Monday, April 28, 2014

Hurrah for Vermont!

Vermont legislators have voted into law a bill that will make
labeling of foods produced with GMOs mandatory in the state, starting in 2016. It is thus the first state in the US to enact such a law, as passage of such bills in California and Washington failed after major food producers poured millions of dollars into campaigns against them. The Green Mountain State is not resting on its laurels, however, as it expects to be sued by major food producers.
Worry about the safety of eating GMOs is understandable, given that studies done on their effect on our health are done mostly by the major producers of these organisms and may or may not be reported to federal regulatory agencies. In addition, no long-term studies have been done.
The issues of the health and safety of GMOs are only the tip of the iceberg in this historic situation. Many lawmakers have said they are concerned about transparency and the consumer’s right to know what is in the food they buy. While these two considerations are the most often mentioned, one feels that the fact that over three-quarters of Vermonters favored the bill, and a vast majority of Americans in general want labeling of the GMOs in their food, reveals other reasons for such widespread unease. One has only to look at the details of GMO production in the States to note a number of disquieting facts:
Very few GMOs are engineered for extra nutritional value or
even resistance to disease; the vast majority are engineered to be impervious to herbicides or insecticides made by the companies creating the GMOs. Such herbicides end up contaminating the crops themselves, leach into the soil or show up in run-off water. This situation can only get worse, as resistant weeds and insects develop over time, with the result that more herbicides or insecticides are sprayed.
Many experts worry about pollination – GMO pollen does not
respect the borders of fields, after all. The fact that nearly 90% of all the corn grown in the US are GMOs is partly due to cross pollination of GMO crops with non-GMO plants. Extrapolating, we can see that at this rate there will eventually be no GMO-free corn.
GMOs are expensive to produce and are thus engineered by vast
agribusinesses that also own the seed companies that sell the seeds. The seeds are patented and farmers are forbidden to plant seeds from the resulting crop the following year. This flies in the face of centuries-old farming practice.
One of the most common GMOs in the US is corn. As it is estimated that corn is found in 3 out of 4 supermarket products, and the corn is nearly all genetically modified, the number of products found in the supermarket that contain GMOs is huge.
Agribusinesses are some of the largest in the country, and can
call up huge sums for campaigns against labeling and, of course, for legal fees. If Vermont is sued, the case will become a landmark case in corporations vs the people litigation.
All this makes one realize that more is at stake in the passage of the Vermont law than meets the eye. Projecting into the future, one can ask a number of questions:
Once the law goes into effect, will Vermonters who do not want to eat GMOs change their diets or order food on the Internet? Will such ordering be legal? Or will there be an inpouring of GMO-free food on the market, so that GMO-averse residents of surrounding states will flock to Vermont shops? Will major food producers put out lines of GMO-free products? Or will they simply ignore Vermont, which has the lowest population of any state except Wyoming?
Such idle speculation lightens a serious situation that is sure to strike an enormous blow to one side or the other. Vermont is a beacon, and it is hoped that other states will shortly follow suit in requiring labeling of foods containing GMOs. In the meantime, let’s give a cheer for this courageous state!

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Good for you!

Food for thought, the planet and you

It’s spring! Just the time to celebrate a most hopeful fact: where food is concerned, what’s good for you is good for the planet. One can hardly have a clearer affirmation that we are a part of the natural world, and in this article we will look at the practical application of this happy situation. We’ll point out certain principles to guide you as we go along. And lest you think that “good for you” is measured only in many vitamins and few chemicals, we also mean that healthy, properly raised, really fresh food tastes better.

Let’s start with breakfast. Swiss Muesli can hardly be beat as a healthy way to start the day, and the fact that it has a long history
hints at the first principle: become a locavore.  Locavores eat locally grown food in so far as possible, and traditional food is generally that of local provenance. The oats, milk or yogurt and the raisins in Muesli are usually local products, in Switzerland as in the US. By eating locally grown food, you are avoiding the emission of tons of CO2 and doing your bit for global warming.

