December 26, 2016

The Costs and Benefits of Drinking Milk

Image result for milk environmental impacts

The Following is a report I did for a class called Ecological Anthropology I took this past fall. The assignment was to pick a particular food product and research how it's produced along with the various negative impacts of its production.  As a note, I have not yet stopped drinking milk but plan to try switching to drinking soy milk in the next several weeks as the new year begins.


            If there’s been one trend in my dietary decisions as I’ve grown older it’s that, as I’ve become more conscious of the environmental and ethical costs of food production, I’ve moved steadily further away from consuming animal products.  For several years I was beginning to feel more and more guilty about eating meat, and finally, about a year and a half ago, I made the decision to become vegetarian. But I always knew that eating animal products other than meat still results in many of the same moral dilemmas, so since then I’ve found myself moving steadily towards becoming a complete vegan.  For now I like the idea of consuming animal products on occasion, instead of an everyday part of my diet.  But there’s one thing standing in my way: milk.  For as long as I can remember, I’ve consumed about 3 three glasses of skim milk a day, and cutting this out would be a major shift in my diet.  So before I make any big decisions, I thought it would be nice to look into just how much damage I’m doing by continuing this practice, as well as just how necessary drinking milk is. 
            I first though it necessary to gain some background knowledge on exactly how milk is produced.  Not too surprisingly, it involves a fairly straightforward process which begins with the rearing of cows which are kept in confined, close-quarter compounds, or sometimes allowed to roam grass fields.  The actual milking involves an automated machine that milks the cows twice a day or more.  The raw milk is then transported to processing factories where it is tested for safety and quality, then processing begins which includes pasteurization to kill bacteria, homogenization of fat throughout the rest of the milk, separation of the cream by centrifuge, then reintroduction to reach the desired fat content (skim milk has 0.05%).  Finally the milk is packaged and delivered to stores to be sold.1  Typically milk is produced close to where it is sold, due to its short shelf life.2  On the surface, this process doesn’t sound incredibly unethical, but I was unsurprised to discover that there’s much more behind the veil. 
            Like other forms of animal agriculture, milk production is highly resource intensive and carries many environmental risks.  Raising cows for milk requires large amounts of land, water, and energy.  This is largely in order to grow the feed necessary to fuel the animals’ high production.3  In the U.S., two-thirds of agricultural land is used for animal agriculture, including growing feed.4  Climate change inducing greenhouse gas emissions are also a staple of animal agriculture, resulting from energy expended from production processes, as well as digestive processes and manure of animals (although less than 1% of U.S. emissions are attributed to the dairy industry).5 There are also many environmental risks associated with milk production, including air pollution such as ammonia and water pollution from manure and fertilizer runoff.3
            Possibly a bigger concern for me, however, was with the treatment of cows in the milk production process, and my concerns were more than justified with this as well.  There are a whole host of incredible mistreatments of cows throughout the process.  The normal lifespan of a cow is about 20 years.  However, most cows in the dairy industry are kept in conditions (including cramped compounds where they are forced to stand in their own feces) that are so stressful and unsanitary that by 4 or 5 years old they are unable to continue with high levels of production, due to disease or other factors, and are sent away to be slaughtered.  The dairy industry is also intimately connected with the meat industry, including veal production which the males born to dairy cows are often used for.4
            As an additional factor, contamination during any part of the milk production process has been known to cause disease outbreaks on occasion.  Between 1998 and 2014, contaminated pasteurized milk resulted in 9 outbreaks in the U.S. with some total 2,200 illnesses.6
            So with all this in mind, is drinking milk really necessary?  Indeed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommends 3 cups a day of fat-free or low-fat milk.  Proponents argue that milk is an important source of calcium, potassium, and vitamins, and helps bone health.  However, some experts have shown skepticism, citing it as unnecessary for obtaining many desired nutrients, its high amount of calories and fat, and even possible connections with prostate and ovarian cancers.  There seems to be less than a consensus over whether milk is recommended, but it does seem clear that it’s not necessary for a healthy diet.  The same benefits from milk can be easily obtained from vegetables and other plant-based foods.7  One big concern I’ve had is with getting the protein that milk provides, however vegan diets have been shown to easily provide for this requirement as well.8
            With all this knowledge in mind, my head has become a bit clearer on how to address my milk dilemma.  It’s obvious that there are many serious costs of drinking milk, including both environmental and ethical.  One solution could be to seek out organic milk, which may include such benefits as grass fed cows and less fertilizer use.9  However, as stated above, milk is most likely not necessary to having a good diet.  If I were to cut out milk I could probably find a way to make up for it by consuming additional plant-based products that would provide me with the nutrients I may be lacking.  Soy milk, for example, which has good amounts of potassium, vitamins, and nearly as much protein as cow’s milk, could be an easy substitute.10  I don’t think I’ll cut out milk entirely just yet, but it seems clear that this is the direction that I, and anyone concerned with the negative impacts of drinking milk, should head in.                               

