Toxic Genetically Modified Food

Nightmares of “Frakenfood” and growth hormones consume the mind of Marge, the middle class mother of three. What is in the kids’ mac-n-cheese that makes it so delicious? Could it be the terrible genetically modified organism that was on Good Morning America last week? Marge joins the army of millions in the fight against the use and mislabeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Though GM crops ought to be labeled, the huge opposition stems from lack of reliable information, as well as fear of the unknown. GMOs are well liked by both farmers and the environment, their use increases yield and profit substantially, and the use of transgenic seeds reduce the amount of pesticides needed. 

Photo by Daniel Voglesong 

Would you believe a neighbor if they warned you that books are extremely harmful and potentially even deathly? What if there were entire magazine articles informing you how dangerous books are, or huge marches of protesters? Chances are you would be suspicious; you would maybe lessen the amount of books that were in your house, place them on a high shelf out of the kids’ reach. The media and the community around you are major influences on what you deem appropriate for yourself and your family. This principle also applies for the food you buy at the grocery store. There are heaps of information on the harmful effects of genetically modified crops, information that is both frightening and completely misleading. In a study of consumers’ attitudes toward genetic modification in food production, Lone Bredhal found that “the risks and benefits that consumers associate with genetic modification in food production are strongly influenced by a number of more general attitudes, notably attitude to nature, technology, alienation from the marketplace, food neophobia and, perceived own knowledge about the use of genetic modification in food production” (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.27/full). Individuals who favor nature are less likely to support GMO’s and associate many risks with their use. On the contrary, this article states that individuals who are in favor of technology perceived less risks and more benefits of the use of genetic modification in food production.


Unfortunately, one of the main reasons that many consumers are opposed and especially concerned about genetically modified organisms is because of the lack of knowledge about the mysterious and somewhat other-worldly components of them. The technology behind genetically modifying organisms can be overwhelming and rather foreign, especially to someone like Marge, the average-Joe consumer. Among many other unknown truths about genetically modified organisms is the sheer abundance of them; almost 11,600 applications have been submitted to the US department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for field testing by seed producers since 1987 (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fs084). Of the 11,600 applicants, 92% were approved. A genetically modified organism is one that has had its genetic makeup altered through any sort of method, usually to improve its agricultural success.They can be used to improve on the storage capacity or nutritional value of foods (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fs084).
 Some improvements include: delayed ripening, pest-resistance, virus-resistance, herbicide tolerance, etc.

David Brown tractor and genetically modified licorice 

There are different methods for genetically modifying organisms: genetically engineered organisms are created with a technique that permits the direct or removal of genes in the organism while transgenic organisms contain genes that were transferred from another organism (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fs084). There are three different generations that are used to classify GM foods. The first-generation crops have been enhanced with advantageous traits such as herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and transfer increased tolerance to environmental stresses. Second-generation are those that have added-value output traits, an example being nutrient enhancement in animal food. Crops that produce pharmaceuticals, improve the processing of bio-based fuels, or produce products beyond food and fiber, are all included in the third-generation of GM foods. It is important for consumers to have an understanding of these divisions of genetically modified organisms in order to make more informed decisions about what they eat.

Every time Marge goes to the grocery store she tries her best to avoid the candy aisle and the frozen foods section. She has heard ample warnings from numerous sources about all the scary genetically modified organisms used in the creation of both of these food categories and the dangerous effects they can have, especially on growing children. But what if the information that Marge is given is wrong? The truth is that GMOs really are not out to mutate small children. To be sure, GMOs undergo several tests in order to be approved safe to eat. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) formulated a concept called substantial equivalence as a way to assess genetically modified foods. “The concept of substantial equivalence is part of a safety evaluation framework based on the idea that existing foods can serve as a basis for comparing the properties of a genetically modified food with the appropriate counterpart” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11576435). The appropriate counterpart used in this process is an existing food supply that is considered to be safe, they know that it is safe through years of experience and consumption. Through the substantial counterpart process a compositional analysis is done on the key parts of the plant, inspections of key nutrients and natural toxicants as well as phenotypic and agronomic characteristics of the plant are assessed and compared (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11576435).

