American Food Waste: An Epidemic

          Jose Lopez, Nestle’s head of operations claims that “food waste is an incredible and absurd issue for the world today.” With so many nations facing hunger and food deprivation, the fact that the United States wastes such a monumental amount of food is indeed absurd. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2012 Americans threw out roughly 35 million tons of food, making up well over a fifth of the country’s garbage. This has detrimental economic and environmental consequences. However, this problem is solvable, but first we must observe the error in our ways. Then, we can look into the solutions starting first with information, then action.

            A clear problem with food waste in our country can be seen in the fact that while an estimated one in every nine people in the world suffer from chronic hunger, Americans still throw out up to 40 percent of our food supply. This degree of food waste implicates that more food doesn’t need to be produced, but rather the food being produced needs to be distributed and preserved more effectively. The United Nations took note of this in their report on world hunger, explaining that there is enough food to feed all seven billion people living in the world today.

            The environment suffers as well due to the high degree of American food waste, as it increases methane emissions drastically. Decomposing food in landfills across the U.S. produce nearly a quarter of the country’s total methane emissions, according to the NRDC. Roberto A. Ferdman explains that methane is said to be 20 times more lethal a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, making food waste dangerous to current environmental issues. Moreover, the economy suffers in a variety of ways, from food production to disposal and all realms in between. For instance, a new report suggests that the cost of disposing of food waste in the U.S. could be as high as $1.5 billion. The problems associated with food waste are undeniable, but now we must look into solutions.

            Information is a critical aspect in reducing food waste. The American public is largely unaware of how much they waste, and the impact they could have if changes were put in place. Donating food is one way this problem can be alleviated, by redirecting food from landfills to those in need. Furthermore, the national government can work to fund programs that directly limit food waste. One program known as SOSA (St. Andrew Food Salvage) can reduce landfill waste by as much as 30 million pounds a year. The government must also work to implement legislation with the goal of preventing and decreasing food waste. This legislation could include broad policies along with simple recommendations and guidelines. More decisive decisions can also be made in the form of increased regulations. However, the most influential directive will be promoting public information and awareness, so a change can be made person to person.

            America is in a precarious situation in regard to food waste, and without making changes, we will only get worse. However, these changes are extremely realistic and can work to reduce America’s unbelievable food wastage. Through the help of the national government, local governments, service programs, and individual efforts, this issue will be alleviated.

"Trump or Clinton? Pick Your Poison" Commentary

My classmate Mary Parks has written a thought provoking piece on the upcoming presidential election, (with a witty title I might add). It clearly sums up the mindset of much of the American public in regard to the upcoming election. We seem to be in a Catch-22 situation. It is not often that one hears someone advocating either Trump or Clinton without denouncing the other. Many don't like either option, and base their political opinion on whichever candidate seems the least "bad."

My classmate immediately snagged my attention with the description of the political cartoon. In the subsequent paragraph, she concedes that she is not well informed on politics, and this concession makes her appear more relatable and trustworthy to the audience with her honesty.

She goes on to bring up many valid points on the faults of Donald Trump, referencing his racism and inequity most notably. She points out that we should have a strong, respectable president. Not a president we are ashamed of.

Parks shifts to describing Clinton next, referencing examples of her untrustworthy actions. While I agree with Park's explanation, I would have liked to see more direct examples of Clinton's actions. Yet, her argument is still quite strong on the basis formed currently.

Parks closes by suggesting an out to the Trump-Clinton dilemma: a third party candidate. While I so greatly wish this solution could work, I can't find it plausible due to the masses of support for the Democratic and Republican parties. Parks is absolutely correct on the fact that America needs a sincere, honest, moral leader to step up. And sadly, it appears that our two candidates will fall very short of that requirement.

Mandatory Vaccinations

     Elst Borst explains that the invention of the vaccine is like that of the seatbelt: both are critical in ensuring one’s safety. The issue of increasing legal requirements for vaccination is one that sparks controversy; to realistically look at this issue, one must consider the dangers and risks associated with vaccination, paired with the benefits they provide, all the while considering the case of individual freedom. However, in the case of vaccinations, the benefits they provide greatly outweigh any negatives.

     Vaccines not only prevent diseases person to person, but they also protect against biological warfare/terrorism and help ensure public health. Opponents often argue that mandating vaccines suspends basic, fundamental rights, such as in the case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts”, concerning a local minister refusing the smallpox vaccine. However, in this case the court ruled that state governments have a “duty to protect citizens”, even if it comes to suspending “basic rights” when regarding public safety. This case set a precedent; vaccinations to ensure public health will take priority over an individual’s rights.

