For this week’s news segment, I’m going to concentrate my efforts to report two major stories, both of great importance to you.  The stories are of such signficance that they will each be followed by a special commentary from yours truly, helping to put them into context.

The first story I would like to bring to your attention is regarding one of California’s latest law proposals, which regards factory farms.  Known as, “Proposition 2,” the law would put severe restrictions on factory farms, which are of both growing ecological and ethical concerns for our population.

The story I read gives great insight into Proposition 2, but goes a step further to outline who has been funding a campaign against the measure to the tune of $4.5 million.  You guessed it!  Factory farmers.  But not only those from California, but from across the United States.  Read more about the story here.  Also, visit the Yes On Prop 2 Website to get involved or informed about the myriad issues at stake.

Special Commentary:

So why are factory farmers willing to pour so much money into this campaign to not allow Proposition 2 to pass in California?  Their reason is simple: it would cut into their profitability.  Contributors from the industry who have been paying hefty fines for such practices as dumping live birds into dumpsters and dumping untreated waste onto soil or into waterways (among other violations).  This is a public health issue on many fronts, chiefly regarding air, water, and soil pollution, and the spread of disease among animals housed in too small of quarters.

But similar laws exist in other states, including Colorado and Arizona, according to the Yes On Prop 2 Website. Why such a concentration of funds and efforts on California?  Well, first, many have large operations in this very large, very well-populated state.  But still others do not have operations there, but are still contributing to what?  Help others in their industry?  You can bet there’s a selfish reason here.  Notice how California seems to have more progressive laws regarding social and ecological issues?  Regarding public safety as well?  Yes, you’ll see on labels statements stating that the product contains elements known to the State of California to be carcinogenic.  Many manufacturers are required to do this in order to sell their products in California, a large, trendsetting state they would be loate to ignore.

So why does it matter that it not pass there?  Why are the stakes so high?  Because if it passes there, it is not a good omen for factory farms elsewhere.  California tends to push forward with such transformational legislation, sometimes being smacked down by the federal government, as was the case with fuel emissions standards, but often other states follow in their footsteps.  A few more liberal states at first, but as the results come out as positive, and the fear mongering doesn’t work, still other states will join the ranks.  Regarding carcinenic materials, global warming, trans fats in foods, and smoking bans, California has a record of challenging the status quo only to be followed by others.

And this matters for our air, water, and soil quality, for our public health.  It matters also because animal cruelty is wrong, it is immoral.  Some do not believe in eating meat at all, but even those who do eat meat should agree that the animals grown for food should be treated humanely.  That is what Proposition 2 is all about.

The second story I would like to discuss is regarding the dumping of pharmaceuticals and pills by healthcare, hospice, and nursing home facilities.  An AP report estimates that 250 million pounds of pharmaceuticals and contaminated packaging (with no distinction or record between product and packaging able to be made) is dumped annual, much of it making its way directly into sewage systems and waterways.  The debate over whether to flush, bury, or incenerate the waste is discussed in the story I read.

Special Commentary:

This is of supreme significance to consumers’ health.  As one of the people the author of the article rightly points out, we do not allow people to simply dump used motor oil into sewers, and yet essentially, that is what is happening with these toxic chemicals, which are shown to encourage mutations and may be carcinogenic.  The truth is, we do not know, but from reports in the last year, tap water across the country can often have traces of pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter pain medications, and even nicotine.  Much of that is from pharmaceuticals that go unmatabolized and excreted by humans, bypassing filtration methods.

The article pinpoints 90-day supplies of medications that go unused because a patient passes away shortly after the medications are dispensed to them.  Also, many samples, sent by the pharmaceutical industries for doctors to dispense, may also expire before they are used.

It is time for such industries as pharmaceutical and healthcare to bare the burden of the cost of the environmental degradation they are producing.  Only once such pollution is outlawed an fines or other punishments are pursued, can it become economically wiser for them to pay for these products to be safely handled.  While we may not yet know the net effect of such pollution, as with global warming, we should act swiftly to make sure that we are able to not suffer the worst effects of longterm ignoring of such a potentially widespread health and environmental problem.

Related posts:

1. Weekly Green News Blurb | You Should Know Vol. 4 Latest news related to your quest to improve your envirohuman...
2. Weekly Green news Blurb | You Should Know Vol. 5 Pickens taking our water? Windmills on skyscrapers?...
3. Weekly Green News Blurb | You Should Know Vol. 1 Showcase of overlooked environment-related news stories from the past week....