Why Do Nutritionists Worry about Food Security - Essay Example

Week 3 Questions and Answers: Why do nutritionists worry about food security? Who is the most likely to suffer from food insecurity? As a common knowledge to everyone, nutritionists are hailed experts in the area of proper food selection and consumption. In this manner, they are most likely to ensure that only beneficial, healthy and nutritious foods are utilized by the populace and must be based on the recommended dietary allowances to support the well-being of the people. Nonetheless, aside from this fact, nutritionists are also concerned with the so-called food security. What is food security? Food security is a state when the entire population, country, or nation experiences a certain degree of adequacy and availability of food resources for the consumption of its people. It also involves three important elements which include availability, accessibility and food utilization (Food & Culture Encyclopedia). When food security is threatened or not met, it can alarm not only the nutritionists, but the country or the nation affected, in general. This is because if there will be inadequate supply of food and related goods, it will directly affect the health and nutrition of the people. Thus, food insecurity can cause individuals, families, communities and to some extent, the world, to suffer in varying degrees. Define malnutrition and obesity. How many Americans are now considered obese? The Dictionary of Medical Terms defined malnutrition as a state or condition wherein a person is deemed as having a poor nutrition that resulted from either an insufficient, excessive, or unbalanced diet or in disorders in which there is an impaired ability to absorb and assimilate foods (Rothenberg and Chapman 269). Meanwhile, obesity is a malnourished condition of having an excessive weight and an increased amount of fat in subcutaneous tissues of the body. Obviously, obesity is the effect of overeating, but in some cases, it may be precipitated by disorders that involve organs such as thyroid, pituitary and endocrine glands where there is a disturbance of the body’s metabolism (Rothenberg and Chapman 318). Today, an alarming statistics states that approximately 60 million Americans are obese, while 9 million are extremely obese (ObesityinAmerica.org). Hence, according to Mokdad, et al, obesity has been regarded as the second cause of preventable death in the US (qtd. in ObesityinAmerica.org). Suppose that you were engaged in biotechnology, or genetic engineering; what environmental safeguards would you impose on your own research? Are there experiments that would be ethically off-limits for you? If I were to engage in genetic engineering projects, or related experiments, conscientiousness on my part would be necessary, so as to consider the safety of the environment in which these experiments are set to be done. In this manner, I will foremost adhere to the environmental safeguards, which I suppose is required in most of the states. For instance, in Minnesota, one of the crucial responsibilities in undertaking a genetic engineering project is to undergo the evaluation of the Environmental Quality Board through the environment review process (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board). With this, all the necessary guidelines must be followed to ensure that the experiment is environmentally sound. On the other hand, in my own standpoint, I consider genetic experiments involving human as their subject as [my] “off-limits”, considering the ethical issues and social acceptance that accompany in doing such kind of biotechnological experiment. How would you provide assurance to consumers, government officials, and other interested parties that new genetic engineered products were environmentally and socially safe? What experiments would you set up to test for this? In my opinion, newly-introduced genetic engineered products must be subject to the scrutiny of the environmental boards and health departments of each state. In this way, consumers, government officials and other parties are given assurance that these genetic engineered products are safe to them and the environment as well. Meanwhile, series of tests, which involve determining the product’s physical and chemical properties and the like, must be done perhaps by the Bureau of Food and Drugs in order to augment public assurance. What is the difference between toxic and hazardous? Give some examples of materials in each category. Toxic and hazardous are terms that have been used interchangeably by most people. However, there must be a difference between these terms. Toxic primarily pertains to substances that contain poisonous materials, thereby causing death or serious debilitation (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary). Materials which are considered as toxic include poisonous chemicals and drugs. Conversely, hazardous is the term that encompasses those chemicals that pose health threats to people in different settings. These hazardous chemicals may be present at school, laboratory, workplace, and even at home. “They include carcinogens, toxins, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers, hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, neurotoxins as well as agents that act on the hematopoietic systems or damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes” (United States Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Thus, both toxic and hazardous materials have negative effects on health. How do physical and chemical characteristics of materials affect their toxicity? As each of us may come to agree, physical and chemical properties of a substance can affect their toxicity. For instance, a gaseous toxic substance can most likely harm the lungs of a person who inhaled that material. Further, a liquid material would affect the gastrointestinal tract of an individual who ingested the substance. Meanwhile, the chemical characteristics of a toxic material include its concentration and its composition. Indeed, the higher the concentration and the more complex the composition of that certain substance, the higher is its likelihood to induce toxicity. What level of risk does the EPA regard as acceptable? Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible in categorizing the level of risk of a certain substance. Of course, the level, or should we say levels, that EPA can regard as acceptable would be minimal risk to no risk at all, with due consideration of the material’s toxicity and human exposure to it. For instance, a poisonous pesticide cannot just be equated as high risk since the degree of exposure must also be considered. Although the said pesticide can be highly poisonous but if there is no human exposure, then it is still classified as no risk (US Environmental Protection Agency). Why do we tend to assume that natural chemicals are safe while industrial chemicals are evil? Is this correct? Somehow, the notion that natural chemicals are safe whereas industrial chemicals are unsafe can be regarded as correct. Let’s take a look at phytochemicals, which are natural chemicals produced in plants that can have beneficial effects on health like their anti-carcinogenic or cancer preventing properties and other health benefits (Kunkel & Luccia Health Line). In contrast, industrial materials just like asbestos have been thought to be implicated with certain cancers to individuals who have been exposed with it (M-W). Is it ever possible to be completely healthy? The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” And having this comprehensive definition of health in mind, we can definitely answer yes, it is indeed possible to become a completely healthy individual! What is greenhouse effect, and how does it work? Greenhouse effect is widely known as global warming and is thought to have resulted from the build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [lbl.gov]). This can be said as a consequence of deforestation and pollution from human activities. The carbon dioxide that is exhaled by the humans and is the result of burned fuels and other human activities can no longer be accommodated and processed by the plants (to become oxygen), thereby building up in the atmosphere and resulting to climate change. In turn, this climate change can cause melting of the ice caps that leads to an increase in water/sea level, thus contributing to coastal flooding (lbl.gov). What has been the greatest air pollution control success in the United States since 1970? The ultimate and greatest air pollution success in the United States is the conception and implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1970. This has resulted to a breakthrough in improving the quality of air and air pollution control in the whole of the United States. The said act, along with its major amendments in 1977 and 1990, served as the backbone in the cumulative efforts to control air pollution, which was also regarded as one of the most complex regulatory programs in the country (Weatherexplained.com). What happened to the forest at Sudbury, Ontario? The forest at Sudbury, Ontario in Canada has been a subject for conservation. In this regard, the Old Growth Forests Policy Advisory Committee had come up with their work to strategize the conservation of their forest in a manner that is scientifically sound, thus representing the need for both environmental protection and industrial interests (Forest.org archives). Economists and scientists often have difficulty reaching common terms for defining and solving issues such as the Clean Air Act renewal. How might their conflicting definitions be reshaped to make the decision more successful? As a common knowledge to everyone, scientists and economists do have conflicting views with regards to solving issues pertaining to air pollution and Clean Air Act matters. This is primarily due to the fact that the economists view the presence of factories and industries as economic boosters whereas the scientists and environmentalists look at these industries as detrimental to health and environment. Both parties have their points; nevertheless, they must be able to meet at a certain point, so as to have equilibrium. In my own opinion, they must come into consensus or agreement in this very important standpoint: making a healthy economy while having a healthy environment! Air pollution often originates in one state or country but causes health and crop damage in other areas. For example, mercury from Midwestern power plants is harming plants, water and health in eastern states. How should states, or countries, negotiate the costs of controlling these pollutants? It is inevitable that certain countries can affect each other, especially with environmental concerns, due to the proximity of their locations and sometimes the overlapping of their territories and boundaries. In this regard, it can be recommended that these countries must negotiate with each other and perhaps conduct conferences to discuss such issues. Further, they can also have a pact to combine forces or to have a joint resolution to address the concerns on the costs of controlling the existing pollutants. Hence, if cooperation between these countries will be made possible, then there could be an increased probability to meet their desired goals and outcomes characterized by cost-efficient and highly-effective environmental pollution control programs. Works Cited “asbestos.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 22 January 2009 . Brown, Lynn. No Date. “Food Security”. Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, by the Gale Group, Inc. 22 January 2009 . Environmental Quality Board of Minnesota. No Date. “Genetic engineering”. 20 January 2009 . Kunkel, M. Elizabeth & Luccia, Barbara H. D. 2004. “Phytochemicals”. Health Line. [The Gale Group Inc., Macmillan Reference USA, New York, Gale Nutrition and Well-Being A to Z, 2004.] 20 January 2009 . Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (lbl.gov). No Date. Outdoor Air Pollution. 20 January 2009 . Lloyd, Brennain. 17 October 1994. “Ontario Old Growth Strategy Releases”. Old Growth Forests Policy Advisory Committee. 21 January 2009 . “Obesity Demographics”. No Date. Obesityin America.org. 15 January 2009 . Rothenberg, Mikel A. and Charles F. Chapman. Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Nonmedical Person. New York: BARRONS EDUCATIONAL SERIES, INC. Second Edition, 1989, Weather Almanac. 2008. “Air and Water Pollution”. Weather Explained :: Vol 1. 20 January 2009 . World Health Organization (WHO). September 2007. “Mental health: strengthening mental health promotion”. 21 January 2009 . United States Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 24 May 2001. “Hazardous Chemicals in Labs”. 20 January 2009 . United States Environmental Protection Agency. 5 April 2007. “Step Four: Risk Characterization”. Assessing Health Risks from Pesticides. 21 January 2009 . Read More