If you want to do even more for your health and that of the planet,
choose spelt (Dinkel in German) instead of oats. This 9000 year old nutty-flavored grain used to be farmed widely in central Europe and is now being brought back. Higher in nutrition than wheat, it is available as flakes in the Swiss Coop and health food stores. Googling “spelt” brought up a host of purchasing opportunities in the US as well. And now we get to the second guiding principle: by buying a reintroduced food type you are supporting biodiversity. Depending on just a few varieties, as modern agribusiness does, is exceedingly dangerous. The Irish potato famine was basically the result of an attack by a disease called “late blight” on the one type of potato grown at that time. By growing many varieties of crops, such disaster can be avoided.

You prefer eggs for breakfast? You guessed it: buying organic free-range (Freiland) eggs is a good choice for you, the chickens, and the environment. These eggs have been laid by hens allowed to roam freely, which is what chickens are meant to do. And here is principle no. three: choose food from animals that have been treated well. Aside from the ethical considerations, such food is better for you: free range eggs contain higher levels of nutrients and the mineral content of free-range eggs is usually higher, as the chickens pick up bits of minerals in the dirt on which they forage.

Well-fortified by your healthy breakfast, you may choose a salad
for lunch. Even in winter locally grown produce is available, as you can see by looking for the “regional” label in the Swiss Migros and Coop. For info on local winter foodstuffs in the US, go to http://localfoods.about.com/od/whatsinseason/a/WinterFruitVeg.htm. This brings us to the 3rd principle: buy food in season. It has not been shipped from halfway around the world and of course it is fresher, is cheaper and tastes better. Informative for those of us in Switzerland are the Saisontabelle für Gemüse and Saisontabelle für Früchte, downloadable from www.wwf.ch>Tipps für den Alltag>Essen und Trinken> Downloads. At the Swiss Coop you can find pro specie rara “heirloom” varieties of such common produce as tomatoes, carrots, parsnips and potatoes – the latter available in a blue
variety! Even better is a visit to a farm market – and now we get to what Switzerland and the US have in common – great farm markets. I well
remember visiting one in Montpelier VT, and admiring the blue, pink, yellow re and white potatoes on sale. For info on heirloom produce in the States, google “heirloom seeds” for a plethora of companies selling these sometimes difficult to find seeds. The heirloom varieties being brought back enable you to enjoy a taste sensation and do your bit for biodiversity at the same time.

Back at the grocery store, you can exercise the 4th guiding
principle: choose organic and fair-trade food. To know which labels are top quality in Switzerland : go to www.wwf.ch> Service>Publications>Ratgeber Lebensmittel Label. By choosing organic food you are getting more nutrition with fewer chemicals and protecting the environment as well. By choosing fair-trade (usually the Max Havelaar brand in Europe) products you are ensuring better treatment of the farmers who produced the food, and this is the way to go when buying exotic items not produced locally or even regionally: bananas, coffee, chocolate, rice etc. For a list of purveyors of Fair Trade goods in the US, go to http://173.231.134.176/products-partners#tabset-tab-2s. In between the exotic and the locally grown are items like citrus fruits (local if you live in Florida or California) – these are at least regional and generally transported by train in Europe, truck in the US – better for the world than air transport.

 Thinking about supper? Many of us avoid beef since hearing that it is full of unhealthy fatty acids. But meat from cattle fed on grass, their natural diet, instead of the corn beloved by agribusiness, apparently has a higher proportion of healthy omega-3 fatty acids. In Switzerland, ook for the Migros Swiss Premium Rindfleisch (not organic, but largely grass fed), or Coop Naturafarm labels. Or ask your butcher. If you are in the US, you can read an exhaustive fount of information on grass-fed beef at http://foodrevolution.org/blog/the-truth-about-grassfed-beef/ and get purchasing info for your state at http://www.eatwild.com/PRODUCTS/index.html.

Perhaps you will choose fish instead, and here again, the varieties
of saltwater fish that are not over-fished are just the ones with the high omega-3 content your heart needs: Pacific salmon, herring, mackerel. You can find out more about what fish to buy in Switzerland from the WWF booklet Einkaufsführer Fisch: www.wwf.ch > Tipps für den Alltag>Essen und Trinken. In the States, the Marine Stewardship Council has a staggering amount of info at http://www.msc.org/where-to-buy/product-finder. Once you get acquainted with the MSC-approved brands, you can look for them or for the distinctive MSC logo when you shop.

