Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nature’

Who doesn’t love a bouquet of flowers? They are central to our greatest celebrations and most somber occasions. We adorn weddings with blossoms and honor life’s passages with floral tributes at funerals.

How many of us are in the supermarket on Mother’s Day picking up a bouquet for Mom? Prom night isn’t complete without the corsage. But what about Mother Earth? Are those flowers just as good for her? After all, she is the only planet we have, and we should honor her on Mother’s Day as well.

The flower industry is a significant economic force, valued at approximately $60 billion annually. Mother’s Day accounts for around 30% of all flower purchases, second only to Valentine’s Day, Christmas, and Hanukkah. The United States is the largest consumer of cut flowers, yet very few are grown domestically. Most are imported from Colombia and Ecuador, while Kenya supplies much of Europe. In Colombia alone, nearly 700 million flower stems are produced each year.

Environmental Costs

The journey from bloom to vase is swift, often within three days, to maximize freshness and profits. However, this speed comes with a hidden environmental cost. Approximately 360,000 metric tons of CO2 are emitted annually to transport and preserve these flowers, comparable to the emissions from 78,000 cars driven for a year. Additionally, flower farms often require heated greenhouses, increasing their carbon footprints.

Water use is another environmental concern, especially in areas like Kenya and Colombia, where irrigation is necessary despite regional water scarcity issues. Intensive flower farming also leads to monocultures, reducing biodiversity and impacting local ecosystems.

Pesticides and chemicals are extensively used to cultivate these perfect blooms. Organizations such as the Pesticide Action Network highlight the health risks posed by these substances to workers and local communities. The primarily female workforce is exposed to toxins that not only affect their health but also that of their children, as residual chemicals are brought home.

Social and Ethical Concerns

Labor conditions in the flower industry raise significant ethical questions. Many workers endure long hours in harsh conditions, often earning low wages. Reports by Fairtrade International emphasize the importance of ensuring safe and fair labor practices, crucial to improving the livelihoods of these workers.

What Can Be Done?

1. Ask Questions: Inquire if flowers are ethically and sustainably produced. Look for certifications like Fairtrade or the Rainforest Alliance, which ensure strict labor and environmental standards.

2. Support Local Sources: Purchasing flowers from local farmers’ markets reduces transportation emissions and typically involves fewer chemicals. Local sourcing aids community economies and supports more sustainable agricultural practices.

3. Traceability: Unfortunately, flowers rarely come with country-of-origin labels, unlike packaged food. It’s essential to ask where flowers come from and prefer those grown locally.

Alternatives

Consider supporting florists who prioritize environmentally friendly practices. Engaging with local gardeners to create unique bouquets from native flora can be a meaningful alternative. Often, these bouquets are sourced within a short walk from home, offering personal and thoughtful gifts that won’t compromise the planet’s well-being.

Ultimately, while flowers are a beautiful gesture, the intent is the true value. Even a bouquet of wildflowers or “weeds” can deliver heartfelt appreciation without the environmental cost. Let’s honor Mother Earth alongside our mothers, building a future where beauty and sustainability coalesce.

Read Full Post »

The Original Paleo Diet: A Culinary Journey Into Entomophagy

“The kids are just growing like weeds,” she exclaimed to her best friend Marge, who nodded in agreement, her eyes sparkling with curiosity. “Well, I’m sure it has a lot to do with your fabulous cooking,” Marge replied. “Why, thank you! I thought I’d whip up a batch of Hormigas culonas.” “The kids just scarf that right up!”

Hormigas culonas?” Marge asked, her brows furrowing in intrigue.

“It’s easy, really! First, you get a pound of large-bottomed ants, Atta laevigata, and toast them alive at about 350 degrees. A sprinkle of salt, and voilà! The kids absolutely love them!”

Yuck! There, I said it for you. What delights one group may horrify another. If I’m being honest, your local grocery store in the United States isn’t exactly stocking large-bottomed ants. And despite having a 10-cent-off coupon, I fear it wouldn’t sway my dining options.

Yet, ants and other insects seem to dance on the plates in various corners of the globe. In India, a paste made from the green weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, serves as a beloved condiment alongside rich curries. In Thailand, the adventurous can enjoy a salad of yam khai mot daeng, which features not just any red ants, but their delicate eggs! Just to clarify, we’re discussing ant eggs—delicate morsels, not red ants tossed atop chicken.

In North Queensland, the locals sip on a blend of mashed ants that bears a striking resemblance to lemonade. “Another Lemonade Crusher, please!” becomes the chant of those embracing adventure in a cup.

Culture plays a monumental role in determining what we consider edible. For those raised in entomophagic societies—where insects are part of daily meals—nibbling on salted big-butt ants alongside a frothy beer is as commonplace as a chips-and-dip spread at a barbecue. Contrast that with a typical American who may squirm at the thought of bringing insects to the dinner plate.

