrol (DES), one of the first synthetic growth hormone, was introduced in the early 1950’s and put into production in the U.S. to fatten chickens. This product was used commercially until the late 1970’s when DES was found to cause cancer (Consumer). It took society about twenty years to realize that something they intentionally put into their food was causing harm to their health. Yet we, as a society, are continuing today to use hormones that we are unsure of in our food for production. The Food and Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) claims that they monitor hormone treated meat in food production. However, research shows that zeranol is the only hormone out of the six approved by the FDA that can be monitored for residue (Consumer). The three other sex hormones are made naturally by the animal and are unable to be monitored. In turn, how are we as consumers supposed to trust the farmers who claim that they used the proper amount of hormones solely based on “their word”? We cannot! Scientists also questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer (Artificial).

Evidence shows that rBGH, the hormone used within the dairy production to increase the amount of milk being produced by the cows, has been found to have higher levels of the “naturally produced protein called insulin-dependent growth factor-1 (IGF-1) (Consumer). IGF-1 has been considered by scientists to cause breast cancer in women. In a study by Harvard-based Nurses Health Study, higher levels of IGF-1 in blood have been found in women with breast cancer compared to women without breast cancer. Dr. Jenny Pompilio of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility explains the health risks of rBGH (rBST) on both cows and humans. Also with the rBGH treated milk, there is a concern that because of the increased milking that they cow’s can become more prone to mastitis resulting in more antibiotics being used to treat the infection. This in turn can lead to residues of the antibiotic being left in the milk and frequent exposure to antibiotic residue is a health concern. Besides harming ourselves with these hormones, the side effects of the hormones on the animals are just as shocking.

FDA approved rBGH in 1993, even though scientists, farmers, and consumers alike expressed concern over the hormone because they felt that it had not been properly tested. As a result, the dairy cattle that have been treated with rBGH to produce more milk, are showing negative side effects of the hormones. According The Issues - Sustainable Table, one lifelong New York dairy farmer reported losing a quarter of his herd to sever mastitis after beginning rBGH injections. (Mastitis is the inflammation of the mammary gland, and it can result in infection which can significantly reduce milk production.) He also reported a drastic drop in production after taking his cows off rBGH; they produced less milk then they had before going on the drug. A year later he had to replace 135 of his original 200 cows. Other farmers using rBGH are also reporting similar problems, in addition to hoofs diseases, open sores, and cows that died from internal bleeding (Artificial). Another thing to take into consideration is that when a cow if forced to produce an unnaturally high quantity of milk, they will often become malnourished because they lose more nutrients through their milk than they ingest in their feed. A 1991 report by Rural Vermont revealed serious health problems with the rBGH-injected cows that were part of a Monsanto-financed study at the University of Vermont. However, Monsanto held back health and safety problems of drinking treated milk, and threatened legal action against FOX News journalists for wanting to expose the negative effects that were being played down. It is a vicious cycle and cannot simply be stopped. As mentioned when the cows were taken off the hormone they produced less milk, yet when they were on the hormone they were susceptible to diseases. It is a lose-lose situation for these farmers, who if they decide to stop using the hormone, they have to replace their cattle, yet if they keep the cattle on the hormone they risk the death of the animal.

Despite international scientific and social concern, the United States and Canada continue to allow growth-promoting hormones in cattle. However, The European Union does not allow the use of hormones in cattle production. They have banned the use of hormones, and the importation of hormone treated meat since 1988 (Artifical). Even though Canada allows growth-promoting hormones in cattle, they have banned the use of rBGH in their dairy production. Does this not strike society as strange; that countries cannot seem to find a solid answer to this hormone epidemic? The studies so far do not provide sufficient answers to these questions. EU says new scientific evidence backs up beef hormone fears, new checks by a European Union scientific panel have confirmed that eating beef from cattle raised on growth hormones is a potential health risk (EU). However, U.S. studies done so far are said to not provide evidence to state that hormone residues in meat or dairy products cause any human health effects. While currently available evidence does not indicate a link between eating meat, milk or dairy products from hormone-treated animals result in any health effects, why would we even jeopardize that chance that it might. Like the DES hormone, is it going to take society another twenty years to realize that we are giving ourselves cancer for the sake of faster food production? Should we continue to risks the heath and lives of not only ourselves, but the animals as well? In the face of all that’s unknown about hormones in our food, a cautions approach is reasonable.