 The main concern, if any, that consumers should have about genetically modified organisms is based on allergies. If a food was enhanced with extra protein from milk, eggs, wheat, fish, tree nuts, peanuts, soybeans, or shellfish (90% of food allergies), it is possible that someone who is allergic to said foods could consume them unknowingly due to their incorporation into a food that normally would not have that protein (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fs084). However, the FDA has taken measures to ensure that all incorporations of such allergens be labelled so that consumers are completely aware of what they are consuming.

A word of advice for Marge and consumers like her: save yourself from sleepless nights of worry and educate yourself on the cause of such. The fear of the unknown is an absurd fear. Technology is advancing rapidly, meaning that it is becoming easier to genetically modify organisms, their presence in our food is becoming immense. Instead of spending remarkably large grocery bills on “ GMO- free” foods, educate yourself on them, and you will find that they truly are not as scary as you think.

Sacking Stigmas - Where is the Looooove?

Scrolling through the news on my phone as I trek across campus to Bio, I come across yet another tragic event resulting in several innocent deaths and one misunderstood person to blame for it all. “He heard voices in his head”, reads the article, he was “delusional” with a “troubled mental health history” (http://abcnews.go.com/US/navy-yard-shooter-aaron-alexis-expected-killed/story?id=20373025.) This time it was Aaron Alexis and the Washington Navy Yard tragedy, the time before that it was Adam Lanza at Newtown, and before that it was James Holmes at the Dark Knight movie premiere. Every time the media exploits mass shootings, we learn that the shooter was sick in the head, that something didn’t tick quite right, that there was a wire missing. The media coverage of these tragedies isolates and embarrasses individuals with mental illnesses and evokes irrational fear among society; a more informed society can diminish stigmas surrounding mental illnesses. Additionally, a public campaign featuring celebrities endorsing mental illness awareness will foster accepting attitudes in society and spur confidence among mentally ill individuals.

Leo Tolstoy, Oprah Winfrey, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Biggie Smalls and many others have all stated some variation of this cliché quote: “In order to change the world, we must start with ourselves.” While this quote may be trite and overused, it does have merit. A public campaign inspiring each individual to alter their mindset about mental disorders is more effective than one that permeates to the masses. The public campaign must do this by offering a personal example of a well-known and well-liked celebrity that has a mental illness. Respected celebrities such as Emma Watson or Natalie Portman can endorse the campaign and act as positive role models. Even if they are not affected with a mental disorder themselves, they can share an experience that they have had with mental illness and promote mental health awareness. This will allow people to feel a personal connection to mental illnesses and drive them to realize that a mental illness can affect anyone. Once individuals realize that depression, OCD, and schizophrenia are legitimate illnesses and do not classify a person as “crazy”, then the stigmas attached to mental illnesses will disappear. Seeing mental illnesses in a personal context will spark individuals to begin to view people with mental illnesses for what they are - people, just like them.

With public acceptance and concern for mental illnesses, doctors will be more likely to understand the severity of them. This public campaign not only impacts the general public, but medical professionals as well.  

Photo by: Vic

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59632563@N04/

According to Rost's study, The Deliberate Misdiagnosis of Major Depression in Primary Care, 50% of medical professionals have admitted to diagnosing a patient with an illness that was not depression despite the fact that they met the criteria for major depression (Rost). Additionally, when treating patients for a mental illness, many patients do not receive proper treatment. In fact, only about 15% of Mexican Americans and African Americans with a mental illness actually receive treatment that is in concordance with depression guidelines (Gonzalez, Depression Care in the United States, Too Little, Too Few). Physicians’ lack of attention and consideration when diagnosing and treating mental illnesses shows just how little regard they have. Doctors need to treat mental illnesses for what they are - a disease. When mental illnesses become respected as a disease, then more research will the be funded to better treat and one day cure mental disorders.

A public campaign extending to all media and social networking outlets such as television shows, Twitter, Facebook, and news channels will have the greatest impact on people with mental illnesses.

Photo by: Tanja Scherm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frauhoelle/

This public campaign will cultivate unity among those with mental disorders and encourage them to seek treatment without feeling ashamed. Nearly half of all people suffering from a severe mental illness do not seek treatment
(http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/101/5/e66.full). They do not want to be seen as a “loony person” and believe that admitting to needing treatment would also mean admitting that they are “crazy” to other people. Society must adopt an accepting and indiscriminate attitude towards mental disorders in order to promote self-assurance among mental illness patients. Mental health patients will feel empowered to share their experiences when they realize that having a mental illness is not a fault of their own. 