From a scientific standpoint, the reluctance to embrace insects as food is perplexing. Around 1,500 identified species of edible insects exist globally; this staggering number is but a drop in the ocean compared to the 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) insects residing with us on Earth. That’s about 300 pounds of insects for every pound of human! Imagine having 200 million insects all to yourself—perhaps they could find a cozy home in the spare bedroom, avoiding any disturbance to your duvet.

Given this abundance, it’s no revelation that insects can—and should—be part of our diets. High in protein, certain grasshoppers known as chapulines can boast an impressive 77.13% protein content. In contrast, beef weighs in at only around 44% protein. Furthermore, the fat profiles of insects are telling: the palm weevil (Rhynchophorus palmarum) shines with a remarkable 69.78% fat content. And while Bessie the Moo is commendable, she’s trailing with a modest 25%. The unsaturated fatty acids found in insects, particularly the polyunsaturated fatty acids, exceed those found in both fish and poultry, marking them as the “good guys.”

As if that weren’t enough, the iron content of insects is striking—palm weevils yield an astonishing 31–77 mg of iron per 100 mg, overtaking the mere 6 mg found in 100 mg of beef. For those unwilling to savor palm weevil delights, the dried soldier fly maggots offer 42% protein and 35% fat, joining the ranks of nutritious alternatives.

But what, dare I ask, has cultivated a “bug-a-boo” about eating insects in America? We consume shrimp, crab, and lobster without a backward glance, yet insects, often strikingly similar in form and function, remain taboo. If you examine a lobster closely, it embodies the essence of a large, red bug. Certainly, we enjoy escargot, but only when smothered in garlicky butter, as if we need the olfactory camouflage to tolerate their slime.

Is it because, as children, we are taught to fear the crawling nuisances? We learn that insects can carry disease, sting, bite, and frighten. Witness the utter dismay when an unwelcome bug meanders into a room—the ensuing clamor for makeshift weapons to exorcise the intruder is almost comical. Few pause to consider whether that pest might be fit for dinner; hence the war against these creatures rages on.

Perhaps it’s time for us to reflect on our anthropological history, where our ancestors consumed raw fish and insects as opportunistic foragers, gathering sustenance for survival. We must embrace the fact that insects have played a role in shaping our evolutionary journey. It’s high time we overcome this lingering “ick factor” and venture into our local pub, beer in hand, ready to savor a plate of crunchy big-butt ants. Why not enjoy the experience with a Butt-lite, please!

Read Full Post »

Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking work, Silent Spring, left me with a profound realization: the intricate web of interconnectedness between our industrial activities, the very water we drink, and the air that we breathe. In this shared space, fish swim in our rivers and lakes, while birds soar through the skies. Altering even one facet of the air we inhale or the water we consume through the application of toxic chemicals can create a ripple effect throughout these delicate biospheres, leading to unforeseen consequences.

However, there exists a widespread assumption that organic alternatives are inherently beneficial, often without scrutinizing potential consequences or unintended repercussions. For instance, consider Bacillus thuringiensis (commonly known as Bt), a naturally occurring bacterium extensively utilized to control the larvae of mosquitoes, beetles, and caterpillars. Many perceive Bt as a harmless organic solution. But is it truly free of harm? How do we ascertain its safety and efficacy?

To navigate these complex decisions, Cornell University introduced the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), a vital decision-making tool designed to evaluate the use of chemicals and their multifaceted impacts. This tool assesses the effects on farm workers, consumers, and vital wildlife, including fish, birds, bees, and other beneficial insects. EIQ ratings range from 10 for the least impactful chemicals to around 100 for the most harmful. Ideally, materials with an EIQ over 20 should be avoided whenever possible.

Let’s apply the EIQ to our case study: Bacillus thuringiensis. When we look at the ratings, we observe:

  • Farm Worker Impact: 6.9
  • Consumer Impact: 2.5
  • Fish, Bird, Bee, and Beneficial Insect Impact: 30.6

The latter rating is particularly concerning, with a significant portion directed toward birds and beneficial insects. The overall EIQ for Bt stands at 13.3.

What do these figures signify? It suggests we must approach chemical use as a nuanced decision—rather than relying on the blanket assumption that organic is synonymous with safety while synthetic is synonymous with danger. Although Bt shows a generally low EIQ, its application in areas critical for bird feeding or habitats that attract beneficial insects shifts the concern. In such cases, the impact for these species rises to 30.6, indicating a serious ecological risk. For responsible stewardship, we must consult the EIQ chart to determine whether alternative solutions can effectively accomplish our goals while minimizing harm to avian and beneficial populations.

The EIQ acts as an initial assessment tool, helping us evaluate potential ecological risks associated with chemical use. It should serve as a component of a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, which employs various strategies and practices to optimize pest control while mitigating environmental impact. The EIQ alone does not dictate the best course of action; rather, it provides important data that must be weighed alongside other decision-making factors to determine the most appropriate chemical intervention.

As we delve into this critical subject in future installments, I aim to rigorously analyze individual chemicals, assessing their strengths and weaknesses—what I refer to as the good, the bad, and the ugly. The EIQ will form the foundation of this assessment, guiding our understanding and informing our choices regarding agricultural practices and chemical use.

Read Full Post »