     This precedent is one that should continue in American policy, although it is not currently. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, States have expanded vaccination exemption laws, creating a passive attitude over the importance of vaccinations. In fact, twenty States have some type of “philosophical exemption law”, in which parents can claim an exemption on the basis of personal beliefs. The well-being of children is compromised due to lax requirements for immunization. Children, helpless participants in their parents’ beliefs, are being subjected to preventable illnesses, many of which have severe, even deadly consequences.

     Not only children, but citizens with poor health are left vulnerable when people choose not to vaccinate. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof elaborates that vaccination cannot be a “private choice, but a “civic obligation”, since it affects the public as a whole. Vaccinations provide something called herd immunity, in which a vaccinated public can protect those with medical issues who cannot safely be vaccinated. Think of children with Leukemia, for instance; their weakened immune systems could not support vaccinations, yet diseases such as the measles can still infect, and quite possibly kill them. To prevent this, the population must be vaccinated in order to prevent diseases such as the measles from being spread. However, State exemptions are preventing full herd immunity.

     In order to mitigate the effects of vaccine exemptions, certain steps must be taken. First and foremost, the public needs to be informed about just how necessary vaccines are to public health and safety. The fears of many parents lie in faulty science, such as the supposed correlation between vaccines and autism, which has been proven false. The national government needs to eradicate philosophical exemptions in the States allowing them in order to maintain public safety. Religious exemptions should be eliminated as well, if only thinking of public health. However, religions are a serious matter to many citizens and if denying them their practices goes against their fundamental beliefs, then exemptions cannot be eliminated. In these cases, citizens should be well aware of the risks before opting for an exemption. Medical exemptions are, of course, necessary in the case of those who cannot handle vaccination. To protect these particularly “at risk” citizens, a crack down on exemptions can work to safeguard their health.

     Many citizens are simply misinformed on vaccinations and how they have saved America in the past. Although people should have a right to choose, the issue of maintaining public health and safety takes priority. Therefore, vaccine exemptions need to be managed by the national government and should only be given out under stricter requirements. Much like the seatbelt, vaccines can only protect us if we use them. And if citizens put others at risk by refusing to use them, then the government must mandate vaccines in order to protect our nation. 

War on Christmas, Or Leftists?

Mary Anne Henderson, historian and high school teacher, explains how the “War On Christmas” incident with Starbucks was used to promote conservative ideals. Pairing with Brian Platt, aerospace machinist, they trace the roots of the movement in their piece “The War on Christmas, or How to Build Mass Support for Right-Wing Ideology”. They open with a brief summary of the incident, ensuring that the audience is aware of the topic in discussion. They then move into their thesis: that the war on Christmas is, in fact, a “gateway” into conservative politics attacking the left. In this, they bring to the reader’s attention the underlying phenomenon behind what seems a silly disagreement. The intended audience is concerned leftists, or other citizens, who are unaware of the implications behind the seemingly harmless feud.

The pair effectively outlines the origins of this dispute, citing Henry Ford’s article “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem” in which the first reference to a “war on Christmas” was made. They call his rants “crude antisemitism” that promoted “racist conspiracy theories”. These were only held at bay by strong Left radical parties, and therefore the war on Christmas theory could not gain headway. In detailing the history of the movement, the authors enhance their credibility and prove their complete knowledge on the subject. This, in turn, makes the reader more responsive to the upcoming arguments.

They continue citing facts from history to elaborate on how Conservative agenda could be promoted through accusations made towards the Left under the cover of “protecting Christmas”. They explain how the Cold War years saw this occur, and how subsequently the Church advanced its goals. Conspiracy theories continued to pop up, with little to no validation backing them. Through their deliberate tracing of the past, Henderson and Platt effectively explain that the war on Christmas is far from “holiday nonsense”, but is instead part of a deeper, “racist”, and “pro-capitalist” ideology. This movement is “doled out” in “churches” and “Fox News” in which racist promotions can be made under the guise of defending Christmas.

          They close with a powerful metaphor, comparing capitalist ideology to leprosy and the war on Christmas to the “numbness in your fingers”, reminding you that your body is rotting. Through this, they enhance the picture of the dangers behind extreme Right-Wing policies and argue for a strong Left to combat them. Henderson and Platt bring much deeper meaning to a seemingly harmless Starbucks scandal.

