Sunday, March 29, 2015

Water as a Human Right


Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink...
via Instagram http://ift.tt/1ET4t97



In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly stated access to clean water and sanitation as a human right.  According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the subject, maintaining this human right is a multi-faceted issue requiring multiple ways of specifying the right.  These include maintaining availability, quality and cleanliness, culturally-acceptable facilities for using the water, accessibility to all, and affordability.  However, the UN mandate does not require nations to provide direct access or piped water, nor does it proscribe privatizing water or charging for it.[1]  Discrepancies such as these complicate the definition of water as a human right.  Serious distribution and societal issues arise when accessibility is required but commodification of water is still allowed.  One such example is the current drought in California and the various uses of the sparse remaining water.
We tend to think of water use in the context in which most of us engage in it: the tap.  However, household use of water is very much a small portion of total fresh water use, accounting for a mere 10%.[2]  Industry and agriculture sectors are the two biggest consumers of water.  One such industry highlights the irony in America’s perception of water’s role and use.  From a citizen’s perspective, it is a tightly regulated necessity with an intricate infrastructure behind it.  In places experiencing drought, such as California, personal restrictions are prescribed and enforced by the government including quotas, bans, and fineable overconsumption offenses.  All for understandable reasons: maintaining an adequate supply for all citizens.  These ostensibly beneficent and equitable provisions crumble in the private sector.  While California scrambles to develop a long-term strategy in a state with only one year’s worth of water left, industry remains unaffected by the austere measures placed on citizens.  For example, The NestlĂ© Corporation’s bottled water companies have carried on, “business-as-usual,” throughout the multi-year drought parching California.  In Sacramento’s fourth-straight year of drought, the company’s bottled water manufacturers have been pumping out 80 million gallons a year from its aquifers at the low price of 65¢ for 470 gallons, almost identical to the individual consumer’s price.  The company then sells the water nationally under various brand names.[3]  The water consumed during various manufacturing processes in the bottled water sector further adds to the vital resource’s depletion.  Unrestricted, unlimited distribution of a rationed resource for a company’s profit seems at odds with the public good and the entire concept of water as a human right.
Fracking has consumed massive amounts of water throughout California’s drought as well.  On average, 127,127 gallons of water yearly is used to frack a single oil well in California, compared to yearly 146,000 gallons consumed by a family of four.  Some experts posit that as the state’s fracking operations move into other types of shale even more water will be required per well.[4]  This seems like too dangerous of a proposition for citizens facing a frightening drought that has left them with just one year of water left in reservoirs.  The UN’s failure to condemn unsustainable privatization of our most vital resource is manifesting in The Golden State.    


[1] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Water/FAQWater_en.pdf
[2] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Water/FAQWater_en.pdf
[3] http://www.mintpressnews.com/nestle-continues-stealing-worlds-water-during-drought/203544/
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/us/californias-thirst-shapes-debate-over-fracking.html

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Toxic Sugar


Sweet death...
via Instagram http://ift.tt/1GJMVhC



The average American today consumes around 20 teaspoons of sugar today, with soft drinks being  the number one source of these so-called empty calories.[1]  We are consuming nearly 160 lbs of sugar per person per year.  Compare this staggering number to the paltry 4 lbs per year that Americans of 1776 consumed (or even the 20 lbs we ate in 1850).[2]  High-sugar intake has historically been linked to diabetes and obesity, two preventable American epidemics.  But in recent years many nutritionists conducting experimental studies as well as researching data and compiling meta-studies have begun to make claims of added sugar’s other deleterious physiological effects.  One leading expert has gone so far as to describe sugar with words such as “toxic” and “poison.”  Dr. Robert Lustig and carrying similar convictions warn that sugar is worse beyond merely being the “empty calories” that the USDA, FDA, CDC, AHA and other leading authorities on nutrition leave it and that spokespeople for industry icons like Coca-Cola even admit it is.  Far more insidious than just contributing to weight gain and Type 2 diabetes development racking our country, “toxic” sugar may be adding to the frighteningly high rates of heart disease, our number one killer.  Unlike complex carbohydrates present in grains and starchy vegetables like potatoes, the fructose contained in sucrose (the scientific identity of our beloved table sugar) has been definitively proven to contribute to the thus-far surprising development of fatty liver disease in non-alcoholics and healthy-weighted people.  Perhaps most frightening for those of us eating a typical-western diet but lacking the visually-obvious health concerns like obesity linked to sugar intake, cancer even seems to thrive off of high sucrose and fructose intake.  Insulin response in the bloodstream after sugar consumption appears to make easily-metabolizable sugar available to voracious cancer cells.  Cancer rates in America skyrocketed along with diabetes and obesity in the post-Civil War United States, continue to do so and also are rising in places previously without our typical western-diet that have since adopted it.[3]  Sadly, even the oft-heard warnings against high fructose corn syrup that has largely over-taken cane and beet sugars place in our foods seem to be just as applicable to the very table sugar it has replaced.  Sucrose consists of one fructose molecule bonded to one glucose molecule, making its 50%-50% breakdown into fructose and glucose very close to high fructose corn syrup’s marginally higher 55%-45% fructose-glucose breakdown.[4]  Reducing your sugar-derived caloric intake is the key to preventing a wide range of chronic ailments.  Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization suggest capping one’s sugar intake to 6 teaspoons a day.[5]  Choosing to eat even less than this is probably the best choice for you however.              


[1] https://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Sugar_UCM_306725_Article.jsp
[2] http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-added-sugar-is-too-much/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[4] http://nutritionfacts.org/video/sugar-vs-corn-syrup/
[5] http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-added-sugar-is-too-much/