A Better Cattle Industry

The policy I am advocating for is being proposed in the Netherlands by a group called the Animal Freedom Foundation. It calls for a movement for vaccination on all organic farms and it is against exportation, which is selling goods to other countries. The proposals specifically calls for, “vaccination for all cattle at the organic and/or free-range cattle-breeding farms. Complete trace ability of meat, with 4 identifying marks: the country in which the animal was born, the country in which the animal lived, the country in which the animal was slaughtered, and the country in which the meat was processed.” Also, this proposal has a unique characteristic, because it proposes labeling of the meat products in the store, which eventually holds the consumer responsible. The proposal of labeling meat states, “Mentioning on the packing of meat the age in weeks of the animal that was slaughtered. People have to have the choice to buy meat from an animal of a certain age. Mentioning on the packing of meat a score on a welfare scale of the farm on which the animal lived. This welfare scale is based on some twenty features that determine the well-being of the animal. The higher the score, the higher the well-being of the animal during its life.” It would hold the consumer responsible, because they would be imparted with knowledge about the cattle’s life and whether they decide to purchase the meat or not.
The activist group, the Animal Freedom Foundation, has been around for many years, promoting safer practices in the cattle industry. They pride themselves on only supporting only realistic and legitimate solutions for animals rights. They realize there is no quick fix to such a large problem, but there are many things that can be done to move in a more positive direction. Their proposal would help alleviate the misrepresentation of what happens at organic farms, because would be more knowledgeable about what they are purchasing. It would also aide in the safety of the animals on the farm and the products they produce, because they would be vaccinated. We have to be careful though, when giving organic farmers the okay to vaccinate, because they may cheat the system. There would have to strict regulations on what vaccinations they are allowed to give and when. The Animal Freedom Foundation’s proposal would be a huge step towards safer practices in the cattle and meat industry.

The policy that I think will work best to stop the illegal distribution of opium from Afghanistan is to turn the opium into medical morphene rather than heroin, and to pay the farmers well enough to do it. This proposal has been advocated by the Italian Red Cross and the Afghan Red Crescent. More than 12% of the Afghani population is directly involved in the cultivation of opium, and much more depend on its indirect financial affects to live. Therefore, it is not reasonable to go in and burn their fields, or arrest the farmers - that will only breed more contempt for the US, which would in turn only support the terrorist agenda. The proposal to legitimize the opium by turning it into morphene rather than heroin would not take the financial gains away from the farmers, help the Afghani economy, and reduce crime involved in the opium trade. It is the best option available, not only for Afghanistan, but for all the countries affected by heroin

Saving Bananas

My advocacy essay about the extinction of bananas, and the policies proposes some way to save bananas. Scientists are discovering that the Cavendish banana, the bananas that we eat today, are under attack by the Panama Disease, a deadly fungus, in some Asian countries. However the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have declared some policies that would prevent the bananas from being severely attacked by the disease. FAO has called for the "development of more diversity in the banana, especially for export bananas, promoting awareness of the inevitable consequences of a narrow genetic taste in crops and the need for a broader genetic base for commercial bananas, and strengthening plant breeding programmes in developing countries for banana and other basic staple crops" (FAO). This is important for the bananas to have a diversity because farmers need new methods to resist the disease. There have been issues about the new use of transgenics, that people are questioning if it is healthy for some consumers, but FAO is calling for more healthier ways to save the cultivation.

Water in rice production

My advocacy essay will address a proposal providing three solutions, addressed by B.A.M. Bouman, to decrease water usage in rice production in order to avoid a water shortage predicted to hit Asia in 2025 that will lead to famine. Two solutions involve changing to soil management in rice production to decrease water usage: saturate soil culture (SSC) and alternate wetting and drying (AWD). In SSC, farmers use shallow irrigation methods, thus only 1 centimeter of water is used to flood the crops after the disappearance of standing water (in comparison to 5-10 centimeters in regular irrigation systems). In AWD, farmers use 2-5 centimeters of water to flood the crops after a set number of days have passed after the disappearance of the standing water. The third solution Bouman proposed involves a completely different system of growing rice: aerobic rice production. With aerobic rice production, farmers grow rice without standing water; to provide water to the crops, sprinkler systems or drip irrigation is adopted. Though these solutions do not increase yield, they do reduce water impute which will prevent a water shortage from occurring in Asia. Introducing hybrid rice is a solution that will increase yield, yet this new technology does not reduce water impute and will not be effective as the sole method of providing rice to a growing population since water is critical for future generations. Thus, adopting SSC, AWD, and aerobic rice, in areas appropriate to that method in price, climates, and land, are the best solutions to decrease water impute in rice production.