So take good care of yourself when it comes to choosing your food. Your body and the environment will thank you!

Monday, April 14, 2014

Sing Taizé


I know, I know, this is supposed to be an environmental blog, but I just have to write about the Taizé church service in which I will be one member of an ad hoc choir singing the typical Taizé songs. This service takes place in a church nearby every year on the Saturday night before Easter. It begins outside the church door with a small bonfire, around which the congregation stands. After a short prayer, everyone sings one of the chosen Taizé songs as we all file into the dark church, picking up a candle on the way. The service itself consists mostly of singing, and it is these very special songs that make it a unique experience.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I need to explain a bit about Taizé, a community of some 100 monks both Catholic and Protestant located near Lyon, France. Founded by a Swiss monk in 1940, the community sheltered Jews and orphaned children during WWII and gradually developed into one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in the world. The emphasis is ecumenical and simple, and the songs reflect these qualities. Short, very easy to sing and consisting of only a few phrases each, they are sung over and over again, rather like chanting. The experience is mesmerizing. The choir sings nothing alone, we simply lead the congregation. At the end, the last song is repeated as the congregation gradually files out, each person leaving when he or she chooses, until finally the choir also files out slowly. One year, a bass and I were the last to leave and continued singing outside the church for a bit.

This year we will sing songs in French, German, Latin and English.
Befitting for the day before Easter, they are hopeful and expectant: “Wait for the Lord, whose day is near. Wait for the Lord, keep watch, take heart”, joyful: “O jubilate Deo” or already expressing the Easter message “Surrexit Christus, alleluia!” Below the lyrics on the sheet music are written the translations into most of the continental European languages; sometimes including Russian and other Slavic languages as well. A foreign language speaker can simply sing in his or her language.

Because we are an ad hoc choir, the membership varies each year. One sees a few familiar faces and meets new people as well. The vivacious director is the same inspiring woman each year. It is an experience I would not want to miss. 

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Spring green...

…and gold and red and pink and purple…
This is not going to be on an environmental topic. At least, not directly. This is going to be about spring, my favorite season. There is the long slow awakening of nature, daffodil spears pushing up out of the earth, snowdrops defying the snow cover, purple crocuses daring to show color after the white winter. On a more mundane note, as a forerunner of the season there are the tulips for sale in the grocery stores right after Christmas. White, red, yellow, pink, and one that is pink and yellow combined. Some sort of tulip is on sale every week, and I buy whatever it is. Last week it was a fabulous bunch of double tulips in red, yellow and pink, a veritable fiesta, which explodes slowly as the week goes on. The stems grow and the flowers get larger and begin to reach out sideways. I love that.
Then comes the day when the tulips on my balcony bloom. White and yellow they are, and when it is as warm and sunny as it has been this year, the petals of the white ones spread out into huge discs with yellow in the center and black stamens. The yellow blossoms are tinged with green when they first come into bud and then each petal is thinly outlined in red. Seeing them up close every day is to appreciate each nuance as they develop.
This year I had two pots of grape hyacinths, one of my favorite flowers. They were all the rage in the florists’ a couple of years ago, usually grown in gray baskets. Beautiful! I planted mine in a gray box planter that fits nicely on the windowsill.
The miracle of plenteous growth also takes place on my balcony when the clematis sends up tiny shoots from the dead-looking cut back stems. These shoots grow rapidly, and soon have to be tied up to keep them upright. They will reach up, up, up to the ceiling and will have to be trained on wires across the wall. The leaves make a carpet of green and then will come the small purple bells, perfect for the small setting of a balcony. Out in nature the tiny new leaves are now appearing on the trees as exquisite green lace. The contrast between this delicacy and the great spread of trees full of its magnificence is perhaps the very definition of spring and announces the coming of summer, when the trees will cast welcome shade.