Yes-Hormones are a Safe and Effective Production Tool in the Cattle Industry

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:04:50 CDT

by Emma Newton

Abstract
Growth –promoting hormonal substances have been used in raising cattle for more than three decades. Hormonal substances are a term used to describe sex hormones given to cattle. There are three natural (Oestradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone) and three synthetic hormones (Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol) – the synthetic hormones are meant to mimic the natural ones and are not supposed to be harmful. According to the FDA, “Unlike naturally-occurring steroid hormones, there is no natural production of the synthetic compounds, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, and melengestrol acetate (MGA). These compounds are not metabolized as quickly as the naturally-occurring steroid hormones”.
Today, these synthetic hormonal substances have been approved for use in the United States. They are safe for the cattle, the producers who use the products, and the consumers of the beef of implanted cattle.
Growth-promoting steroid hormones are typically released into the animal from a pellet (ear implant) that is put under the skin of the cattle’s ear. The ears of the animals are discarded at slaughter time.
My article will address three points affirming the argument that growth-promoting hormones are a safe and effective production tool in the cattle industry. The first is addressing why growth-promoting hormonal substances are used in the beef industry. The second point addresses the safety of these substances and the third point explains the relationship between hormonal-free beef and beef that has been injected with a growth-hormonal substance. The third point will explain how there is no such thing as “hormone-free beef”.

POINT # 1 – Why are hormones used in the cattle industry? Hormones are not intended to harm the cattle or consumers, but to help both parties. Hormones are used in the cattle industry so that the animal may use its feed efficiently. In feeder cattle, the estrogenic growth promoting hormone improves feeding efficiency and gain 5-15 percent. The use of hormonal substances results in the development of more lean meat with less fat deposited in that meat, more growth using less feed, and cost reduction for the cattle producer which saves the consumer money by allowing them to purchase less expensive beef.
Animal scientist Michael J. Fields from the University of Florida claims that farmers pay about $1 to $3 per head to treat their livestock. Treatment increases the animals’ growth by 20 percent. Therefore, Fields claims, each cow in a feedlot typically gains 3 pounds per day. Each pound that the animal gains, it consumes 15 percent less feed than an untreated animal without the hormonal substance does. “This feed efficiency works out to a cost savings of about $40 per head, so you get more protein at a cheaper cost,” Fields says.
A hormone-treated animal gains weight more rapidly. The estrogenic implants approved for use in calves improves weight by 3-5 percent. The pastured cattle’s base weight gain is 1.5 pounds per day. This weight increase produces leaner, optimal quality beef at harvest. By reaching market weight sooner, there is a reduction in the cost of beef production. Thus, consumers are provided with a higher quality of meat at lower prices.
The use of growth-promoting hormonal implants in cattle is one of the most cost effective ways of enhancing cattle gain and efficiency of gain. The hormones enhance protein deposition while diminishing fat buildup.

