We may all be familiar with the face of hunger, but undernutrition may be more difficult to detect and treat. Last Tuesday, I attended a lecture by Dr. Jessica Fanzo of the Earth Institute’s Center for Global Health and Economic Development. She spoke about “Global Progress in Ending Hunger and Undernutrition.”

Some symptoms of undernutrition may include stunted growth for children, and overweightness for adults (due to a poor diet). Undernutrition is linked to lack of access to nutritious foods and poor economic opportunities.

Their Millenium Villages Project focuses on 4 main micronutrients: vitamin A, iron, folate, and iodine. These are essential micronutrients that when deficient are known to affect development, immune system function, and can increase disease risk, particularly of young children and pregnant women.

In general, micronutrients are compounds that are found in very small amounts. Plant health is pretty dependent on certain micronutrients in the soil, such as boron, calcium, zinc, iron, and chlorine.

But nutrition is complex and we do not have a full understanding of how it relates to human health, and that is why Dr. Fanzo promotes an overall approach that emphasizes a diverse diet that includes leafy greens and appropriate portions of carbohydrates and eggs or animal protein.

It is a complex problem overall because of a few major factors:

• Nutrition and health issues are “political, administrative, and institutional orphan” because it is “everybody’s business and nobody’s responsibility”
• As a result, there is a lack of political commitment
• Nutrition focused programs are difficult or less popular to fund
• Cultural factors make it tricky to gather support for initiatives

Global food issues are not just about availability of food, but of high quality food. We are still trying to figure out what that is, but we do know that a diverse diet of plants is essential to a healthy body. It saddens me to see that people consistently choose foods that are known to be bad for their health, when there are better alternatives. Especially in the United States, I’m ashamed of what our food culture has become. It happens here and it happens in poor countries as well, according to Dr. Fanzo. Women in the Millennium Villages Project’s villages eat large portions of refined maize meal daily, when native leafy greens are plentiful.

What is difficult now is, how do can people change their food choices and eating behavior? No one likes to be told what to do, especially with their bodies. If that were not true, smoking would not still be as popular today as it is.

Education and advocacy alone will not work. When given a choice between a food item that is tasty but unhealthy and a food item that is healthy but less tasty, the default is to go with the tastier item. The problem is that a lot of the “tastier” stuff is so far from natural that our bodies can’t process them as well as the plants and animals we have evolved to eat.

As a species, we need to return to the foods that have worked for us for hundreds and thousands of years, and wean ourselves off of the super processed foods that hardly resemble food anymore. For the U.S., maybe that will mean government regulations on the food industry, I’m not sure. But I think the only way that undernutrition and hunger will be alleviated in many places in the world will be through planning that involves capacity building for villagers to gather and grow nutritious food. It certainly will not solve any problems to send them corn meal grown in the U.S.

Thoughts?


Related posts

• Gates: More Money for Global Health Is Good for the Environment
• Dot-Mom:Point of View: Investing in Maternal Health
• My Thoughts on the Food Network’s image and role in food culture

Image credit: Flickr user publik16

Image credit: Flickr user Colin Purrington
(This image created by Axis of Evo is not exactly what this entry is about, but it is an interesting use of a scientific technique to map out religions of the world.)

I wasn’t so sure what to expect when I went to the first lecture of the Earth Institute Practicum yesterday. The speaker was Bob Pollack of the Earth Institute’s Center for the Study of Science and Religion (CSSR). The first thing he did was tell us that the ideas of “right” and “wrong” are completely human constructs and that there is no evidence of them in nature.

So what is “natural” and how are science and religion connected?

Pollack’s definition of what is natural is biologically derived. DNA is the force by which things may naturally happen, and anything that happens by other means could be considered “unnatural” or derived from human imagination.

The biggest example of the latter that was discussed over the 2-hour seminar was language, not just as words, but also as ideas and general communication. Pollack explained that it was the main goal of CSSR to facilitate communication between science and religion and their practitioners. They certainly are not attempting to incorporate the two, but reconcile them so that they both can work to solve global issues.

His argument is that science and scientists’ responsibility goes beyond collecting and analyzing data. The data are important, but what you do with the knowledge is also important. That is where religion has its role. Though it is not the only way to make things happen, religion is a powerful vehicle that brings people together and motivates them to take action. Religion, when broken down to the central ideas that are universal, is also a connecting force that people of the world can all communicate through.

One example is the CSSR’s Green Mapping project. You can find it here on their website. Green Mapping can be used by local groups to see the environmental situation in their area. It can be a tool for increasing awareness and using data that might otherwise be difficult for the general public to find. Read more about it here or watch this video:

I found the discussion very interesting and a philosophical venture that I rarely would partake in. Thinking about science is something I do all the time, but how it fits in with culture and religion is something that I have just begun to dabble thoughts into in recent months.

I think that science and religion both serve important purposes. It does frustrate me that overly zealous individuals may choose to not “believe” in things that are known in science. Believing in a religious tenet is not the same as believing in a scientific concept. A scientific concept does not require faith or followers in order for it to exist and have real meaning, value, or effect.