A public campaign will act as a catalyst in a chain reaction for altering the perception of mental illnesses by inciting awareness, encouraging tolerance and harboring understanding. It will first alter the mindset of people who do not have a mental disorder and broaden their mindset towards mental illnesses. This will encourage people with mental illnesses to seek treatment and to open up about their mental disorder so that others may empathize with their circumstances.

Photo by: zim2411

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zim2411/

Doctors will begin to treat and diagnose mental illnesses with more deliberation and attentiveness, which will in effect cause more people with mental illnesses to receive effective treatment. If this reaction reaches its full potential, then we can boost funding for mental illness research. We can deter the media from sensationalizing mental illnesses involved in mass shootings. We can eliminate the trend of tragedies in the news that we read about too often involving a person with a mental illness that never received proper treatment. We can diminish the stigmas surrounding mental illnesses and it all starts with you.

Time For the Federal Government to Help Clean Up

A study by the EPA in 2008 revealed that the U.S. was responsible for 19% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest behind China (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html). As many know, greenhouse gases are responsible for the depletion of Earth’s ozone layer, which in turn has attributed to a rapid increase in climate change. It’s a fact that climate change does happen naturally; however, the anthropogenic climate change is happening too fast, and thus creating potential problems for future generations. At a time where carbon and greenhouse gas emissions are a growing crisis on our planet, there must be more done than just saying we will make changes to enforce regulating the emissions produced by power plants, and denying the construction of any potential emitters, like the Keystone XL Pipeline to avoid the potential dangers the entire planet faces, there must be action, and it starts with President Obama.

Earth’s climate is constantly changing, but humans have greatly affected the process. Advancements in technology and industrialization are two major causes of this, as both have resulted in an increase of pollution in our oceans and in the atmosphere. The amount of emissions produced today is 16 times greater than it was in 1900, with that number only continuing to grow. Power plants specifically are extremely harmful as they produce massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Of the total amount of emissions that the U.S. produces annually, 40% come from power plants as a result of the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html). The sources of emissions extend beyond power plants and industrialization; everyday luxuries that Americans enjoy such as air conditioners, vehicles, air sols, and plastics are also emitters, and with a large population, these become problems that result in serious consequences.

The gases produced by the pollutants contain chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC’s for short. The CFC’s essentially attack O3 Ozone molecules, breaking them down to O2 molecules. Ozone is crucial to protecting the Earth from harmful UV radiation from the Sun; the ozone layer being depleted makes the Earth susceptible to these damaging rays. Fortunately, the Montreal Protocol held in 1987 between 43 nations saw the signing of a treaty that called for a “phasing out” of the production and use of CFC’s. This solved the ozone crisis, but also opened the door for the problem the world faces today. With CFC’s cut out of production, HCFC’s, or greenhouse gases began to be used instead, starting the human caused climate change, or the “greenhouse effect.” The HCFC’s in the atmosphere capture the UV rays from the Sun, retaining the heat and sending it back towards the Earth, increasing the overall surface temperature. Earth has now seen a shift its climate belts, which has led to an array of problems such as stronger, more frequent storms, a global rise in sea level, and an increased frequency of wildfires. However, the list of potential problems Earth and society will face within this century is much longer. With these potential catastrophic problems of the future in mind, President Obama must initiate government involvement in taking action against global warming.

Much more has been said than actually done when it comes to the federal government taking the climate change crisis into its own hands. It had been two years since the President made any account of the climate change crisis; however, on June 25, President Obama gave a speech in which his main point was regulating the amount of emissions produced by power plants in the U.S., the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. What confused several people, however, was that it had been assumed the EPA had been working on regulating these emissions in the past few years. Now the President is tightening up, as he has demanded new regulatory proposals to be completed by no later than next year. Also included in the president’s speech were standards for appliances and fuel-economy regulations for vehicles, which have both played key roles in the deduction of greenhouse gas emissions. While this call to arms against emissions has sounded great to those concerned with the problem, there must still be more done. Obama and his administration have an international commitment they must live up to, which include a 17% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (http://www.nature.com/news/more-than-hot-air-1.13314).