Best of all, perhaps, is the warmth of the sun after a cold winter. The balcony is perfect at this time of year, being on the south side and protected from breezes. I have brought the rug up from the cellar and taken out the table where I eat and work on my computer. There is room for a comfortable chair so that I can read and look up from time to time to appreciate whatever is in bloom. It is this continuous change and the coming of new blossoms that makes it all so alive.
Alive and hopeful, for there is winter in all aspects of life as well. To trust that spring will come in a difficult situation, after a painful loss or when inspiration has gotten lost in dullness is to trust in life itself.    

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Eat, drink and be merry...

For tomorrow you may pay the penalty

A few days ago a friend said that she thought people who have
unhealthy life styles should not have their medical costs covered by insurance. Health insurance rates are sky-high, and it is unfair that people who live healthily have to pay for other people’s bad choices. While I see her point, loud inner voices were clamoring against this point of view, so I decided to check out some of the facts and look into the arguments for punitive measures and against them.
The facts are indeed shocking. Something like 20% of US health care costs are spent on obesity-related problems. Alcohol abuse costs the US economy more than $200 billion a year. Tobacco, drug addiction and risky behavior all take a toll as well, although smokers in the US apparently pay higher health insurance rates than do non-smokers.
Most of these costs are paid for by society, not only in high insurance premiums but also government health care and disability benefits. These are only the direct costs, with time lost from work, prevention campaigns etc. also adding up to hefty indirect expenditures.
In favor:
In light of these figures, it is understandable that there are several arguments in favor of making people with unhealthy life styles pay the costs of their choices. Lowering tariffs for the rest of the population is the most obvious. In addition, one argument goes, knowing that they would be out of pocket were they to end up in the doctor’s office or in hospital would have a motivating effect on getting these people to live more healthily. Most often encountered is the argument for moral individual responsibility. These people living carelessly are doing something wrong and they should pay for it.
Against:
There are, surprisingly, more arguments on the other side, i.e. that
everybody should be treated equally. Solidarity, for example, which is of course the philosophy behind insurance. Then there is the question of people who are addicted, who cannot be said to be choosing an unhealthy lifestyle, as do people engaging in risky sports, for example. From the practical point of view, people who give up unhealthy behaviors will probably live longer, thus costing society more in the long run when they reach old age.
Social inequality is cited as a reason against making people pay the costs of their unhealthy choices, for such costs would bite far more heavily into the budgets of the poor than of the rich. This argument is applied to the effect of indirect penalties such as higher cigarette taxes as well. Addicts barely managing financially will have to choose between their drug and having enough food, for example. For an addict, it is unlikely that higher taxes will have the desired effect, in any case.
From the purely practical point of view, it is often impossible to
prove that a particular individual’s medical problem stems from bad lifestyle choices. One envisions doctors having to make difficult judgment calls and court cases as a result, perhaps leading to the setting of arbitrary limits, for example the number of cigarettes smoked per day that divide the good from the bad. “Health police” would be a part of our vocabulary.
In thinking about “lifestyle choices” one sees a difference between those that are unhealthy and those that are risky. For someone in the ICU with concussion and multiple fractures after a parachuting accident, cause and effect are pretty obvious. But should parachuting therefore be classified as “risky behavior”? Boxing? Playing football or ice hockey? Bungee jumping? Even here categorization is difficult and would end up being judgmental.
It is perhaps just the judgmental, moralistic and socially unfair attitudes that rub us the wrong way. Insurance, based on solidarity, has been around for a long time and enjoys widespread acceptance. Perhaps we have to realize that those who live riskily or unhealthily are apt to suffer physically, mentally and emotionally at some point from their lifestyles, and that is punishment enough.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Let's eat....good food

In his book “Food Rules”, Michael Pollan sets out a number of rules to help one negotiate the myriad choices, good and bad, in the eating arena. He begins by saying “Eat Food”, which sounds obvious until he outlines the pretend food, junk food, additives etc. that masquerade as real food.