I think the work of the CSSR is important for allowing science and religion to both work for the reasons that they do. Science is very good at looking at data and discerning meaning from it. Religion can be very good at disseminating ideas and motivating people. They do not have to be at odds with each other!

As part of Columbia University’s Darwin Speaker Series, Rosemary Grant of Princeton University came to speak on April 14th, 2009 about evolution in Darwin’s finches.


This year being the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species, and the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, it was fitting for Rosemary Grant to speak about her research on the island Daphne in the Galapagos Islands. The finches have radiated into over a dozen diagnosable species, some that share habitats and some living alone on their islands. The islands are so isolated that migrations are rare, but when they do occur, researchers are there to observe the events.

Rosemary is an interesting woman, and her husband and research partner, Peter, an interesting man. People may unknowingly assume they are a typical cute older couple when passing them on the street. But what they have seen during their years of research on a few small islands may surpass in scope anything we may hope to witness in any one of our lifetimes.

Over the past several years, Rosemary and Peter Grant have observed shifts in beak size and as well as instances of hybridization and a possible trend of introgression between 2 species. A hot topic that an outsider may not realize is that there is no “definition” of what is a species. Search on the internet for “species concept” and you will find over 100 million hits.

In her talk, Rosemary Grant do not specify a species concept, but do distinguish that there are points first where lineages are diagnosably different and then where they are no longer capable of interbreeding. This all occurs over evolutionary time, but the Grants have been able to observe some changes that suggest that episodic introgression is occurring where pre-mating barriers such as mating songs (learned behavior) and morphological differences (genetic) may be overcome.

Hybridization and introgression seem to be very important processes for speciation and other evolutionary processes. Another one of the main ideas from the lecture is that conservation is not simply about conserving a species. Rosemary put up two quotes at the end of her talk that represent this notion:

“Neither species nor environment are static entities. They’re dynamic and they are constantly changing.”

“To conserve species and their environment, we must keep them both capable of further change.”

Surely other researchers will continue the Grants’ work in the Galapagos. However, it still seems that the general public would not be able to understand how these studies are important to their daily lives. Conservation of natural ecological processes and functionally important species will be important in the future for conservation of ecosystems, and on the larger scale the biosphere. If there comes a day that the world’s ecosystems are so degraded that resources are being depleted in every way, then our human existence will be under threat (much like what I discussed in an earlier post).


Conservation biologists are often mistaken as simply being animal-lovers and tree-huggers with graduate degrees. Their work truly is much, much larger than that. With more communication of interesting work such as Rosemary Grant’s, and getting more opportunities for the general public to be exposed to the people doing the work, we may be able to bridge some of that gap.






Image credit (in order of appearance):

http://www.rphs.devisland.net/johnna_nicole/Images/Galapagos-bartolome-island.jpg

http://www.galapagosonline.com/Islands/islands/Daphne/daphne.jpg

http://people.rit.edu/rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/Pictures/LandBirds/FinchTypes.jpeg

I attended a book launch today for Climate Change: Picturing the Science, hosted by the Columbia Climate Center of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

The book is focused on how to take the science and communicate it through words and pictures. Leading climate scientists contributed to the writing of the chapters while the photographs were chosen based on what would explain and support the science.

The main authors, Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe, spoke on a panel with contributing authors Peter deMenocal and Stephanie Pfirman. Jeffrey Sachs gave a brief introduction (by video) and stressed the importance of having a worldwide understanding of the challenges that we face and that the defining component of any solution will be cooperation.

The moderator started with a few questions about the origins of the idea for the book, which was a photography show about climate change. Schmidt brought up the point that many of the books on climate change currently in stores are very political. This book, however, attempts to stay away from the politics and instead explain the science behind it all.

Peter deMenocal told an interesting anecdote about how when giving a talk at an auto show, he was asked what he thought about the list of scientists that don’t believe in climate change. He had answered, “My name is on that list.” But not by choice! Apparently, the people responsible for making the list put names of scientists on the list without their knowledge. deMenocal has tried to get his name off of the list, and is currently pursuing legal action through help from Columbia University.

Schmidt discussed the current dynamic where the scientists drive awareness of the issues, but the issues are dealt with and acted upon by the governments, policy makers, etc. Pfirman agreed that the interdisciplinary nature of the challenges would require more people working in an interdisciplinary community.

Wolfe notes that the level of the conversation must be brought to the next level. It isn’t just about changing light bulbs and taking public transportation, but more about strategies on a larger scale. Schmidt adds that the scale of the problem requires governmental action and global changes, such as in energy and farming. deMenocal says that “where this rests is with the younger generation” and that the career choices being made now are going to impact how they can make a living and make a difference.

The panel was followed by a lovely reception where I had some nice tabboulle and cheese. I have my signed copy next to me on my desk right now. Flipping through the book, I am wondering what kind of impact this book is going to make on the mentality and worldviews of the general public. The panel discussion was insightful for me especially because I am hoping to enter a related interdisciplinary career in the near future. Hopefully, my choices will lead me to doing something I love while making a difference.