POINT #2 – The second point addresses how hormones affect the safety of beef. For more than 50 years the US cattle industry has safely used hormones in beef production to help provide consumers with a consistently high quality, affordable meat supply.
The FDA is liable for guaranteeing that animal drugs and medicated feeds are efficient and safe for animals and that food from affected animals is safe for humans to consume. Specific steroid hormones have been permitted for use at low concentrations to progress feed efficiency in beef cattle and/or increase the rate of weight gain of the animals. All of the steroid hormonal growth-promoting drugs can be purchased over-the-counter in the United States. These hormonal substances are usually administered by the livestock producer at certain stages of production in the cattle’s life. Residue levels of these hormones in food have proven to be safe because they are well below any level that would have an adverse effect in humans.
Even scientists in the European Union (EU) – which has banned the importation of beef from animals raised with growth promoting hormones – have concluded that the meat from these animals is safe. In 2002, an EU member state released a study that concluded the EU ban of hormone-injected meat was not based on sound-science.
The safety of hormone use has been reviewed by many experts and agencies including the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. All have concluded that hormones can be used safely in beef production and are confident in the argument that international consumers can confidently eat beef from the United States for its safety and quality.
After scientific review, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration discovered that the hormones permitted in U.S. beef production are safe. The FDA concluded that consumers of hormone-injected beef are not at risk from eating food from these animals. The amount of added growth hormone is minor compared to the amount normally found in the edible tissues of untreated cattle.
It can be determined that hormones are safe because the substances that can be used in animals must be approved in the following ways: the substances must be effective for its purpose (the hormone is doing what it’s supposed to do), be safe for the animals, and result in food products that are safe for humans to eat.
Each beef producer individually makes a decision on the use of hormonal substances in their cattle. This decision is based on many factors including the costs and benefits of purchasing and administering the hormone. For the producers who choose not to administer the growth-promoting hormones, they may want to enter a smaller niche market, providing beef products to individuals that require a more organic cut of meat.
FDA and international scientific experts have concluded there is essentially no difference physiologically between beef from animals raised using hormones and those raised without their use. On all occasions of testing across nearly five decades, the six hormones used by the U.S. beef industry have always been found to pose no measurable or adverse health effects to consumers.

POINT #3 – The third point explains that there is no such thing as hormonal free beef – even beef raised organically will contain hormones. All animals contain hormones because all animals produce hormones naturally. The hormone levels found in a sample of organic beef are similar to beef from animals that are given hormonal substances.
The hormone levels in beef produced using growth hormones are well within the range of the physically natural occurring levels of these hormonal substances in cattle. For example, a beef sample from an uncastrated bull not administered growth-promoting hormones contains testosterone levels more than ten times higher than the amount in beef from a castrated steer that has received hormones for growth promotion.
A second example explains that a three-ounce serving of beef from an animal treated with natural estradiol contains 1.9 nanograms of estrogen, compared to 1.2 nanograms in an untreated cattle sample. A human would have to eat greater than 6 kilograms of beef from animals treated with these hormones in order to equal the amount of hormones found in a single egg.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, “Consumers are not at risk of eating food from animals treated with these (naturally-occurring) compounds because the amount of added hormone is negligible compared to the amount normally found in the edible tissues of untreated animals and that are naturally produced by the consumer’s own body.”

Conclusion
There exist many reasons and facts to help consumers understand that their American beef is safe, even with the injection of growth-promoting hormones into the cattle. First of all, the FDA has conducted studies and none so far provide any evidence that hormone residues in meat products cause any adverse health effects on humans. Other international organizations have also concluded that the beef is safe, even if they banned importing beef from the United States. The injection of the growth-promoting substance comes with many rules and regulations meant to keep the farmer, cattle, and consumer safe. These hormones are made to provide good things to farmers and consumers, not bad, unwanted health effects.

Yes-Hormones are legal for a Reason

Anonymous — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:00:12 CDT

by Dan O'Connor

Abstract
The FDA has been hotly contested in its stand on growth hormone use in livestock. The United States government has legalized the use of six steroids to increase milk and meat production in cattle. Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone are naturally occurring hormones in both humans and cattle. Melengestrol acetate, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol are synthetically produced hormones designed to mimic progesterone, testosterone, and estradiol respectively. All six of these hormones have been rigorously tested over many years in laboratory tests, and the overwhelming majority of these tests have found that none of these hormones are harmful to the animal or the humans eating them.

The USDA and FDA has been very careful in setting strict regulations on the use of cattle growth hormones. With proper regulation, the meat and milk industry can produce hormone treated beef and dairy that is no more dangerous than natural products. The FDA considers careful, unbiased scientific studies when setting healthy hormone limits for use in livestock. These limits allow farmers to safely raise large steers quickly, with a higher investment return to ensure both supply and demand is sufficiently satisfied in a competitive economic marketplace.