Sources 
1.      "How Milk Gets from the Cow to the Store." ProCon.org. April 4, 2011. http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000658.
2.      Segarra, Elizabeth. "How Far Does Our Food Travel." Save On Energy. September 4, 2015. https://www.saveonenergy.com/energy-news/how-far-does-food-travel-11404/.
3.      "Dairy." WWF. 2016. http://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/dairy.
4.      "Cow's Milk: A Cruel and Unhealthy Product." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 2016. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/cows-milk-cruel-unhealthy-product/.
5.      Capper et al.. "The Environmental Impact of Dairy Production: 1944 Compared with 2007." Journal of Animal Science 87, no. 6 (December 5, 2014): 2160-167. doi:10.2527/jas.2009-1781.
6.      "Outbreaks from Foodborne Pathogens in Milk and Cheeses Sold as Pasteurized, United States 1998-present." Real Raw Milk Facts. March 18, 2014. http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/pasteurized-dairy-outbreak-table.pdf.
7.      Jaret, Peter. "The Pros and Cons of Milk and Dairy." WebMD. 2011. http://www.webmd.com/diet/healthy-kitchen-11/dairy-truths.
8.      Mangels, Reed. "Protein in the Vegan Diet." The Vegetarian Resource Group. 2013. http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php.
9.      Schwendel et al.. "Invited Review: Organic and Conventionally Produced Milk—An Evaluation of Factors Influencing Milk Composition." Journal of Dairy Science 98, no. 2 (February 2015): 721-46. December 11, 2014. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8389.
10.  Krans, Brian. "Almond Milk vs Cow Milk vs Soy Milk vs Rice Milk." Healthline. 2014. http://www.healthline.com/health/milk-almond-cow-soy-rice#2.

November 28, 2016

Assessing My Carbon Footprint

Related image

Note: The following is a report I did for a class I'm currently enrolled in titled Ecological Anthropology in which we were assigned to use an online calculator to find our carbon footprint and analyze our score.  


            At a time where the impact of human activity on the environment is increasingly finding its way into public awareness, it’s natural to reflect on our own lifestyles to see how much each of us is contributing to the problem.  An easy way to quantify our personal impacts is to estimate our carbon footprint, the amount of greenhouse gasses one is responsible for releasing.  With the number one environmental challenge of the day being the changing of our climate due to human release of greenhouse gasses, this can easily be seen as a general reflection of our personal impacts.  There are many readily available online calculators that can be used to conduct this assessment.  In an effort to review my own environmental impacts, I tried one of these calculators out. 

            The calculator I used was the The Nature Conservancy’s Free Carbon Footprint Calculator.[1]  I was asked to answer a variety of questions about my lifestyle among four categories: Home Energy, Driving and Flying, Food and Diet, and Recycling and Waste.  The system meanwhile calculated an estimate of the amount of greenhouse gasses I’m responsible for emitting per year in units of tons of CO2 equivalent.  My result?  Fourteen metric tons per year. 

            Of course, a particular value given for carbon footprint doesn’t mean a whole lot by itself, so I looked into some average carbon footprints for people of different parts of the world to see how I compare.  The good news is I seem to be responsible for less emissions than the average American who releases 19.86 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) per year, and far less than people in very rich countries who whose economies are based largely on fossil fuel production such as Kuwait (62.30 tCO2e).[2]  However, my footprint is significantly higher than the vast majority of people’s in the world.  The world average is about 5 tCO2e.[3] Some poor, less industrialized countries have almost negligible values, such as Burundi (0.30 tCO2e).  But even in China, a very highly industrialized county, people are responsible for significantly less emissions (8.13 tCO2e), due to distribution over their population size.     
    