So what is real food? It runs a whole gamut, from the wild, the unwashed, and the uncooked  - berries picked from the vine on a walk - to the sophisticated creations of the cook’s kitchen. What one realizes when one starts thinking about real food is that it is often associated with memories that flavor it with nostalgia. Let’s take other wild foods, for instance. There are dandelion greens that I remember my mother gathering and cooking, the woodruff she put in white wine and that I have put in a Bowle, mushrooms that one gathers with a group in the woods, the plentiful wild garlic perfuming the woods here in Switzerland.

Then there are the old-fashioned sounding purslane, dock and sorrel, as well as linden, hickory nuts, watercress and wild game of all sorts. I remember homemade elderberry wine in Sweden, and wild strawberries remind me of jars of jam on a windowsill, with the light dazzling through the wonderful red color. Then there is the handsome wintergreen shrub and myriad fish, from crayfish on up to salmon.

Our ancestors ate all of the above, and at some point someone got the idea of domesticating some of these wild plants in a kitchen garden. Certainly easier to gather, so that one has time to do a bit of home processing, making the likes of chutneys, applesauce and pesto. A friend and I trade chutneys, hers made from her abundant figs, mine from the last of the green tomatoes in the fall. Applesauce and its further processing into cake belonged to my childhood. Little jars of homemade pesto nestle in my freezer for winter meals.

The kitchen garden spread out to the Saturday farmer’s market and then came its big brother, the supermarket, with its association with processed food. Not that processed food got its start there, basic processed food is as old as humanity. One thinks of flour, sugar and molasses, yogurt, cheese, dried fruits and legumes, cider, wine and beer, dried and smoked meat and fish, coffee and tea, soy sauce and tofu, sauerkraut and kimchi, all aimed at longevity not possible with fresh food.

Why, then, is the term “processed food” a bugaboo among those who want to eat healthily? What is the difference between these foods made by ancient processes and those lining the supermarket shelves? The most outstanding difference is that most of these old-time foods are made long lasting by such age-old processes as smoking, drying, the action of bacteria, fermenting, grinding; the foods themselves are still quite recognizable as their original selves.

But wait, what about soups and stews and casseroles, bread and baked desserts? Processed, right? Yes, by cooking, the application of heat, and now true domestic food is making its appearance. None of these common kitchen creations are long-lasting; they are meant to be eaten quickly. “Eat foods that will eventually rot”, as Pollan says!

Now let’s leave the wild, the kitchen garden, the age-old processed
food and the home kitchen and peruse the supermarket shelves. Here is rice, pasta, rolled oats – processed, therefore baddies? No, Pollan is helpful here when he says avoid food with ingredients you wouldn’t keep in your kitchen, “foodish” products like processed cheese and foods pretending to be something they are not.  I remember a breakfast at a friend’s that would fall into that last category. There was margarine and an artificial cream substitute that had never seen a cow, a vaguely orange-tasting chemical drink, dry cereal with so many ingredients that the grain – what was it? – got lost among the additives.

It is additives that are the less-than-healthy culprits in true processed foods. Most of them are unpronounceable, which is as good a way as any to identify them on the ingredient list. Azodicarbonamide, for instance, found in something like 500 bread products sold in the US, including “healthy” breads, has been linked to health issues. Tartrazine, a yellow dye, has been recently removed from a popular brand’s macaroni and cheese after buyers complained.

Then let’s consider propyl gallate, an estrogen antagonist, widely used to keep fatty foods from oxidizing. As most prepared food is either loaded with fat or with sugar, propyl gallate is to be found everywhere on supermarket shelves, even in mayonnaise. Strangely enough, the mayonnaise in my fridge, the product of a major Swiss company, contains no propyl gallate, and it keeps just fine.

Pollan’s food rules are simple; you don’t need to hunt through the 20 ingredients in a product to see if a no-no chemical is present, for example. Just give a glance at the number of ingredients, and do a quick scan to see how many of them are actual foodstuffs. My purchased mayonnaise, for instance, contains sunflower oil, vinegar, salt, mustard, egg yolk and a spice extract. All except the last would be ingredients in homemade mayonnaise.