What are growth hormones and why do we need them?
Hormones used in beef and veal production, called anabolic agents, are used to promote growth in body tissues so that livestock can reach a high slaughter weight quickly. The three natural hormones used in meat production, estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone, are biologically occurring substances in both animals and humans. The other three legal hormones used in meat production, melengestrol acetate, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol are artificially produced in laboratory environments. While the three natural anabolic agents are more readily used in the animal’s body than their artificial counterparts when used properly, but they are more costly and difficult to produce, since they can only be derived from animals. Both the natural and artificial hormones have proven to be very effective at speeding up animal growth and improving farm efficiency.

In order for the animal to effectively absorb and utilize any hormone added to its system, the hormone cannot be ingested orally. Instead, farmers implant a small, time-release pellet on the back of the animal’s ear to directly introduce the hormone to the animal’s bloodstream. Often times these pellets last about 180 days and allow the animal to more completely use the nutrients ingested in food for muscle growth. Since the animal efficiently uses all of the nutrients it intakes, it grows much faster and allows farmers to produce more meat in a shorter amount of time.

Often times farmers will choose to castrate their male cows, changing them from bulls to steers, because steers are much more docile than bulls, and require less maintenance than their reproductive brethren. Also, the meat from steers is generally more desirable than bull meat because it is more tender and marbled than bull meat. However, bulls grow much faster than steers, and require less feed to reach a fully developed weight. Anabolic agents can reduce or even elimate the difference in growth rates between steers and bulls, resulting in more desirable meat at lower prices for consumers.

Legal Issues
Governments from around the world use independent laboratory test results to determine the legality of using anabolic agents in meat production. The United States government has legalized the use anabolic agents based on hundreds of lab studies over many years that have found these hormones to be safe for animals and humans. The Food and Drug Administration treats all anabolic agents used in meat production the same as new human drugs that are being introduced into the market. They all undergo very rigorous reviewing before being approved for use in the general public.

The FDA and the American meat industry carefully work together to ensure the American public is not put in danger from the use of anabolic agents. First, the FDA conducts numerous tests to determine the limit for safely using anabolic agents in animals.

FDA limits hormone residues in meat to no more than 1 percent of the daily natural level produced by the most sensitive segment of the population, that is, those people who naturally produce the smallest amount of the hormone in question. For example, FDA sets this number—called the “hormonal no-effect” level—for estrogens based on the daily production of prepubertal boys, who are the lowest producers of estrogen and the most likely to be affected by that hormone. (Kenney)

Once the FDA has set the “no-effect” level for a particular hormone, they then add a margin of safety to the no-effect level to ensure no piece of meat approaches an unsafe level. Even after a margin of safety is added to a particular hormone no-effect level, producers of the hormones only sell products that are well below the level set by the FDA.

Other governments have implemented laws that ban the use of anabolic agents in all meat production. In Fact, the European Union completely banned the use of anabolic agents in meat production, and banned the importation of any beef product from countries where their use is legal (such as the United States). However, numerous scientific studies conducted in Europe, as well as other parts of the world, have found that bans on the use of anabolic agents are overly cautious and unnecessary. “In 1996, the World Trade Organization found the European Union ban on all U.S. beef as non-compliant with the WTO rules. In 2002 an EU member state published a study that said the EU ban was not based on sound science”(Kenny). The EU’s ban on anabolic agents used in meat production has resulted in a thriving black market for illegal, and sometimes unsafe, hormones for use in livestock. The U.S., on the other hand, has carefully monitored the use of legal hormones, and has developed a marketplace where farmers have very little incentive to use illegal and unsafe substances in their animals that could lead to health issues, or even death, for humans and animals.

Health Issues
The biggest issue many people have with using anabolic agents in livestock stems from the potential health implications associated with using these products. However, hundred of independent laboratory research studies have found that when used in the correct dosages, these growth hormones pose no risk to human health. When used correctly, “concentrations of the hormones in edible tissues remain within the normal physiological range that has been established for untreated animals of the same age and sex”(Kenny). This means eating meat from a cow that has been treated with any of these hormones is almost identical to eating the meat from a naturally raised cow. The difference in hormone levels between the two animals is so miniscule it can be considered completely negligible. Another example shows “a person would need to eat over 6 kilograms of beef from animals treated with these hormones in order to equal the amount of those hormones in one egg”(Primer).

