The Word: It's Worse Than We Think

via Simon and Schuster

Looking at the UCL-Lancet Commission on Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change report and one thing becomes clear; the future is going to be so much worse than we think.
As the project summary says:

A major report on managing the health effects of climate change, launched jointly by The Lancet and UCL, says that climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.

The commission reviewed the likely health impacts of climate change on human societies – and documented ways to reverse those impacts. It concluded that there is a need for policymakers, practitioners and the public to act urgently on the human health effects of climate change.

The report is already six years old, and the major problems identified still haven't made it into public discussion in North America. As the Lancet editorial opens:

Climate change will have its greatest impact on those who are already
the poorest in the world: it will deepen inequities and the effects of global warming will shape the future of health among all peoples. Yet this message has failed to penetrate most public discussion about climate change. And health professionals have barely begun to engage
with an issue that should be a major focal point for their research, preparedness planning, and advocacy [...].

Climate change and the projected effects of a changing climate develop quickly into a highly complex group of  inter-related problems: including disease, food, water and sanitation, shelter and settlements, extreme events, population and migration, and politics.
In the Commonwealth Health Ministers briefing on food [pdf], the study points out the following:

• Climate change will worsen any existing food insecurity--anything bad now will only get worse.
• The changes brought about by global warming will necessitate changes to agricultural practices--this is everything from what is grown, where it is grown, to how it is grown. But when it comes to the necessity of using GMOs, "the Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (also known as the World Agriculture Report), which was written by over 400 scientists, rejects that view. It sees ‘...a major role for agricultural knowledge, science and technology...to increase adaptive capacity and enhance resilience through purposeful biodiversity management’. The options set forth include ‘...irrigation management, water harvesting and conservation technologies, diversification of agriculture systems, the protection of agro-biodiversity and screening germ-plasm for tolerance to climate change."
• The globalised food and agriculture system serves the interests of large
  corporations, while neglecting the needs of the increased numbers of
  hungry people. Can't say that much clearer, can you?
• Agricultural practices and the global food system are major contributors to global warming. So, business as usual is just not an option.
• The current methods of dealing with disaster and distributing food
  aid tend not to alleviate the long-term situation, often resulting in
  dependency upon aid. And that doesn't solve any long-term problems.
• The impact of climate change on global food security, and in turn the public health risks, need to be tackled holistically. Simply put, there's no single solution. Because the problem is the system, the system must be attacked simultaneously from multiple angles in multiple ways. Which is good, because the only way the system can be taken down is to hit it hard, hit it fast, and hit it in so many ways that the corporations cannot respond effectively.

Six years on, and this still isn't in the everyday discourse. Frankly, every news report should be seen through the lens of climate change. Collapsing economy? Probably good news, as people in economic trouble burn fewer fossil fuels. In Canada, Bill C 51? A tool to prevent concerned citizens worried about climate change from interfering with the corporate right to profit while destroying the world. As Naomi Klein says, This Changes Everything.
Film: ‘Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change’

Death By Canned Fish

Well, maybe not death, but canned fish years past its "best before" date is regularly being sold to Canadians.
Kathy Tomlinson of CBC reports on the problem:




As she points out, there's no proof that eating the food will make you sick--but there's no way to tell if three year past date shrimp is safe to eat, either.


Bruce Cran of the Consumer's Ass'n of Canada via CBC TV

The major grocery chains are being offered discounts on canned fish that's well past date, and are passing that fish on to consumers--though not at a discount. The stale-dated cans are simply mixed in with the others on the shelves.
Of course, this federal government has no interest in regulating this behaviour--as Bruce Cran (above) asks; "Why then even have the dates?" And that is a sentiment this government can get behind. No regulation is better than regulation. But the role of the CFIA (Canada Food Inspection Agency) is a bit blurry here as well. Why don't we know how long a period preserved food is edible?
The use of sell-by dates has never had a clear reason behind it. We're told that it merely indicates the period during which the food is at its preserved peak. Consumers treat it as a preservation expiry date (which is what we really want). Retailers apparently treat it as optional.
I'm lucky. Here on the coast, I can get access to fresh fish in season. But my kids, living on the prairies, seldom have that option--and certainly not at an affordable price. So how do we ensure reasonable quality, high safety, and an affordable price? I would suggest dropping the "best before" date entirely, and instead dating food with both a "packaged on" and  "don't sell after" date. And that latter date should be the point after which spoilage becomes a concern. That at least gives us information that both makes sense and that we can use to make an informed decision.