By contrast, an instant pea soup with croutons has 21 ingredients, plus “natural aromas”. Of the 21, 8 would not be homemade pea soup with croutons. One is an antioxidation substance, the addition of which is probably responsible for the fact that this soup has a shelf life of a year. Is this necessary? Only if one is living in the wilds of Alaska or the back of beyond in Europe, it seems to me. The rest of us shop frequently. So who is really benefitting from these long-life foods on the shelves? The supermarket, maybe.

Writing about this has made me hungry for the fruits and veggies –
additive free - sold at the outdoor market in a nearby town; it will start up again in April. Of the variety on offer, the best are the seasonal produce, berries for instance, chanterelles, apricots. Or asparagus in May, locally grown. The seasonal treats that are the very opposite of stuff on the shelves that lasts approximately forever. I am counting the days.

Friday, February 28, 2014

Bringing Back the Wolf


Ever since I read the book “Never Cry Wolf” by Farley Mowat, wolves have fascinated me. In this book, Mowat describes his work for the Canadian government on a project to determine the feeding habits of wolves in the wild. Caribou hunters had accused the wolves of decimating caribou herds, but Mowat found that in fact the wolves subsisted largely on small mammals, like mice. He tests the hypothesis that an animal the size of a wolf could exist solely on these rodents by limiting his own diet to mice, developing recipes like “Souris à la Crème”.

Wolves have always had a reputation as savage killers; chasing sleighs in rural Russia and eating the riders, for instance. The modern day equivalent of this drama is the attack by wolves on domestic livestock like sheep. After wolves had become an endangered species in the American west, largely because of loss of habitat and extermination measures, they were reintroduced in 1995, and sheep farmers have been up in arms ever since. Wolves are coming back naturally in Europe, and sheep farmers on this continent are similarly unhappy.

In a world in which wild and domestic animals generally inhabit separate territories, it is of course chilling to imagine one’s sheep herd as targeted prey to these wild animals. Why then reintroduce or encourage the wolf?

To answer this question one must consider the wolf’s effect on its environment in the wild. After its reintroduction in Yellowstone Park, the entire park ecosystem thrived. Greatly increased deer populations had decimated vegetation, and within a few years after reintroduction of the wolf, vegetation grew back again. This was, to be sure, partly the result of the wolves feeding on the deer, but was also a matter of the deer avoiding those parts of the park with the largest wolf populations.

With increased vegetation came flocks of birds, and beavers returned to build dams, thus benefitting both the groundwater supply and aquatic animals like waterfowl. Populations of rabbits, hawks, foxes and bald eagles grew. Because wolves are able to prey on large mammals, the increased supply of carcasses brought back scavengers such as the raven, the bear and the coyote. Herds of deer became healthier, as the wolves culled the weak and the sick. Within a few years, it was noted that because of the increased vegetation, riverbanks were less apt to erode and wash away.

The wolf is thus a keystone species, one defined as having a disproportionate impact on its environment relative to its abundance. This is, of course, small comfort to a sheep farmer who finds several dead animals in his flock, as wolves do leave the woods and venture into civilization. How then to reconcile the needs of an ecosystem such as a national park with the needs of livestock owners on private land?

Whereas ecosystem needs can be met using natural measures,
the needs of human beings and domestic animals often require ingenious human solutions. Trained dogs have been herding sheep since biblical times and are effective, but not ideal, wolf alarms. Dogs scare hikers, and recently it has been found that a hiker-friendlier animal, the llama, is a good guard animal for sheep. The llama is alert, good at herding animals and leading them away from predators, sounding an alarm when a wolf appears and chasing it away. Other solutions being tested are better fencing for the sheep and collars that sound a warning when a wolf appears.

There is no perfect answer. We see here a microcosm of the whole human situation, caught between cooperation and coexistence with the wild, on the one hand, and the satisfaction of the needs of civilization on the other. These needs include, however, the acquisition of knowledge and the use of imagination and ingenuity, all of which are most helpful in working out the problems of coexistence with our wilder fellow beings.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Collision of Values?