Anabolic agent regulations set in place by the FDA keep health and safety as their prime concern by setting limits on the hormone residue based on the most sensitive part of the population. “Even a young boy would need to eat more than 7000 grams (about 16 pounds) of beef raised using estradiol daily in order to produce a one percent increase in his production of [estrogen]”(Primer). Once the most sensitive segment of the population is considered, the FDA then adds an additional margin of safety onto their hormone regulations to ensure no piece of meat even approaches the healthy hormone limits found for anyone.

There has been recent speculation about whether or not these unnatural hormones can cause cancer after extended exposure. Scientists have found “high levels of hormone residues in meat can promote carcinogenic activity already inherent in the human body, but they are not themselves carcinogens”(Kenny). The levels of hormones approved for use in the United States are nowhere near the dangerous levels found in these scientific studies. Therefore, it can be concluded that anabolic agents used in meat production are not carcinogenic. Hormones have been used legally for years in the United States, with no negative health consequences directly linked to hormone treated meat.

Economic and Environmental Issues
“A U.S. ban on anabolic agents would probably translate into an annual loss of about 2 billion pounds, carcass weight, or about 13 percent of beef production”(Kenny). Without anabolic agents, the supply of beef in the United States would be much lower than what it is today; translating into much higher prices on beef in grocery stores. The higher prices of beef would then shift some of the demand to other forms of dietary protein, raising the prices of meat such as poultry and pork, which do not use hormone growth therapies.

Using anabolic agents greatly increases the growth rate of steers, which not only results in greater meat production, it also significantly increases the feed efficiency of the steers. The steers require less feed, and fewer fields across the country need to be used for livestock feed.

The current hormone regulations enacted by the FDA are designed to have the maximum economic returns for farmers. Therefore, there is no economic incentive for farmers to increase the dosage given to their livestock to unsafe levels. Also, a ban on all anabolic agents in the U.S. would mean the meat industry would lose more than one billion dollars annually. Farmers would be out of jobs, and again the prices of meat would skyrocket. Anabolic agents allow the U.S. meat industry to flourish while providing consumers with inexpensive meat for their families.

Conclusions
The meat industry in the United States should be allowed to continue using anabolic agents in meat production. The FDA has legalized these drugs for a reason. They have run hundreds of tests to determine the safety of these drugs, and have found no health reasons for discontinuing their use. The FDA continues to run these tests, even today, and if a safety problem is ever discovered, they will immediately discontinue the use of these drugs in our country. However, since current hormone regulations limit the amount of residue found it meat to be so low, even the most sensitive segment of the population is completely unaffected by the hormone use.

Hormone use in this country is very important to the economic viability of the current grocery marketplace. If hormone use were to be discontinued, the price of meat would skyrocket, and would further limit food choices for underprivileged families. Not only would the price of beef rise, but also the demand for other types of meat would cause all meat prices to rise significantly. Farmers would lose billions of dollars in income every year and many farmers would have to choose different occupations to feed their families.

The current regulations on hormones are well thought out and ensure the public is safe from any potentially harmful chemicals. They also conserve the livelihood of workers in the meat industry by bringing additional profits into their homes. The use of hormones is completely safe and should not be discontinued in the United States.

Bibliography

k1james — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:53:51 CDT

"Bisphenol A (BPA)." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. May 2009 <http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/bpa.html>.

Brubaker, Harold. "Wal-Mart Switches to Corn-Based Plastic Packaging." Red Orbit. 19 Oct. 2005. The Philadelphia Inquirer. 11 May 2009 <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/277847/walmart_switches_to_cornbased_plastic_packaging/index.html>.

"Compostable Plastic PLA Containers." ECO Products. <http://www.ecoproducts.com/Business/food_services/cups/fs_cups_compostable_cold_cups.htm>.

“Corn Plastic.” 26 Jan 2009. May 2009. <http://www.paystolivegreen.com/2009/01/corn-plastic-as-green-as-advertised/>.

DePalma, Anthony. “In Economic Terms, Recycling Almost Pays.” 29 May, 2008. New York Times. 13 May 2009 < http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/
29recycle.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=recycling+almost&st=nyt>

Deutsch, Claudia. “Saving the Environment, One Quarterly Earnings at a Time.” The New York Times 22 Nov. 2005.

