THE JURY IS STILL OUT?

Scientists are all over this one, and they should be. And it is not just the oil spilled that is the concern but also the wide use of dispersants, chemicals sprayed onto the oil to break it up. We know that there are large amounts of oil “buried” under the sand along the coast and that there are tar-like mats sitting on the seabed. Some opine that it may be more harmful to dig it up than to just let it lie. Sea turtles, oysters, blue crabs, dolphins, red snapper, sheepshead, shrimp and other marine organisms and coral have been severely impacted. And we don’t even know about the creatures that live a mile down or those that are food for larger fish and wildlife. Scientists are busy studying the impact on these species, especially those that are edible by humans and admit that the long term human toll is hardest to gauge. The Wall Street Journal reports that the “jury is still out” about whether the oil sickens people. We will spend unconscionable amounts of money assessing the impact of this catastrophe, and its affect on the food chain, including human consumption, and then undoubtedly debate and litigate responsibility for quite some time. And in that time, nature will begin to cure yet again the devastation we humans have wrought on it.

And here is the paradox that strikes me hardest. There is a scientific “full court press” to assess the impact of this singular episode on the food chain, especially as it affects we humans. But we have overwhelming evidence right now of the harm that the typical western diet served up and promulgated by agri-business has on the obesity rate and the incidences of diabetes and heart disease, which have skyrocketed over the past 30 years – and yet the alarm bells are silent. In fact, Robert Lustig, an expert in childhood obesity, was recently quoted in the New York Times Magazine as saying sugar is a “toxin” and a “poison”, the consumption of which is not just an unhealthy indulgence, but may actually be toxic. Why is there not a Federally mandated full out “scientific” assessment being done in this regard? It’s easy for me to not order oysters or gulf shrimp the next time I am in a restaurant for fear of contamination. It’s far harder to avoid processed sugar and processed foods containing little if any nutritive value, to forgo the convenience and cost of packaged foods and spend the time to shop for, prepare and eat organic vegetables, to avoid the snacks and the drinks on which we all have come to rely, and just drink filtered water.

The images of those oil soaked pelicans and other marine birds capture our hearts and tug at us. Similarly the images of emaciated, undernourished children, with distended, empty stomachs starving a half a world away tweak at the heartstrings of many of us in the land of plenty. When are we going to see the chubby faces and thickened midsections of the malnourished children sitting a half a block away or on the other side of our tables and be similarly affected? When are we going to insist that our government conduct a damage assessment of the “foods” we eat every day at every meal, all five of them, and take action on those responsible for this catastrophe? Agriculture is business and businesses adapt to changing conditions (despite their efforts to fight and lobby for the maintenance of the status quo) – that’s one of things they do really well.  When are we going to say “stop” and take control over what’s at the end of our forks? When will we place a higher value on nutrition than convenience? It’s not like we don’t have a vested interest in the outcome.

The jury is not out on this one -it has rendered its verdict with evidence amassed over the past 30 years. But I guess the reading of it takes place in an empty courtroom because many of us are all on recess, sitting somewhere drinking our diet sodas and lattes and munching packaged snacks prepared for our convenience.