The most evident way to meet this rather ambitious goal by 2020 is to disallow the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline would run from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada to the gulf coast in the U.S., and while the construction of this pipeline would create thousands of new jobs, the environmental risks greatly outweigh the economic. The pipeline would not only result in more greenhouse gas emissions, but the inevitable risk of having an oil spill would also be harmful to the environment, just as seen in the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Instead, the government should focus on the research of cleaner and safer forms of energy that would not only benefit the environment, but create jobs as well.

We owe it to the future generations to provide them with a clean, habitable environment. Obama no longer has to worry about reelection, just his place in history, and taking action against in the climate change crisis our world faces would surely elevate his status. Putting politics aside in order to ensure that the world will be able sustain future civilization goes along with the beliefs of the founding fathers, who claimed political leaders should “make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers.” Today, the longer horizon starts with tackling the emissions of greenhouse gases, slowing climate change, and protecting the environment for the future.





Pictures Courtesy Of:

Charts/Graphs: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Oil Spill: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skytruth/4733160839/in/photostream/

Space Oddity: The Search for a New Earth

“Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, its five year mission to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations…”

You’ve probably already guessed that I am a giant nerd, but I can’t help that I was raised on Star Trek. My dad proposed to my mom while watching an episode and spoke Klingon on their first date (tip: Don’t eat Korean food with a Trekkie). From Star Trek I transitioned to Star Wars, then Doctor Who and Torchwood. Basically, I love space. So reading about the Kepler Mission, a mission NASA undertook searching for a “new Earth,” interested

me. (If it interests you too, I’d point you to the Kepler Mission’s website, but apparently the government doesn't consider that important enough to maintain during the shutdown.)

However it got me thinking, why does finding an “Earth-like” planet consume the human mind? Defining or finding “Earth-like” planets should not be scientists’ primary focus, and not only is it unlikely that they will find an accessible, sustainable planet, we don’t have a need for a “new-Earth” right now. Instead, exploring space through missions such as the Kepler mission, learning as much about our vast universe as possible should consume their research.

So scientists are searching for terrestrial, “Earth-like” planets in stars’ “habitable zones” where liquid water likely exists on any planets they find there. That’s great right? Sure, but what about the “non-habitable” planets? Are we as humans only interested in planets that can house species similar to ourselves? Species could exist out there that don’t need water to survive and we could be missing out on some amazing discoveries and first contact with a new planet because we’re selfishly ignoring planets that aren’t carbon copies of our own or dismissing non-terrestrial worlds. Thousands of undiscovered and unexplored planets exist out there- what could we be missing?

There’s a good chance that scientists are looking in the wrong places for habitable planets anyway. The Kepler mission searches in stars’ “habitable zones,” but according to a recent study there might not be any habitable planets orbiting within those zones. M-dwarf stars are the most common stars in the galaxy and are also significantly cooler (up to 3000 degrees Kelvin cooler)

than G2 type stars, the type of star our Sun is.

Photo: http://www.eso.org/public/.) Of course scientists are searching for planets with liquid water in the “habitable zone,” but, there’s a good chance that any planets in the “habitable zone” of M-dwarf stars won’t in fact, be habitable, at least by humans. A study published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics has found “Earth-like” planets are not likely to be found found orbiting a M-dwarf star in its “habitable zone” because of their small magnetospheres. A smaller magnetosphere means that a planet’s atmosphere is likely to be exposed to harmful stellar wind, so even if a planet does have liquid water, no human would be able to live there. It’s more likely that an “Earth-like,” terrestrial planet would be orbiting outside the “habitable zone.” (Vidotto, Jardine, Morin, Donati, Lang and Russell, 557.) Of course, not all stars are M-dwarfs, but since these stars are the most common in the universe, if scientists really want to find an “Earth-like” planet, it would be in their best interests to maybe expand their horizons a bit.

Scientists looking for atmospheres like our own might be hindering our search for new life and new planets as well. A study in Planetary and Space Science found that carbon-dioxide rich atmospheres can support life. There is no significant temperature increase nor is there a greenhouse effect on these planets. (Newbauer, Leitner, Firneis, and Hizenberger, 84.) Just because we humans can’t survive in a carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere, doesn’t mean that other species can’t. Not to mention, if we some day have the technology to get a manned spacecraft all the way out to one of these planets, wouldn’t we theoretically also be technologically advanced enough to also be able to survive in these atmospheres? If humans will have achieved interstellar flight, we should also have workable spacesuits by that time too.