CERN, the atomic research facility in Switzerland/France, recently announced plans to build a circular particle collider much larger than its collider that was used to discover the Higgs particle last year. The cost of the new facility will be in the 2-figure billions of francs; the cost of the Higgs particle project was ca. CHF 4-5 billion. At the time that plans for researching the Higgs particle were announced, a friend wrote an essay asking if such a costly project was ethical, considering the number of starving children in the world.

This is a worthwhile question; given the fact that in West Africa alone, something like 1 million children are starving. It raises a host of other questions as well, questions about other huge expenditures in the world and why, in a world with enough food, people are starving. Let’s look at some of the answers to these two questions, starting with the causes of starvation.

First, there is the enormous problem of food waste. Something like 40% of the world’s food is wasted before it gets to the table. In developing countries, home to the majority of the world’s starving children, most of this waste occurs in the field because of the lack of efficient harvesting techniques, adequate storage and transportation. Globalization contributes as well, as too many people in developing countries are growing cash crops rather than food for themselves.

Two of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, famine and war, ride roughshod over large areas of the world, leaving starving populations in their wake. Then there is extreme poverty, and rapidly rising food prices in the wake of speculation that sees food as just another commodity. Global warming means more crop shortages due to inclement weather and droughts. Another example of the law of ecology that says everything is connected to everything else.

We know about these problems; we read about them in the newspaper and see pictures of pitiful children with the swollen bellies of severe malnutrition and stick arms and legs. We know that various organizations are on hand with food distribution in crises, teaching programs for farmers, and Fair Trade implementations. Greater investment in infrastructure and transportation are needed. On a larger scale, peacekeeping missions and measures to slow global warming mean, among other things, less hunger in the world. All of these programs are very, very costly.

So here we have an enormous humanitarian problem in need of a lot of money, on the one hand, and a huge scientific project that will use a lot of money, on the other. Seems imbalanced. But wait; there are other sinks for huge amounts of money in the world:

Military spending: In 2013, the United States had a military budget of $682 billion, 39% of the world’s total.

Fossil fuel subsidies: These are estimated to be close to $2 trillion a year. In the developed world subsidies are mostly indirect, in the form of a dearth of responsibility on the part of the fossil fuel companies for the havoc wrecked by global warming, the negative health effects of burning fossil fuels etc. Direct subsidies in the developing world have contributed to a raised standard of living but created problems for the future (global warming, the negative health effects of burning fossil fuels etc.) Given the fact that fossil fuel companies are the most successful companies of all time, raking in enormous profits, one questions why such subsidies are given at all.

Bailing out Greece: The EU rescued Greece from financial meltdown at a total cost of €240 billion in two loans. The CERN project costs peanuts by comparison.

Super-high salaries: Small in scale compared to military spending and fossil fuel subsidies, these salaries are so out of proportion that they raise a moral question:

-Bankers’ boni: in the EU these are supposed to be capped at 100% of the salaries of top officers, but a loophole may make possible boni of up to 250%. Needless to say, the salaries themselves are out of sight.

-CEO, sports figures and entertainers’ earnings: the 2013 pay to Bob Iger, CEO of Walt Disney, was $37.1 million, an increase of 18% over his 2012 salary. Golf pro Tiger Woods made $78 million and tennis star Roger Federer $71.5 million. Madonna was the highest paid figure in the entertainment industry, with $125 million for the year.

I would say that most of these examples are of inflated spending, money not spent wisely. And the CERN project? It concerns our most fundamental understanding of the structure of our world. In addition, basic scientific discoveries often lead to useful applications in the most diverse fields. Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect made possible solar power, for example. The World Wide Web got its start at CERN. One can’t get much more basic than the discovery of the electron in 1897, and that has become the basis for all of our electronics.

 Let’s not forget that doing and analyzing the experiment are only the final steps in what is essentially a huge construction project, providing jobs for thousands of people, new techniques and smaller discoveries along the way. That part of the project money paid for these things gets plowed back into the economy.

Even with all the technical challenges, building the new collider will
be a lot easier than solving the problem of starvation in the world. Spending money on the latter can alleviate hunger but will not keep countries from going to war, nor make the weather less fickle or globalization less damaging. It is basically a human problem, not a financial one.