banana workers

My essay is advocating a policy that protects workers who spray pesticides on bananas. I am advocating a policy already implemented in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency. It involves steps for educating and protecting workers. I think this policy will work because it is from a credible agency, the EPA, and has already been successfully implemented in the United States, where it protects 2.5 million agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The policy involves educating workers with safety classes and using protective gear while using the pesticides. It also requires notification of when pesticides are being sprayed, which allows for restricted entry into areas where pesticides are present. In order to protect workers the policy also involves the use of decontamination equipment and the use of emergency medical services in the event of contamination.
This policy would work well in the banana industry because it protects workers from injuries incurred while in contact with pesticides, while still allowing for the necessary use of pesticides on the fruit. Other policies suggest the eventual fade out of pesticides but this does not seem plausible for the banana industry. Bananas are usually grown in poor countries, where the discontinuance of pesticide usage would lead to a loss in jobs, hurting the economy in such countries. Additionally, the breeds of bananas popularized around the world are stemmed from a rhizome that is over one hundred years old. This means that pests have had over one hundred years to adapt to effectively attacking this breed. There is no way the bananas could survive and meet health standards without the use of pesticides to protect them. For this reason, the EPA policy of taking measures to protect the workers would work best for the banana industry.

Coffee Addiction

Many coffee drinkers would deny that consuming caffeine can become a drug addiction because it is a popular energy boost exercised by people of all ages. However, at least half of caffeine drinkers experience symptoms of withdrawal (Griffiths, prg 15). The addiction to caffeine in coffee has said to be a mental disorder, according to National Geographic new writer, George Studeville. Keeping to an addiction avoids withdrawal symptoms. Researchers have discovered that a regular use of caffeine leads to a physical dependence addiction. Even a small amount, about half a cup of coffee, is enough to stimulate an addiction. The dependence may be so strong that some consumers drink caffeine to stay away from the withdrawal symptoms instead of drinking coffee for the taste.

On July 31, 1997, the Center for Science and the Public Interest proposed to politicians in Washington as well as to the Food and Drug Administration, a new policy surrounding the topic of caffeine levels in foods and beverages.  The organization called for all products that contain caffeine, such as coffee drinks, to be required to exhibit a surgeon general's warning due to the adverse health effects surrounding the consumption of caffeine. This is the best policy in dealing with the social problem of increasing negative health concerns among society's members due to the excessive consumption of coffee because it is not too extreme yet does not ignore the threats of caffeine.  It gives individuals more knowledge of the harms that caffeine can cause the body and allows a person to decide appropriate levels of intake without completely banning consumption of coffee beverages.  A ban would not be plausible due to economic as well as free choice factors.  By including a warning on coffee beverages, members of society will not as easily brush aside the information regarding the detrimental effects of coffee to human health.  The proposal would additionally be able to break down the preconceived ideas that coffee is beneficial to an individual's health and does not have to be limited.  The Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud is another organization that appealed to the FDA for a warning to be placed on products with caffeine due to the potential dangerous effects of caffeine on pregnant women.  One source that might challenge this proposal is the FDA themselves and the fact that in 1958, it labeled and classified caffeine as Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS).  Since this time, the FDA claims that caffeine has been used in many foods and beverages safely and a warning would be unnecessary.  Additionally, the World Health Organization is another group that believes that there is no strong medical evidence to conclude that there are significant health consequences involved with caffeine intake and would be in opposition to this policy set forth by the CSPI.