“Disposable Water Bottles.” May 2009. <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/DFE2008_Disposable_Water_Bottle>.

"Hazard in a bottle." Economist.com. Aug. 2008. May 2009 <http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11991291>.

"Heat causes chemical to leach from plastic - USATODAY.com." USATODAY.com. Jan. 2008. May 2009 <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-29-plastic-chemical_N.htm>.

Howenstine, Erick. “Market Segmentation for Recycling.” January 1993. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 1: pp86-102.

Learn, Scott. “Corn Plastic Sounds Great, but it’s Tough to Recycle and May Foul Systems.” 27 October 2008. The Oregonian. 13 May 2009. < http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/
index.ssf/2008/10/pla_corn_plastic_problems.html>

Learn, Scott. "Corn plastic sounds great, but it's tough to recycle and may foul systems." OregonLive.com. 27 Oct. 2008. The Oregonian. 15 Apr. 2009 <http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/10/pla_corn_plastic_problems.html>.

Llanos, Miguel. 3 March 2005. May 2009. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279230/>.

"Natureworks PLA Biodegradable Plastic Packaging." Treehugger. 19 Dec. 2004. 13 Apr. 2009 <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/12/natureworks_pla.php>.

"Oil prices ease as traders reassess rally." MSNBC. 11 May 2009. 12 May 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/>.

“Plastic Recycling Facts.” May 2009. <http://www.americanchemistry.com/plastics/doc.asp?CID=1581&DID=6012>.

"PLoS Biology: The Toxic Origins of Disease." PLoS Biology : Publishing science, accelerating research. Jan. 2007. May 2009 <http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050193&ct=1>.

“Polylactic Acid.” Wikipedia. May 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid>.

“Recycling Facts.” May 2009. <http://www.recycle.com/faqs.html>.

Richard Day Research, Inc. A Survey of Chicago Residents. WLS-TV. Chicago: Author, February 1988.

Rooney, Phil. “Biodegradable corn products may become plastics of future.” The Associated Press 6 May 2003.

Royte, Elizabeth. "Corn Plastic to the Rescue." Smithsonian.com. Aug. 2006. Smithsonian Magazine. 13 Apr. 2009 <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/plastic.html>.

Schaaf, Julius. “Thinking Biorenewables? Think Corn!” United States. Iowa Corn Promotion Brand. Agricultural Outlook Forum. 17 Feb. 2006.

Simon, Stephanie. “Factories turning corn into plastics.” The Los Angeles Times 26 June 2005.

Spiegelman, Helen and Bill Sheehan. “Products, Waste, and the End of the Throwaway Society.” 1 May 2005. The Networker, Vol. 10 No. 2. 13 May 2007. < http://www.sehn.org/
Volume_10-2.html#a3>

"Toxin BPA Contaminates Plastic Beverage Containers." Pristine Planet. June 2005. May 2009 <http://www.pristineplanet.com/newsletter/2005/06.asp>.

"Toyota, Sony, Fujitsu Push Bioplastics." Check Mate: Public Affairs. 11 Apr. 2007. 11 May 2009 <http://www.checkmatepublicaffairs.com/bioproductsarticle.php?storyid=794>.

“Waste Management.” May 2009. <http://www.wm.com/wm/services/landfills.asp>.

West, Larry. “Pros and Cons of PLA Plastic.” May 2009. <http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/pla.htm>.

“What happens next to plastic bottles.” May 2009. <http://earth911.com/plastic/plastic-bottles/what-happens-next-to-plastic-bottles/>.

Yes - Traditional Plastics Leach Toxins

sciwrite — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:40:33 CDT

by Kristen James

Abstract

Toxins, specifically bisphenol A (BPA), which imitates sex hormones when ingested, leach from traditional PET plastics when they are exposed to high temperatures or very acidic or basic compounds. Long-term, BPA may cause health problems including severe physiological damage to children. The FDA and many major chemical companies have chosen to ignore a growing body of research regarding BPA and continue to expose the population to this dangerous chemical. Corn plastics (PLA) contain no BLA and are a safe alternative to the toxin-leaching traditional plastic polycarbonate.

