The Problem with Milk

To: Gordon Brown

Fr: Littia

Re: The Problem with Milk

----------------------------

The issue of using artificial growth hormones in milk production is one currently under debate. The hormone rBGH or rBST is used to increase a cow’s milk production by “a gallon or more a day”(1). Many people debate over whether or not this hormone is unsafe for the consumer. Proponents of using the hormone argue that it “is a genetically engineered copy of a naturally occurring hormone produced by cows”(2). And since rBGH is a copy of a natural hormone found in a cow, it must be safe for the consumer…

Opponents of using rBGH have a different opinion about the safety of the hormone. Since the drug was approved in 1993 by the FDA, farmers and consumers have both requested that producers of dairy products be required to label their products if they are produced with rBGH. There is significant scientific evidence that shows that “when cows are treated with rBGH, significant health problems often develop, including a 50 percent increase in the risk of lameness”(3). There are also findings stating that “milk from rBGH injected cows contains substantially higher amounts of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1”(2). Also, since the approval of rBGH in 1993, over “40,000 small and medium-sized US dairy farmers, 1/3 of the total in the country, have gone out of business”(2), due to industrialization. rBGH is also banned in Europe and Canada and has been “boycotted by 95 percent of US dairy farmers”(2).

There are arguments against the use of labels stating that a product is “hormone free” or “contains no artificial hormones” because there is currently no scientific way of proving these claims. More and more people though, are moving toward using “certified organic” products for fear of health problems.

One course of action that could be taken is for the FDA to research the possible health effects of rBGH, since they supposedly did not do so when the hormone was first approved. If Europe and Canada have banned rBGH, maybe the U.S. should look into the reasons for their motivation and perhaps follow suit. If consumers are demanding products that are produced without this growth hormone, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the companies or farms to do so? It may take a while, but industrialized companies/farms can reduce the use of rBGH over time in order to produce a “better product” for the consumer, as well as keep the cows healthier. The hormone rBGH may be responsible for increasing milk production by 10%, but producers of dairy products should be aware of the possible health concerns coming from using this hormone. They should also be “in tune” to the demands of their consumers.

Sources

1. Labeling rBHT milk - Consumers won’t know what they’re missing

<http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/labeling-rbht-milk-consumers-wont-know-what-theyre-missing/>

2. http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/bgh.htm

3. Center of Food Safety < http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/rbgh2.cfm>

The Eco-Patent Commons provides hope

To: Dr. Gordon Brown

From: Ted LaFrance

Re: The Eco-Patent Commons provides hope

---

Many companies have been taking the initiative in providing alternative methods to their energy use and environmental impacts. A few companies are taking further action using the idea of Eco-Patent Commons. These companies include; IBM, Sony, Nokia, and various others. This would entail a public release of innovative and environmentally friendly business and manufacturing processes. Patents usually involve a process or idea that a company would like to keep for itself. A company keeps a process under a patent to increase their efficiency and revenue. In this case, the patents are just that, with an environmental and planet friendly perspective.

The opening up of patents to the public will inspire other companies to join the coalition as well as use the processes. According to CNNMoney.com, “Availability of these patents will encourage researchers, entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes in any industry to create, apply, and further develop their consumer or industrial products, processes, and services in a way that will help to protect and respect the environment.” Public patents provided by IBM, the initiator of the idea (Eco-Patent Commons), will drive the economic based sector into protecting the environment. Eco-Patents will provide ideas related to; “Energy conservation or improved energy or fuel efficiency, pollution prevention (source reduction, waste reduction), use of environmentally preferable materials or substances, water or materials use reduction, and increased recycling opportunity,” states WBCSD. Furthering research and innovative practices, induced by these public patents, will be “…substantive effort to make global business a little greener,” says SFGate.com. Ideas and efficiency patents will be open to the market! By providing our patents to this coalition, we too can make a difference for the better.

A company that is incredibly power hungry and protective of its processes may not want to share its patents. This poses a problem with the overall idea of Eco-Patent Commons. If companies are unwilling to share their ideas, environmentally friendly progression will be slowed. “Persuading companies to turn over intellectual property is the project's biggest challenge, Kappos said. He argues that the sharing of patents may help companies make more money,” finds Bloomberg.com. What companies are going to have to realize is that opening these patents to the public will spur further innovation by themselves and other, to stay on top of the ‘game’. Invariably, this competition will increase incentives for research and development which will inherently help the earth. Lets join The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and increase our profits, provide environmental incentive, and reduce our environmental impact on the earth. Patents can be held for up to 20 years. Innovation was roaring previous to the Eco-Patent Commons. Imagine the advances that can be made!