Republicans Are Not Defined by Trump

Andrew Rosenthal, Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times and graduate of the University of Denver, attempts to generalize Trump’s recent actions and beliefs to all Republicans in his piece “Why Republicans Won’t Renounce Trump”. He argues that Republicans refuse to renounce Trump because they secretly support his actions. This sweeping generalization is presumptuous and lacks definitive evidence to support such a claim. However, Rosenthal does provide evidence of Trump’s bigotry. He simply fails to make a distinct connection between Trump’s racist comments, deplorable actions, and skewed morals to the Republican Party as a whole. In forming these claims, he has addressed potential supporters of the Republican Party and swayed their opinions. At the same time, he intends on a broad audience of the general public to read his piece, in order to gather support on his opinions.
Referencing Donald Trump’s attack on a federal judge, whose parents were born in Mexico, Rosenthal claims that Republican leaders only “pretended they disapproved”. Yet, he provides no evidence whatsoever to back this severe accusation. He attempts to shade Republicans in a bad light straight off the bat, setting up the subsequent fallacies within his argument. He continues explaining that Republicans have “been deliberately” creating a party of “division and intolerance”, referencing George W. Bush’s “racist tactics” against Michael Dukakis. While he has his facts in order this time, they are irrelevant to his central argument. This does nothing to prove that Republicans are inherently racist, and therefore have some "secret or corrupt" agenda in promoting Trump. 

Further on, Rosenthal summarizes what are in my opinion, the low points of the Republican Party, such as their hesitation in reforming immigration. From this, he creates a slippery slope in which Republicans supposedly want to “deport…Mexicans” and “ban Muslims”, but hide this fact by refusing to talk about it in the open. Rosenthal uses this to lead into his argument that Republicans only disapprove of Trump’s “bad tactics” in attacking Mexicans and Muslims, but not the sentiment behind it. He goes as far as to call Republicans’ appalled reaction to Trump’s action “nonsense”, implying that it is all an act. Again, he has no evidence backing this claim.

Rosenthal attempts to substantiate his argument with examples of government officials admitting to Trump’s bigotry, but still refusing to renounce him. However, this does not qualify the claim that the Republican’s hold all the same ideals and morals as Trump. It simply implies that they see enough reason to endorse him despite his behavior. This being said, I don’t disagree that Trump’s actions and comments are inexcusable and entirely disgraceful; I simply can’t find validity in Rosenthal’s claims against the Republican Party as a whole.

"Rep. Brooks: House Republicans have acted on Zika virus"

     On June 6, 2016, in her piece in The Washington Post, representative Susan W. Brooks recognized the threat of the Zika virus on national health, necessitating immediate action. She relates the Zika virus outbreak to the Ebola crisis two years ago. Biological threats such as these will continue to cause a national health crisis until the U.S. adopts more effective means of protection and preparation.
     As claimed by Brooks, our nation remains largely reactionary to these threats. We fail to be proactive when it comes to health emergencies. We are at a severe liability due to a lack of effective identification, treatment, and elimination of biological threats. This is a dire liability, with reports of the Islamic State exploring chemical weaponry.
     For these reasons, she identifies biodefense as a top priority, which entails the development of vaccines and therapies known as medical counter-measures. These would serve to combat deadly pathogens and protect national security.
     The long term methods of prevention will be a step in the right direction, yet immediate action is needed to protect Americans from the Zika virus and its effects. Although the virus causes mild symptoms, severe risks come to those starting families. A case of this was seen in a New Jersey birth, in which the Zika virus caused a severe birth defect known as microephaly.
     The solution now, according to Brooks, is to spread awareness and encourage the implementation of widely available diagnostic tests and treatments. The Obama administration has been instrumental in House Republicans' response to the crisis, and nearly $600 million has been deployed to enhance mosquito control efforts and other preventative steps.
    Brooks joined Rep. G.K. Butterfield to introduce legislation giving incentive to the development of a vaccine. It uses the Food and Drug Administration's Tropical Disease Priority Review Voucher program to promote innovators to work on emerging threats such as the Zika virus. Brooks' work helps equip our country to meet the threats the virus imposes, along with cooperation of the House and Senate.
    This article clearly outlines the biological threats we face in America, and proves that extended measures need to be taken. It is noteworthy because of Brooks' apparent concern for national health and security and the steps that can ensure public health in the future. In relation to America's current situation, the article display solutions to the matter at hand, the Zika Virus. By implementing these solutions, Brook demonstrates how we can ensure public safety and prevent crisis.

Hello all, welcome to my blog!