Introduction

In recent years, concern about toxins leaching from conventional Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) plastics has risen exponentially. Though there is a wide variety of potential plastic-toxins, the most thoroughly studied is a chemical called bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to harden certain types of clear plastics. Leached from the plastics of popular products such as Nalgene water bottles when exposed to high heat, BPA has been shown through laboratory studies of rats and mice to have definite, negative physiological effects even in doses approved for human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The dangers are especially acute for children under the age of three, whose development can be permanently altered by exposure to BPA.

Despite several investigations by the FDA – during which the research was done primarily by large chemical companies that produce and sell BPA – into the potential damaging side effects of BPA, the Administration has failed to claim anything more than a “continued risk assessment.” However, these reviews failed to acknowledge several hundred peer-reviewed research papers and over a hundred detailed studies conducted by independent investigators that present solid scientific evidence that BPA is a harmful substance.

Corn plastic, which contains no BPA or other toxins, is a safe alternative to traditional plastics and avoids the risks, both known and unknown, posed by the chemicals used in their creation and processing.

Bisphenol A (BPA) –What is it?

Bisphenol A (commonly called BPA) is a chemical used during the hardening process of hard,clear plastics like those commonly used for food containers, water bottles, and baby bottles. In order to form the polycarbonates and resins of PET plastics, BPA molecules are joined by unstable bonds that cause toxic leaching at high temperatures or when exposed to extremely acidic or basic substances.

Developed in the late nineteenth century, BPA mostly escaped general notice for the better part of a century until it soared into the limelight of public health concern in the late nineties, largely due to its presence in suddenly-ubiquitous plastic water bottles. Since then, hundreds of research papers have been published on the compound, and more than a hundred research studies have linked BPA to severe health risks.

Despite the protestations of the FDA and several major chemical companies, studies conducted on rats and mice have shown highly-probably links between BPA, which can imitate sex hormones in biological systems, and many physiological abnormalities. Among these abnormalities are increased rates of hyperactivity and obesity, early-onset puberty, aberrations from normal sexual cycles and behavior, greater susceptibility to certain types of cancers, increased sensitivity to hormones throughout the lifecycle, and structural damage to the brain. These effects have been noted in rats and mice whose systems have lower amounts of BPA than the FDA has declared safe for human consumption, an amount that is itself usually determined through animal testing like that conducted during the BPA studies. Critics of BPA nay-sayers point to the fact that all of these studies have only been conducted on animals, and not on humans. However, due to both the ethical concerns revolving around potentially poisoning test subjects – especially pregnant mothers – and the practical concerns regarding the non-existence of control groups within our population (over 95% of people test as having significant amounts of BPA present in their systems), these concerns are difficult to silence.

Unborn children and infants are especially susceptible to the effects of BPA, as they are to influxes of most hormones. While adults may recover from some of the effects of BPA toxins, the life-long development of very young children can be affected and, as with other substances such as alcohol and nicotine, unborn children can develop physiological birth defects if the mother exposes the child to high levels of BPA during pregnancy. Overtaking naturally-occurring hormones, BPA can influence growth at a critical point by interacting with certain types of DNA, irreversibly influencing gene expression, and activating or silencing gene sequences in completely artificial and potentially damaging ways. Once a child’s development has been affected in this way, whether prenatally or after birth, the defects that BPA creates are permanent.

BPA in PET Plastics

BPA is used to harden the type of hard, clear plastics known as polycarbonates (usually marked with a “PC” or recycling code 7) that are used for many types of reusable plastic products. Because of its unstable molecular composition, BPA releases toxins at a greatly accelerated rate when exposed to the types of conditions that these products – frequently water bottles, food containers, interior coating for aluminum cans, and baby bottles – are routinely exposed to, including high heat. When exposed to the heat of a microwave or a sun-hot car, toxins can leach up to fifty times faster than at room temperature. For products specifically designed to be heated, such as baby bottles or food containers, this poses a significant risk to the consumer, especially if the contents of the plastic container are ingested by a child under three years of age.