Further Information:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aE_ojM6q3QPg&refer=us

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0347720.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/14/BU6IUDVBM.DTL

Grey Wolf to be ‘Managed’ in Rockies

To: Gordon Brown

From: Sean McTiernan

Re: Grey Wolf to be ‘Managed’

---

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service announced Friday it would revise its 2005 ruling on protection of the wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area and central Idaho. The revision permits the lethal taking of any wolf found endangering a herd of moose, elk, or deer within the inscribed area on either State or Tribal land by state game agencies with USFWS approved wolf management plans.

Reintroduced into the northern Rockies in 1995, the grey wolf has increased the size of its species to nearly 200 packs across the Greater Yellowstone area of Wyoming, southern Montana, and eastern Idaho. In the coming months, the USFWS is preparing to delist the grey wolf as an endangered species due to its recovery. According to USFWS documents, the ruling was revised because “the wolf population had exceeded its recovery goals” and wolf predation was “impacting the survival of the adult cow elk” in parts of Idaho. Yet such a revision may significantly reduce the legal protection for the grey wolf, a precedent that could diminish overall legal protection for all endangered species, a possibility which finds conservation groups and governmental agencies at odds.

Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana supports the USFWS revision as it gives the states broader population control. Further, Governor Schweitzer announced that Montana is already planning to issue hunting licenses for wolves. Craig Kentworthy of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition believes the ruling to arbitrary, “an unnecessary step by the administration to potentially threaten recovery.” Defenders of Wildlife conservation specialist Suzanna Stone, who services the northern Rockies, calls the situation “a scheme based on backdoor politics” and faults the USFWS for ignoring “its responsibility to ensure the long-term survival of the region’s wolf population.” However, federal biologists believe the rule change will correct the “unattainable threshold” found in the previous ruling, whereby states were not permitted to kill wolves actively threatening deer and elk. Officials in Montana expect lawsuits on this matter, which may delay the issue at hand. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Defenders of Wildlife may utilize the courts in an attempt to challenge the rule change. A full recovery of the wolf population requires sensible wolf management, which includes cooperation from conservation groups and federal agencies alike. This result may only come, however, following a lengthy legal process.

Further Information

CBS Montana: http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=7768769

Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/01_24_2008_northern_rockies_wolves_lose_important_protections.php

The New York Times: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/some-howl-over-federal-plan-to-expand-wolf-killing/?ref=science

Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/EA_01182008/FR01242008.pdf

Wal-Mart to Open Energy-efficient Stores

To: Dr. Derek Larson
Fr: Lief Davisson
Re: Wal-Mart to open energy-efficient stores
________________________________________
Retail giant Wal-Mart has recently undertaken efforts to make its stores more energy efficient and, as a result, more environmentally friendly. In 2005 as part of a two year old environmental efficiency drive, they built two experimental “green stores” in the U.S. which utilize such measures as energy-efficient LED lighting, rooftop solar cells, waste-oil heating systems and water runoff recycling systems. Their intention was to try many different energy saving measures, and then implement the ones that worked in their other 2,400 U.S. “Supercenters.” Now Wal-Mart has begun to build new stores based on this new efficiency model, with the first one in Romeoville, IL and three more coming in the immediate future. These new stores will run at levels 25% more efficient than their baseline measurement from 2005. Their goal is to eventually run their stores using only renewable energy and creating zero waste. Wal-Mart has also begun to pressure its suppliers to use less packaging. They aim to cut the amount of packaging used in their stores by 5% by 2013.

Wal-Mart’s actions are of particular importance because of the current crisis in energy production and consumer waste. Landfills are overflowing, and power plants are churning out more and more power to keep up with demand. Wal-Mart claims to be the largest private user of electricity in the world. With fossil fuels becoming more and more scarce, and with their negative effect on the environment, one very large corporation’s commitment to renewable sources of energy could sway corporate attitudes and practices. Wal-Mart met with competitors such as Target and Costco to try and get them to also revamp their stores. With such a large corporation advocating change, it might come faster than we think.

Wal-Mart’s moves are a good start, but we must take their actions with a grain of salt. It is important to note that Wal-Mart’s main motivation is fiscal, not environmental. As Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart's chief of government and public relations, said at a meeting in New York: "at Wal-Mart, there is no conflict between the business model of everyday low prices and everyday low costs, and being a more sustainable company." So while their actions benefit the environment, and they appreciate the positive press, in the final analysis it makes good business sense to become more efficient, which may be all that is needed to make America go green.
[Paragraph 3: Controversy associated with issue and options for action]

Further Information:
Reuters.com

Grist.org