On March 5th, 2009, at the top of the International Affairs Building at Columbia University gathered a diverse group of experts as part of the Earth Institute’s Seminars on Sustainable Development. Though their specialties ranged from Civil Engineering to environmental non-profit organizations, they spoke on a panel together on “Greening the Urban Economy.”

“What does this mean?” and “how can we make it happen?” were the questions buzzing around in the minds of audience members as they entered the room and enjoyed some of the refreshments and cookies in the back.

The audio equipment was tested and the projector flashed bits of presentations. People trickled in, curiously looking around the room while waiting for the guest speakers to make their appearance. Late afternoon light streamed in from both sides of the room. Finally, the equipment was all ready, the guest speakers arrived and the audience settled to quietly in their seats, but the anticipation still ran high.

With the economy in its current state, this topic is hotter than ever. During his part of the session, Jack McGourty put up this intriguing quote from Van Jones, author of The Green Collar Economy, and who was also recently named one of Rolling Stone Magazine’s 100 Agents of Change:

The twin crises of economic collapse and ecological devastation have proven that the old, pollution based economy has failed both the people and the planet the green money in the stimulus package is a down payment on a clean green economy that will serve both the people and the planet.

This suggests that a new approach or perspective is required to develop alternative ways for the economy to function. Money may be useful to solve problems, but should be strategically placed. One way is to invest in the community and local economy.


Jack McGourty, Director for the Center for Technology, Innovation and Community Engagement (CTICE) and also Associate Dean of Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia University, spoke about the service learning initiatives for students that have connected technical skills to social issues in the community.

CTICE’s 120 community projects bring together about 800 Columbia University students from multiple technical and non-technical disciplines to work together on social issues. Many of the students take courses that put them on projects that have an immediate impact on the community. The main focus has been new, green technologies that create new jobs, environmentally responsible enterprises, and sustainable economic growth.


Nilda Mesa, also of Columbia University, is the Assistant Vice President of Environmental Stewardship and Adjunct Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs. Mesa works on campus-wide (such as green building standards) as well as community related issues (such as the Manhattanville campus planning). Her office works to keep Columbia University on a path towards sustainability (especially through reuse and recycling of resources and building materials). For example, Mesa mentions that there are services for carpet tiles that replace old ones in a “much more sustainable life cycle approach.” But while also nurturing the existing relationships with local communities through several programs and development (through the planning of an open Manhattanville campus that also provides services to local residents).


Joan Byron, Director of the Sustainability and Environmental Justice Initiative at the Pratt Center for Community Development. A passionate speaker, she only needed a few notes to get through her points. Her work with the Pratt Center largely involves grassroots organization of retrofitting old buildings in low-income communities in New York City. They offer resources to people who need it to lessen the burdens of economic and social polarization. They look at how the carbon footprint of NYC can be addressed at the level of individual buildings.

The reality, Joan points out, is that the majority of the buildings that will exist in 30 years are buildings that exist today so something needs to be done to transition towards a more functional urban ecosystem and local economy. They promote these “really simpleminded improvements that give huge efficiencies and huge savings for owners,” especially for small owners and small businesses.


While Columbia University has the opportunity to become a leader in pushing for a greener local economy and community involvement, Janna Olson, Executive Director, Win-Win Campaign, Envirolution, took the discussion to civic engagement. Part of their work promotes individual assessment of carbon footprints through social networking as a way to learn what can be done on an individual basis to decrease that footprint. The Win-Win Campaign aims to make small businesses more capable of executing on energy audits. Much of the issue is due to lack of access to the right information, especially because of “greenwashing” and unreliability of much of the information available. This is yet another example of how community outreach may be effective.


Robert Crauderueff from Sustainable South Bronx, broaden the scope of the discussion by emphasizing the “distribution of environmental burdens” and the importance of investing in the right types of large projects, especially in relation to city planning and development. Projects like the Greenway that runs through much of the Bronx or waterfront planning affect the daily lives of New Yorkers and creates a closer relationship between the city and nature. Crauderueff explains that waterfront usage patterns and needs have changed in NYC; there is higher demand now for access as well as for swimability of the waters.

Sustainable South Bronx spearheads projects that aim to improve and modify the built environment, as well as projects that affect local citizens such as job training, and public policy. Many of the audience members asked questions relating to how skilled workers could benefit from these types of programs and what else could be done to bring them into the “green” economy. A multi-level approach may be a good use of all the tools that are available.


In response to a question posed during the panel discussion section of the seminar, Joan Byron comments on the policy challenges. The lifecycles of buildings are important to understand and Byron suggests that this is the right time to give them “a shot of capital” to upgrade them environmentally and for sustainability.

This could be said for many of the issues brought up in this seminar. The call for proper investment in the community, local businesses, and energy efficiency seems to permeate the discussion. There is a general concern for how things will affect each of us personally, and that is a natural human tendency. Keeping a larger perspective may be a difficult thing to do, especially when we are each feeling the burn of the economic recession.


Walking out of the room, we may have thought that the pieces may not be coming together as quickly as desired and feel disappointed, but there is a lot of potential for what can be done to have a “green” impact on the future development of New York City’s urban economy.