This behavior was first noted during laboratory experiments using plastic test tubes in the late 1980s. Scientists noticed reactions occurring in their compounds that shouldn’t have taken place without the introduction of estrogen, which the researchers had not added to the formulas at any time during preparation or experimentation. With further experimentation, they were able to trace the strange reactions to chemicals in the test tubes rather than from the experimental substances themselves. After running more tests on additional equipment to be sure that the estrogen-release wasn’t an aberration, the scientists published their findings: certain types of preparation methods for plastics (specifically those involving BPA) cause estrogen-like compounds to leach when the plastics are heated. It was later discovered that the same reaction occurred when the plastics were exposed to highly acidic or basic compounds, which also destroy the unstable molecular bonds of BPA.

Several companies, including the gas company Sunoco, Inc., have begun to speak out against the use of PET plastics containing BPA in products meant for children under the age of three. Canada has laws restricting the use of BPA in consumer products, which several states in the United States have attempted (thus far unsuccessfully) to emulate. In mid-2008, a law prohibiting the use of BPA in products created for children, similar to the private policies of companies such as Sunoco, came before the California state legislature, but was rejected by a thirty-one to twenty-seven margin. Critics of BPA have speculated that the results of a questionably thorough FDA investigation that was released days before the vote were specifically calculated to skew the results of the California vote in favor of large BPA-producing companies.

If polycarbonates are incorrectly disposed of – left in landfills instead of properly recycled – they can continue to leach toxins into the environment. Heated in the sun and beneath piles of garbage, the BLA can seep into soil and water, affecting local fauna such as fish and insects, and preventing nitrogen fixation in the roots of plants. In this way, BPA pollutes the environment and can contaminate food sources long before they are packaged in BPA-rich plastics.

Corn Plastic is BPA Free

Unlike PET plastics, Polylactic Acid (PLA) corn plastic contains absolutely no BPA. Despite facing heavy scrutiny from multiple sources including plastic manufacturers, corn plastic has not been connected to any potentially damaging toxins. Though still prone to melting at high temperatures equivalent to those that accelerate BPA release in polycarbonates, corn plastic poses no health threats to consumers even in this worst-case scenario. Properly disposed of, corn plastic biodegrades completely within ninety days, reduced to water and carbon dioxide rather than leaking hazardous materials into the environment.

Aware of the health and environmental problems posed by the presence of BPA in PET plastic, some major companies are turning to corn plastic for packaging of food products. Wal-Mart is a front runner among these corporations, following in the footsteps of several smaller companies such as Newman’s Own Organics. In late 2006, Wal-Mart began packaging several of its store-brand products in corn plastic and has been using the substance with increasing frequency in the time since.

Proponents of PET plastics have found many flaws with corn plastics, most of which are the types of problems faced by any nascent technology and are on the way to being solved. Among these problems are the price of production, the nuisance of corn plastics melting or dissolving at high temperatures, and issues surrounding the proper disposal of corn plastic products. Yet even among the most critical and radical opponents of corn plastic, the most dire effect it has been accused of having on its contents is the leaving of a possibly unappetizing but completely non-toxic taste in water left on the shelf too long.

Conclusion

Toxins, specifically BPA, leached into foodstuffs and other mediums by PET plastics are a hazard to human health. While the FDA has so far refused to acknowledge it, there is a growing body of scientific, peer-reviewed literature expounding upon the effects that BPA, acting as an artificial and uncontrolled sex hormone, can have upon living creatures. Young children, including those exposed to BPA prenatally, are especially vulnerable to these effects, which include several types of abnormal development and heightened risk for a wide variety of cancers. Released by the types of high heat to which polycarbonate products are routinely exposed, BPA can be released at up to fifty times the speed of room-temperature leaching, thoroughly contaminating the consumer’s system with potentially unsafe levels of this chemical. Given this, there is little surprise that, according to government studies approximately 95% of the American population tests positive for BPA.

Although surviving without the types of products that commonly contain BLA would be a costly inconvenience of forbidding proportions for many, corn plastic offers a safe, ecologically sound alternative to PET plastics. Corn plastic contains absolutely no BLA and does not leach toxins into its contents or, through ingestion of those contents, into human beings or the environment.