The resemblance a “new Earth” has to our current home planet cannot just be superficial, the likeness needs to go deeper, literally. Three authors in an article in Planetary and Space Science have found another issue regarding finding an “Earth-like planet:” resources. We as humans have been able to live on Earth for thousands of years because we have resources available below our surface such as oil, natural gas and minerals. The authors argue that even if a planet has liquid water and an atmosphere

favorable to humans, it would be necessary for the planet to also have similar resources to Earth. If humans are to colonize a planet outside our own solar system, shopping trips to Earth to get the resources we need would not be feasible. The resources would need to previously exist on the planet itself. Humans need fuel for transportation as well as simply staying alive. Other natural minerals such as salt, gold, silver, and iron are important in our daily lives. A planet that doesn’t have these resources or equivalent substitutes would only be habitable by humans in the short term, if at all. These guidelines further decrease the likelihood of even finding an “Earth-like” planet, much less one that humans could effectively colonize and eventually inhabit in the long term. (McMachon, O’Malley-James and Parnel, 85.)

NASA’s attempt to find a “new Earth” might just be a massive waste of time and money. If we find a habitable planet outside our solar system, how would scientists suggest we get there? A manned spacecraft can’t even leave our own solar system, much less enter another one. Sure a “new Earth” would be a cool thing to find and it would get a lot of people excited. But the Kepler spacecraft is only a telescope and unable to transport living humans. Also, according to an article by Freeman Dyson, humans might not have the technology for interstellar travel for another 200 years. Currently the only manned space mission is the International Space Station which is in orbit around Earth. Commercial space flights are being developed, but they’re not planning on going very far, especially considering there will be civilians on board. If NASA is so interested in finding a “new Earth” they need to focus less on sending civilians into space for fun and more on finding a means of interstellar travel that can get astronauts to a new planet.

Basically, I think that looking for a “new Earth” is heading in the wrong direction when it comes to human space travel. Not only would it be incredibly difficult to even find a planet suitable for humans to live on for an extended period of time, but the current exploratory missions might be looking in all the wrong places. The search itself also seems pointless, as space travel technology isn't near advanced enough to ever take us to these places for several hundred years. We may be running out of fossil fuels, but we don’t need to find a new planet just yet. There is no need to be on the lookout for a “new Earth” so far away from our current, amazing, planet. There is so much to be learned much closer to home that might benefit us sooner- There’s a robot on Mars and a telescope studying gamma-rays and other energy particles. We have plenty of time to “explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations” and we will once we have the need and the technology. For now there’s only one thing we should be thinking about.:

“Boldy go where no man has gone before.”

We Are The World - A Global End to Non-communicable Diseases

In the summer of 2010, I found myself wandering through the village of Kandaria, Kenya, surrounded by the typical African stereotypes: mud huts, women carrying buckets of water on their heads, and children with poked out bellies wearing ragged

clothes. An orphaned ten year old boy names Hillary Otieno lives in the village with his family, surviving on less money per week than I spent on my favorite white chocolate campfire mocha at Caribou on a regular basis. Hillary’s grandmother suffers from goiter, a problem caused by an iodine deficiency which incites the swelling of the thyroid gland and often leads to difficulties in breathing and swallowing. Like Hillary’s grandmother, noncommunicable diseases victimize a widespread of villagers while some even lose family members to these diseases. Non-communicable diseases are non-infectious and non-transmissible among people. Nature magazine addresses the issues of non-communicable diseases as deriving from multiple sources, but offers one solution - a strong national government. This immediate problem demands an immediate solution. The fight against the rising epidemic of non-communicable diseases in poor countries cannot be left to the country's government, for their government infrastructures are weak in themselves; instead, the United Nations and World Health Organization need to direct resources available to elevate education and nutrition in these regions to meet basic needs before addressing any large-scale crisis.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) kill over 29 million people in low- and middle-income countries such as such as Haiti, Kenya, India, and Urkraine (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/). Non-communicable diseases takes on four main forms: cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes. Together these four types encompass about 80 percent of all NCDs (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en/). These chronic diseases infect any age group or region of the world, and their widespread nature has left question in where to begin the search for a solution to this epidemic. In an article entitled “Disease priorities“, Nature magazine defends the belief that a strong national government can halt the rise of the NCDs epidemic by implementing a strong national health system stating “Ultimately, a sustained assault on NCDs will require strong national health systems” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477250a.html). While a strong national government and a strong national health system must join forces to combat NCDs, a multifaceted issue does not have such a forthright solution.