            My high carbon footprint is certainly due to the fact that the US is more industrialized than most countries.  Additionally, I’m a product of a culture that is based on the use of huge amounts of energy, from powering our homes and electronics to fueling our transportation.  These are things that are hard for an individual like myself to get away from.  However, the fact that my footprint came in smaller than the average American suggests that I’m doing some things right.  The calculator lowered my total for several answers I gave, including being a vegetarian and regular recycling.  So it’s bothering to see that I’m still responsible for more emissions than much of the world’s population.  

            There are no doubt steps I could take to reduce my footprint further, however what my results illustrate is there is still a limit for how little impact I can have based on the society I live in.  For this reason, I’m less concerned with my own personal impact than the underlying systems that cause a society like the US to do so much harm to the environment.  Perhaps a better personal indicator could be how much each of us as individuals are doing to challenge these systems.                            




[1] The calculator I used was recently replaced by an updated system, and can no longer be found.  The new one only measures carbon footprint for an entire household, not for individuals.    
[2] All individual country data is 2012 values from the World Resource Institute’s CAIT Data Explorer. 
[3] The Nature Conservancy Free Carbon Footprint Calculator.  
Image source: https://r3continuum.com/2015/12/08/small-carbon-footprints/ 

January 16, 2016

Humanist Film Review: The Revenant (2015)


Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Writers: Screenplay by Mark L. Smith and Alejandro G. Iñárritu, based on the novel by Michael Punke 
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy      

The Revenant is a film about several different things. It's about willpower, it's about love, it's about loyalty, it's about man versus nature.  But most of all, it's a story about revenge.  The movie is a fictionalized account, based on real life events that happened to legendary nineteenth century frontiersman Hugh Glass, of a fur-trapping guide (DiCaprio) who is mauled by a grizzly bear, and then abandoned by members of his company who are supposed to be tending to him until he dies.  The man responsible for leaving him, John Fitzgerald (Hardy), also kills his son right in front of him while the crippled Glass watches powerless.  Glass then must, through incredible willpower and survival skills, somehow find a way to survive the harsh winter wilderness alone and gravely injured; and ultimately not only does this, but also sets out to track down Fitzgerald to get his revenge.

Normally, a revenge tale would not be of much interest to me.  The concept of "revenge" to me is just doing wrong for the sake of doing wrong; it doesn't fix anything in and of itself, but rather just causes more suffering.  And most of the time, films about revenge seem to reflect this.  However, as I began to learn more about The Revenant in the months leading up to its release, I eventually realized it would be a must see.  The main reason for this is the incredible cinematic experience it provides.  The film is not only engrossing and keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish, but it is also immersive and feels incredibly real.  This is due in large part to the filmmakers' dedication to absolute realism throughout most of the movie.  Shot on location in harsh winter wilderness in Canada and Argentina, and with all natural lighting, the setting looks stunning and feels completely real. The mark of master cinematographer Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki is keenly felt, particularly in the camerawork, often giving an uncanny feeling of being a spectator right within the action.  The film is also carried by a host of impressive performances, particularly from DiCaprio and Hardy.  DiCaprio finely executes the intensely physical demands of  his role, and Hardy acts and sounds more believably like a man from the 1820's than perhaps any other actor in the movie.  There are points where the story and the action stretches the boundaries of believability slightly, but overall the film remains rooted in realism and is an incredible cinematic achievement. 
                                   
