| Dear
EarthTalk: Oceans are in big trouble and I
understand President Obama is creating a high level ocean
council to address them. What are the major issues?
-- Steve Sullivan, Bothell, WA
| |
Our
oceans are in a terrible state, thanks primarily to
unrestrained commercial and industrial activity. Global
warming may also take its toll, by shifting or shutting
down powerful ocean currents or killing off biodiversity
rich coral reefs, like the Great Barrier Reef, pictured
here.
© Richard Ling |
Our
oceans are indeed in a terrible state, thanks primarily
to unrestrained commercial and industrial activity. Overfishing
and pollution have decimated once abundant stocks of fish
and other marine life, and the damaging practices continue
to this day despite international agreements outlawing them.
Our
appetite for seafood has pushed three-quarters of the world‘s
fisheries to or beyond the limits of sustainability, while
nine out of 10 of the sea’s large fish like tuna and
swordfish have disappeared. And while it is still unclear
what toll global warming will have on oceans—coral
reefs dying and powerful ocean currents shifting or shutting
down are two scary scenarios—the outlook is grim at
best.
While
George W. Bush was no friend to the environment overall,
his record on ocean protection is actually not too bad.
After convening a commission of experts from various disciplines
to report on the state of U.S. oceans, his administration
took steps to protect 215 million acres of biologically
rich deep sea ocean habitat in the Pacific near Hawaii and
Guam. The newly protected areas are off limits to resource
extraction and commercial fishing but open for shipping
traffic, scientific research and minimal impact recreation—and
should provide a boon for fish and other marine species
trying to recover from decades of abuse. But while such
protections are a huge step in the right direction, they
represent less than a drop in the bucket as to what still
needs to be done to help fish stocks and marine ecosystems
recover.
In
light of ongoing threats, President Obama last June set
up a task force to craft a national ocean stewardship policy.
Led by Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House’s Council
on Environmental Quality, the task force is currently working
to draft a framework for sustainable management of American
coastal and ocean resources. Currently 20 different federal
agencies oversee some 140 ocean protection laws; Obama has
charged his task force with pulling together all the different
authorities and laws to focus attention on addressing the
most serious challenges facing the oceans and those who
manage them.
Environmentalists
have been quick to praise Obama for creating the task force—something
called for by Bush‘s oceans commission and other experts—but
it is unclear how effective it can be given competing political
priorities. Some members of Congress are pushing an omnibus
ocean protection bill called Oceans-21, which aims to regulate
fisheries, establish a network of protected areas, provide
an oceans management framework to rescue coasts and off-shore
areas, and help ocean life survive global warming.
Fortunately,
Americans are not the only ones concerned about the world’s
oceans. The United Nations launched its Oceans and Coastal
Areas Network—later renamed UN Oceans—in 2003
to coordinate ocean and coastal efforts around the world.
More recently, several island nations in the western Pacific
and Indian oceans formed the Coral Triangle Initiative,
adopting a 10-year plan of action to avert growing threats
to coral reefs, fish, coastal mangrove buffers and other
marine resources across the region. While the challenges
may be greater than ever, at least now our oceans are getting
some long-overdue attention; only time will tell if we took
action in time to stave off a global collapse of marine
ecosystems.
CONTACTS:
UN
Oceans.
Dear
EarthTalk: I‘ve often cooked canned foods
in their own can, things like condensed milk and mushroom
soup. I put the can without opening in the pressure cooker,
cover it with water and let it cook for 30 minutes. The
results are amazing. Is it safe to do that? Can metals leach
into my food?
-- Mercedes Kupres, via e-mail
| |
Can
makers say that cans are for keeping foods fresh and
allowing them to be transported safely, not for use
as cooking containers. The insides of most cans on
grocery shelves today are coated with food-grade epoxy,
which contains Bisphenol-A (BPA) and other potentially
harmful chemicals.
© Nic McPhee, courtesy Flickr |
For starters,
can makers don‘t recommend using their products for
anything but storing food unopened until it‘s ready
to eat. “Cans are reliable, recyclable, durable packages
that keep beverages and foods fresh and allow them to be
transported safely for thousands of miles, even into remote
regions—but they were not made to be used as cooking
containers,” says Scott McCarty of Colorado-based
Ball Corporation, a leading U.S. food and beverage packaging
maker.
Proponents of
can-cooking cite the fact that many canned goods are already
heated up in their cans to kill bacteria during the canning
process, so what harm could a little more heating do? McCarty
concedes that some cans are indeed heated during the packing
process. “But that isn‘t all cans or all foods,
and it is a carefully controlled and monitored process done
in an environment that is made to do it.”
As for what metals
may be leaching into your canned food, it depends. In the
U.S., most food cans are made of steel while beverage cans
are usually made out of aluminum. Chromium and nickel can
find their way out of steel, but the amounts would be miniscule
to nil. Slightly more troubling is the fact that aluminum—large
amounts of which have been linked to nervous system disorders
and other health problems—could in theory leach out
of cans into their food or drink contents.
In order to prevent
any such leaching—which is bad for the food and eater
but also for the can (as it can cause corrosion)—the
insides of most cans on grocery shelves today are coated
with food-grade epoxy. But these liners have been shown
to contain Bisphenol-A (BPA) and other potentially harmful
chemicals. BPA is a synthetic plastic hardener that has
been linked to human reproductive problems and an increased
risk of cancer and diabetes. A 2009 analysis of common canned
foods by the non-profit Consumers Union found measurable
levels of BPA in a wide range of items including some bearing
a “BPA Free” label.
The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration is currently reviewing whether or
not to allow BPA to come into contact with food items at
all. In the meantime, some forward-thinking companies aren‘t
waiting around for an FDA ruling. Eden Foods, which prides
itself on the wholesomeness of its products, worked with
its packaging manufacturer, Ball Corporation, back in 1999
to switch out traditional epoxy-based liners with a baked-on,
BPA-free enamel lining derived from plant oils and resins.
This technology
is nothing new; in fact, Eden stumbled upon it by asking
Ball what it used before epoxy liners became standard some
three decades earlier. While the custom-made cans cost 14
percent more than industry-standard cans would, Eden maintains
it‘s worth the extra expense (which amounts to some
$300,000 extra per year). “It was the right thing
to do,” says Michael Potter, Eden’s president.
“I didn‘t want BPA in food I was serving to
my kids, my grandkids or my customers.”
CONTACTS:
Ball Corporation;
Consumers
Union; U.S.
Food and Drug Administration; Eden
Foods. |