Non-communicable diseases rank number one in the cause of deaths worldwide; therefore, postponing the discovery of a solution threatens dire hardships. Biological and geographic variables play an influential role when trying to pinpoint the villain responsible for 36 million deaths worldwide annually (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477250a.html). Due to several influencing factors, attributing all of these deaths to one cause appears unrealistic; however, research holds four main risk factors responsible for increasing one’s chance of contracting a non-communicable disease: tobacco use, alcohol abuse, unhealthy diet, and lack of exercise (http://www.globalhealth.gov/global-health-topics/non-communicable-diseases/). As these factors characterize choices of one’s free will, a strong national government will not single handedly influence these factors, unless introducing a dictatorship, but it seems obvious that this solution would produce counterproductive results. Instead, education and nutrition demand the global spotlight.

The problem proposed by NCDs falls directly under the responsibility of the United Nations through World Health Organizations. After World War 2, 51 countries joined together to

form the United Nations (UN) with commitments to better the relations between countries through several disciplines and goals. The third objective of the UN strives to help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms. In order to help achieve the this goal proposed, World Health Organization (WHO) formed as a sector of the UN on April 7, 1948. The global health organization researches, monitors, assesses, and acts upon public health incidents worldwide. The UN and WHO recognize the dangers proposed by NCDs and in response have formulated the WHO Global NCD Action Plan 2013-2020 which includes the goal to reduce premature mortality from cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory diseases by 2025 by 25 percent (http://www.who.int/nmh/en/). Placing global emphasis on education and nutrition will make this goal achievable.

Education is often referred to as the gateway to success, and the implementation of a strong education system in poor countries to limit the spread of NCDs follows this same principle. Four out of five children that find themselves unable to attend school live in rural areas (http://www.bmz.de/en/what_we_do/issues/Education/hintergrund/bildungsituation/index.html). Several children enrolled in schools often must drop out in order to work for their families either in the markets or in the family fields, or the effects from crises and war often hinder education. Insufficient primary school budgets in the majority of developing countries create competition for resources in order to meet the demands of the population which often leaves availability to only the elite

upper class and males. With a wide-based population pyramid, developing countries require an increased number of schools, qualified teachers, and resources in order to prevent an overpopulation of resources and to provide an effective education. President Barack Obama recognized the need for resources in this area and created the Global Fund for Education in 2008 in attempt to reach the world’s commitment to make education available globally by 2015. While the creation of this fund provides a great starting point, change demands action. As the majority of the population struggles to read a small children’s booklet, how can we expect these same populations to make educated decisions which affect their well-being?

With a great portion of developing countries living on less than

two dollars a day, hardly any money remains for food after shelter and other basic living necessities are paid for. With only cents remaining, the people in these conditions cannot make wholesome dietary choices to maintain a well-balanced diet. The UN must focus a portion of its funding toward researching and developing methods to provide large quantities of food containing nutrients to combat malnutrition which affects about 16 million people in developing countries (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm).Biofortification manipulates the contents of basic staple food crops such as wheat, corn, rice, beans, and potatoes, in order to increase their nutritional values (http://www.who.int/elena/titles/biofortification/en/). Biofortification implementation has reduced vitamin-A deficiency through The Golden Rice Project. Funding towards technologies such as biofortification would catalyze other developments designed increase the nutritional values in affordable foods such as staple crops which people can actually afford to purchase on demanding budgets.

http://www.biokemi.org/biozoom/issues/525/articles/2392

Concentration needs to be placed on basic needs such as education and nutrition before upper-level needs such as the stop to the spread of NCDs can occur. In 1943, Abraham Maslow proposed a physiological theory commonly known as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow suggested that physiological needs, safety, and a sense of love and belonging must be established before “upper-level needs” such as esteem and self-actualization can be achieved (http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm). Following the same mindset, basic needs of developing countries such as food, water, health, shelter, and employment demand attention before the development of a complex infrastructure such as a national government system can occur.

*United Nations' headquarters and flags photo taken by United Nations Photo