Going into the movie, however,  I was still unsure of whether the film would go beyond the typical scope of most revenge stories and find something original to say.  To its credit, beyond the revenge thing, it does explore several humanist themes throughout.  The most prominent of these for me is the incredible power of the human will.  This is displayed through the character of Glass as you watch him overcome injuries that bring him near death, deadly forces of nature, and hostile enemies.  It would be nice to see a bit more insight into what is driving Glass to keep pushing on, but it's evident that he has a fire within him that will not be extinguished easily.  The most obvious answer is that he is motivated by a desire to not just survive, but also to get his revenge.  Though this may be true, I was happy that the ending managed to create a bit of an original twist on things.  Without giving away too much, I'll say that there is some ambiguity over whether Glass feels fulfilled by his efforts to avenge the wrongs that have been done on him.  This is summed up by an instance near the end, where Fitzgerald says to Glass something along the lines of "your boy ain't comin' back", and this seems to cause a change in Glass, though it's hard to tell exactly what.  Basically, the film lets you decide the ultimate result of Glass's journey. And it also makes you think a little bit about the morality and utility of revenge, something I can appreciate.

The Revenant is overall an incredible film. See it for the experience, but while you're at it think about the many themes it so keenly taps in to.            
  
Sources:
Image: http://www.fandango.com/movie-news/the-revenant-trailer-watch-leonardo-dicaprio-fight-a-bear-and-tom-hardy-749539
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663202/?ref_=nv_sr_1
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0523881/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr22

January 6, 2016

Humanist Film Review: The Danish Girl (2015)


Director: Tom Hooper 
Writers: Screenplay by Lucinda Coxon, based on the novel by David Ebershoff 
Stars: Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander 

A few days ago I heard some news story on TV about how Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders was interrupted during a speech by a heckler carrying a sign that read "Obama is as Christian as Bruce Jenner is a woman".  My first reaction was of disbelief and disgust, that not only was someone still insisting that President Obama isn't a Christian, but would be bigoted enough to deny transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner the gender that she identifies with.  But then it got me thinking a little bit.  What if the man was right? I mean what actually defines someone as being a woman or a man? Is it solely based on how you see yourself, or do you always carry some designation based on the anatomy you were born with? Luckily, the debate in my mind didn't last long. I live in the 21st century, and I understand that gender identification is a legitimate thing, so I have no problem with someone who was born with male anatomy calling themselves a woman.  But these questions are still important to ask, if nothing else to help draw up a distinction between gender identification and biological gender, something that many people don't understand.  These questions are quite squarely answered, in fact, by a new movie out called The Danish Girl.   

This film tells the true story of the Danish painter Lili Elbe (Redmayne), who in 1930 became one of the first people to undergo sex reassignment surgery.  The events involving the surgery take place towards the end of the movie, with the majority of the film focusing on Elbe's transition (both inward and outward) from male to full female, and the difficulties this involves, including the turbulence caused in her relationship with her wife, Gerda Wegener (Vikander).  The film is beautifully crafted, and is a tender and realistic portrayal of the turmoil faced by a person who realizes they no longer feel any connection with the body they were born with. Redmayne is exceptional and utterly believable in this role, and displays a transformation from beginning to end unmatched by perhaps anything I've seen, save in his take on Stephen Hawking in 2014's The Theory of Everything (credit is also due to the excellent job of the makeup department).  Vikander, meanwhile, matches his performance by adding an exceptional realness to her character and effectively encapsulating Wegener's struggle to reconcile her desire to be there for Elbe with the knowledge that she is losing her husband in the process.  The film is also gorgeously shot, interspersing sweeping images of scenery between scenes, hinting at the broad scope of its themes. 

Not surprisingly, Elbe faces great hostility from many of the people she must interact with during the course of her transition.  Feeling herself that there is something not right with her, she goes to see several doctors, most of which propose inhuman treatments or simply label her as insane.  These people have the classic, simplistic view that the body you are born with determines exactly what gender you are. But the film adamantly suggests that this is not true.  When Elbe decides to try one final doctor, she openly tells him "You probably think I'm crazy, but I believe I'm a woman born in a man's body".  Miraculously the doctor replies, "Some people think I'm crazy, but I believe you".  This is the doctor that ultimately performs the surgery on Elbe allowing her to finally feel free.  From the title itself, to lines like these, the film suggests that gender can be based on one's sense of identity, not just ones's body, a concept that sadly many people evidently still don't understand.  In addition, just as Elbe has served as an empowering figure for transgender people for years, The Danish Girl has an empowering message that we should all strive to be exactly who we want to be, as well appreciate the individuality of all of our fellow human beings.                    

Sources: