Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Food irradiation

and the technology used, but each rotation takes only a few

minutes.

The FDA has approved the use of irradiation for wheat

and wheat powder, spices,

enzyme

preparations, vegetables,

pork, fruits, poultry, beef, lamb, and goat meat. In 2000,

the FDA also approved the use of irradiation to control

salmonella in fresh eggs.

Labeling guidelines introduced by the Codex Ali-

mentariusCommission, an international food standardsorga-

nization sponsored jointly by the United Nations Food and

Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Or-

ganization (WHO), requires that all irradiated food products

and ingredients be clearly labeled as such for consumers. Co-

dex also created the radura, a voluntary international symbol

that represents irradiation. In the United States, the food irra-

diation process is regulated jointly by FDA and the

U.S. De-

partment of Agriculture

(USDA). Facilities using radioac-

tive sources such as cobalt-60 are also regulated by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC. The FDA regu-

lates irradiation sources, levels, food types and packaging, as

well as required recordkeeping and labeling. Records must be

maintained and made available to FDA for one year beyond

the shelf-life of the irradiated food to a maximum of three

years. They must describe all aspects of the treatment and

foods that have been irradiated must be denoted with the ra-

dura symbol and by the statement “Treated with radiation”

or “Treated by irradiation". As of 2002, food irradiation is

allowed in some 50 countries and is endorsed by the World

Health Organization(WHO), and many other organizations.

New legislation entitled the “Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002” (the Farm Bill) passed in May

2002 may soften the food irradiation standards. The Farm

Bill calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and

FDA to implement a new regulatory program for irradiated

foods. The program will allow the food industry to instead

label irradiated food as “pasteurized” as long as they meet

appropriate food safety standards. As of the writing of this

entry, these new guidelines had not been implemented.

Food that has been treated with ionizing energy typi-

cally looks and tastes the same as non-irradiated food. Just

like a suitcase going through an airport x-ray machine, irradi-

ated food does not come into direct contact with a radiation

source and is not radioactive. However, depending on the

strength and duration of the irradiation process, some slight

changes in appearance and taste have been reported in some

foods after treatment. Some of the flavor changes may be

attributed to the generation of substances known as radiolytic

products in irradiated foods.

When food products are irradiated the energy displaces

electrons in the food and forms compounds called free radi-

cals. The free radicals react with other molecules to form new

stable compounds, termed radiolytic products.

Benzene

577

formaldehyde, and

hydrogen

peroxide are just a few of the

radiolytic products that may form during the irradiation pro-

cess. These substances are only present in minute amounts,

however, and the FDA reports that 90% of all radiolytic prod-

ucts from irradiation are also found naturally in food.

The chemical change that creates radiolytic products

also occurs in other food processing methods, such as can-

ning or cooking. However, about 10% of the radiolytic prod-

ucts found in irradiated food are unique to the irradiation

process and little is known about the effects that they may

have on human health. It should be noted, however, that

the World Health Organization, the American Medical As-

sociation, the American Dietetic Association, and a host of

other professional healthcare organizations endorse the use

of irradiation as a food safety measure.

Treating fruit and vegetables with irradiation can also

eliminate the need for chemical

fumigation

after harvesting.

Produce shelf life is extended by the reduction and elimina-

tion of organisms that cause spoilage. It also slows cell divi-

sion, thus delaying the ripening process, and in some types

of produce irradiation extends the shelf life for up to a week.

Advocates of irradiation claim that it is a safe alternative to

the use of fumigants, several of which have been banned in

the United States.

Nevertheless, irradiation removes some of the nutri-

ents from foods, particularly vitamins A, C, E, and the B-

Complex vitamins. Whether the extent of this

nutrient

loss

is significant enough to be harmful is debatable. Advocates

of irradiation say the loss is insignificant, and standard meth-

ods of cooking can destroy these same vitamins. However,

research suggests that cooking an irradiated food may further

increase the loss of nutrients.

Critics of irradiation also question the long-term safety

of consumption of irradiated food and their associated radio-

lytic products. They charge that the technology does nothing

to address the unsanitary food processing practices and inad-

equate inspection programs that breed foodborne pathogens.

Even if irradiation is 100% safe and beneficial there

are numerous environmental concerns. Many opponents of

irradiation cite the proliferation of radioactive material and

the environmental hazards. The mining and on-site pro-

cessing of radioactive materials are devastating to regional

ecosystems. There are also safety hazards associated with

the

transportation

of radioactive material, production of

isotopes, and disposal.

[Paula Ford-Martin and Debra Glidden]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Molins, Ricardo A. Food Irradiation: Principles and Applications. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, 2001.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Food policy

Stuart, Thorne, ed. Food Irradiation (Elsevier Applied Food Science Series).

New York: Elsevier, 1992.

ERIODICALS

Ennen, Steve. “Irradiation Plant Gets USDA Approval.” Food Processing

(March 2001): 90–2.

Louria, Donald. “Food Irradiation: Unresolved Issues.” Clinical Infectious

Diseases 33 (August 2001): 378–80.

Steele, J. H. “Food Irradiation: A Public Health Challenge for the 21st

Century.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 33 (August 2001): 376–7.

U.S. General Accounting Office. “Food Irradiation: Available Research

Indicates That Benefits Outweigh Risks.” GAO Report to Congressional

Requesters. GAO/RCED-00-217 (August 2000).

THER

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Irradi-

ation of Meat and Poultry Products. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.fsis.usda.-

gov/OA/topics/irrmenu.htm>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. “Irra-

diation of Meat Food Products; Final Rule.” Federal Register 64, no. 246

(December 23, 1999): 72150–66.

RGANIZATIONS

The Food Irradiation Website, <http://www.food-irradiation.com>

National Food Processors Association, 1350 I Street, NW Suite 300,

Washington, DC USA 20005 (202) 639-5900, Fax: (202) 639-5932,

Email: nfpa@nfpa-food.org, <http://www.nfpa-food.org>

Public Citizen, Critical Mass Energy & Environmental Program, 1600

20th St. NW, Washington, DC USA 20009 (202) 588-1000, Email:

CMEP@citizen.org, <http://www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad>

Food policy

Through a variety of agricultural, economic, and regulatory

programs which support or direct policies related to the

production and distribution of food, the United States gov-

ernment has a large influence on how agriculture business

is conducted. The government’s major impact on agriculture

is the setting of prices and mandates regarding how land can

be used by farmers that participate in government programs.

These policies can also have a large impact on the adoption

or use of alternative practices and technologies that may be

more efficient and sustainable in the world marketplace.

In the past, farm commodity programs have had a

large influence in the past on the kinds and amounts of

crops grown as well as on the choice of management practices

used to grow them. Prices under government commodity

programs have often been above world market prices which

meant that many farmers felt compelled to preserve or build

their farm commodity program base acres, since acreage

determines program eligibility and future income. These

programs strongly influenced land-use decisions on about

two-thirds of the harvested cropland in the United States.

Price and income support programs for major com-

modities also influence growers not in the programs. For

example, pork producers are not a part of a government

program, and in the past they have paid higher feed prices

578

because of high price supports on production of feed grains.

At other times, particularly after the Food Security Act of

1985, they benefited from policies resulting in lower food

costs. So as the government changes policy in one area,

there can be widespread indirect impacts in other areas. For

example, the federal dairy termination program, which ran

from 1985–1987 was designed to reduce overproduction of

milk. Those farmers who sold their milk cows and decided

to produce hay for local cash markets caused a steep decline

in the prices received by other established hay producers.

Federal policy evolved as a patchwork of individual

programs, each created to address individual problems.

There was not a coherent strategy to direct programs toward

a common set of goals. Many programs such as

soil conser-

vation

and export programs have had conflicting objectives,

but attempts have now been made in the most current farm

legislation to address some of these problems.

Government food policy has produced a wide variety

of results. The policy has not only affected commodity prices

and the level of output, but it has also shaped technological

change, encouraged uneconomical capital investments in

machinery and facilities, inflated the value of land, subsidized

crop production practices that have led to resource degrada-

tion (such as

soil erosion

and surface and

groundwater

pollution

), expanded the interstate highway system, fi-

nanced

irrigation

projects, and promoted farm commodity

exports. Together with other economic forces, government

policy has had a far-reaching structural influence on agricul-

ture, much of it unintended and unanticipated.

Federal commodity programs were put into place be-

ginning in the 1930s, primarily with the Agriculture Adjust-

ment Act of 1938. The purpose of these programs born out

of the Depression was primarily to protect crop prices and

farmer income which has been done by a number of programs

over the years. A variety of methods have been used including

setting prices, making direct payments to farmers, and subsi-

dizing exports. However, by the mid-1980s and early 1990s,

an increasing number of people felt that these programs

impeded movement toward alternative types of agriculture,

to the detriment of family farms and society in general.

Two components in particular were highlighted as

being problems: base acre requirements and cross-compli-

ance. All crop price and income support programs relied on

the concept of an acreage base planted with a given commod-

ity that would produce a predictable yield. Most of this

acreage was planted to maximize benefits and was based on

a five-year average. A farmer knew that if he/she reduced

their acres for a given crop, they would not only lose the

current year’s benefits, but would also lose future benefits.

Cross-compliance was instituted in the Food Security

Act of 1985. It was designed to control government pay-

ments and production by attaching financial penalties to the

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Food waste

expansion of program crop base acres. It served as an effective

financial barrier to diversification of crops by stipulating that

to receive any benefits from an established crop acreage base,

the farmer must not exceed his or her acreage base for any

other program crop. This had a profound impact on farmers

and crop growers since about 70% of the United States’

cropland acres were enrolled in the programs.

In addition to citing these problem areas, critics of food

policy programs argued that many farmers faced economic

penalties for adopting beneficial practices such as crop rota-

tion or strip cropping, practices that in general reduce soil

erosion and improve environmental quality. The economic

incentives built into commodity programs, for example, en-

couraged heavier use of

fertilizer

, pesticides, and irrigation.

These programs also encouraged surplus production, subsi-

dized inefficient use of inputs, and they resulted in increased

government expenditures. Critics argued that the rules asso-

ciated with these programs discouraged farmers from pursu-

ing alternative practices or crops, or technologies that might

have proved more effective in the long term or that were

more environmentally friendly.

Critics also contend that much of the research con-

ducted over the past 40 years has responded to the needs of

farmers operating under a set of economic and policy incen-

tives that encouraged high yields without regard to the long-

term environmental impacts. During the late 1980s and early

1990s, several

U.S. Department of Agriculture

research and

education programs were instituted to determine whether

current levels of production can be maintained with reduced

levels of fertilizers and pesticides, to examine more intensive

management practices, to increase understanding of biologi-

cal principles, and to improve profitability per unit of produc-

tion with less government support. As the impacts of the

alternative production systems on the

environment

are eval-

uated, it will be important to have policies in place that will

allow the farmer to easily adopt those practices that increase

efficiency and reduce impacts. In a farm bill passed in 1996

there are provisions that change these commodity programs.

Labeled the “right to farm provisions,” these allow farmers

to make decisions on what they grow and establish a phased

seven-year reduction in price supports.

Food quality and safety are major concerns addressed

as a part of federal policy. Programs addressing these con-

cerns are primarily designed to prevent health risks and acute

illnesses from chemical and microbial contaminants in food.

Supporters say that this has provided the country with the

safest food supply in the world. However, critics contend

that a number of regulations do not enhance quality or

safety and put farmers that use or would adopt alternative

agricultural practices at a disadvantage. Several examples can

be cited. Critics of government food policy point out that

until recently, meat grading standards awarded producers of

579

fatty beef which has been linked to the increased likelihood

of heart disease.

The use of pesticides provides another example. The

Environmental Protection Agency

establishes

pesticide

residual tolerance levels in food which are monitored for

compliance. For some types of risk,

cancer

in particular,

there is a great deal of uncertainty, and critics point out

which cosmetic standards that increase prices for fruits and

vegetables may encourage higher risks of disease among

consumers. Also, certain poultry slaughter practices can re-

sult in microbiological contamination. Of particular concern

is salmonella food

poisoning

which has become widespread.

Government food policy heavily influences on-farm

decision making. In some cases one part of the policy has

negative or unintended consequences for another policy or

segment of farmers. As we look to the future, the struggle

will be to continue to provide a coherent, coordinated policy.

The recent changes in policy will need to be evaluated from

the standpoint of sustainability and environmental impacts.

[James L. Anderson]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Agriculture and the Environment. The 1991 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S.

Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture, National Research Council.,

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.

Food waste

Waste food from residences, grocery stores, and food services

accounts for nearly seven percent of the

municipal solid

waste

stream. The per capita amount of food waste in

municipal

solid waste

has been declining since 1960 due

to increased use of

garbage

disposals and increased con-

sumption of processed foods. Food waste ground in garbage

disposals goes into sewer systems and thus ends up in

waste-

water

. Waste generated by the food processing industry is

considered to be industrial waste, and is not included in

municipal solid waste estimates.

Waste from the food processing industry includes:

vegetables and fruits unsuitable for canning or freezing; vege-

table, fruit, and meat trimmings; and pomace from juice

manufacturing. Vegetable and fruit processing waste is

sometimes used as animal feed and waste from meat and

seafood processing can be composted. Liquid waste from

juice manufacturing can be applied to cropland as a

soil

amendment. Much of the waste generated by all types of food

processing is wastewater due to such processes as washing,

peeling, blanching, and cooling. Some food industries recycle

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Food-borne diseases

wastewaters back into their processes, but there is potential

for more of this wastewater to be reused.

Grocery stores generate food waste in the form of

lettuce trimmings, excess foliage, unmarketable produce, and

meat trimmings. Waste from grocery stores located in rural

areas is often used as hog or cattle feed, whereas grocery

waste in urban areas is usually ground in garbage disposals.

There is potential for more urban grocery store waste to be

either used on farms or composted, but lack of storage space,

odor, and

pest

problems prevent most of this waste from

being recycled.

Restaurants and institutional cafeterias are the major

sources of food service industry waste. In addition to food

preparation wastes, they also generate large amounts of cook-

ing oil and grease waste, post-consumer waste (uneaten

food), and surplus waste. In some areas small amounts of

surplus waste is utilized by feeding programs, but most waste

generated by food services goes to landfills or into garbage

disposals.

Most food waste is generated by sources other than

households. However, a greater percentage of household

food waste is disposed of because there is a higher rate of

recycling

of industrial and commercial food waste. Only a

very small segment of households compost or otherwise recy-

cle their food wastes.

[Teresa C. Donkin]

ESOURCES

OOKS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste and Emergency Re-

sponse. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990

Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste and Emergency Re-

sponse. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992

Update (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, July 1992.

ERIODICALS

Youde, J., and B. Prenguber. “Classifying the Food Waste Stream.” Biocycle

32 (October 1991): 70–71.

Food-borne diseases

Food-borne diseases are illnesses caused when people con-

sume contaminated food or beverages. Contamination is

frequently caused by disease-causing

microbes

called patho-

gens. Other causes of food-borne diseases are poisonous

chemicals

or harmful substances in food and beverages.

There are so many different pathogens that more than 250

food-borne illnesses have been described, according to the

United States Centers for Disease Control and Preven-

tion(CDC). CDC estimated that food-borne pathogens

580

cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 5,000 deaths,

325,000 hospitalizations in the United States each year.

Most food-borne illnesses are infections caused by

bacteria, viruses, and

parasites

such as

Cryptosporidium

Harmful toxins cause food poisonings. Since there are so

many different types of food-borne illnesses, symptoms will

vary. However, some early symptoms are similar because the

microbe or toxin travels through the gastrointestinal tract.

The initial symptoms of food-borne diseases are nausea,

vomiting, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea.

According to CDC, the most common food-borne

viruses are caused by three bacteria and a group of viruses.

Campylobacter is a bacterium that lives in the intestines of

healthy birds. It is also found in raw poultry meat. An

infection is caused by eating undercooked chicken or food

contaminated by juices from raw chicken. The bacterial

pathogen

causes fever, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps.

Campylobacter is the primary cause of bacteria-related diar-

rhea illness throughout the world.

Salmonella is a bacterium that is prevalent in the intes-

tines of birds, mammals, and reptiles. The bacterium spreads

to humans through various foods. Salmonella causes the ill-

ness salmonellosis. Symptoms include fever, diarrhea, and

abdominal cramps. This illness can result in a life-threaten-

ing infection for a person who is in poor health or has a

weakened immune system.

E. coli O157:H7 is a bacterial pathogen that has a

reservoir

in cattle and similar animals. E. coli causes a

serious illness. People become ill after eating food or drinking

water that was contaminated with microscopic amounts of

cow feces, according to CDC. A person often experiences

severe and bloody diarrhea and painful abdominal cramps.

Hemolytic urine syndrome (HUS) occurs in 3–5% of E. coli

cases. This complication may occur several weeks after the

first symptoms. HUS symptoms include temporary

anemia

profuse bleeding, and kidney failure.

Food-borne illnesses are also caused by Calicivirus,

which is also known as the Norwalk-like

virus

. This group

of viruses is believed to spread from one person to another.

An infected health service worker preparing a salad or sand-

wich could contaminate the food. According to CDC, in-

fected fishermen contaminated oysters that they handled.

These viruses are characterized by severe gastrointestinal

illness. There is more vomiting than diarrhea, and the person

usually recovers in two days.

The types and causes of food-borne illnesses have

changed through the years. The pasteurization of milk, im-

proved

water quality

, and safer canning techniques led to

a reduction in the number of cases of common food-borne

illness like typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and

cholera

. Cause

of contemporary food-borne illnesses range from parasites

living in imported food to food-processing techniques. An

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Foot and mouth disease

outbreak of a diarrheal illness in 1996 and 1997 was attrib-

uted to Cyclsopora, a parasite that contaminated raspberries

grown in Guatemala. That led to 2,500 confirmed infection

cases in 21 states.

Food may be contaminated during processing. For

example, the meat contained in one hamburger may come

from hundreds of animals, according to CDC. An E. coli

outbreaks during the 1990s were linked to hamburgers pur-

chased at fast food restaurants.

Technology in the form of

food irradiation

may elim-

inate the pathogens that cause food-borne disease. Advocates

say that radiating food with gamma rays is effective and can

be done when the food is packaged. Opponents say the

process is dangerous and could produce the free radicals that

cause

cancer

CDC ranks “raw foods of animal origin” as the foods

most likely to be contaminated. This category includes meat,

poultry, raw eggs, raw shellfish, and unpasteurized milk.

Furthermore, raw fruit and vegetables could also pose a

health risk. Vegetables fertilized by manure can also be con-

taminated by the

fertilizer

. CDC said that some outbreaks

of food-borne illness were traced to unsanitary processing

procedure. Water quality was crucial when washing vegeta-

bles, as was chilling the produce after it was harvested.

Of particular concern are alfalfa sprouts and other

raw sprouts. These vegetables sprout in conditions that are

favorable to microbes. Sprouts are eaten raw, and the mi-

crobes can grow into a large number of pathogens.

CDC advises consumers to thoroughly cook meat,

poultry, and eggs. Produce should be washed. Leftovers

should be chilled promptly. CDC is part of the United States

Public Health Service

. It researches and monitors health

issues. Federal regulation of food safety is the responsibility

of agencies such as the

Food and Drug Administration

, the

United States Department of Agriculture, and the National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[Liz Swain]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Fox, Nichols. It Was Probably Something You Ate. New York: Penguin

Books, 1999.

Hubbert, William, et al. Food Safety and Quality Assurance. Ames, IA: Iowa

State University Press, 1996.

Satin, Morton. Food Alert! The Ultimate Sourcebook for Food Safety. New

York: Checkmark Books, 1999.

RGANIZATIONS

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta,

GA USA 30333 (404) 639-3311, Toll Free: (800) 311-3435, <http://

www.cdc.gov>

581

Foot and mouth disease

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), also called hoof-and-

mouth disease, is a highly contagious and economically dev-

astating viral disease of cattle, swine, and other cloven-

hoofed (split-toed) ruminants, including sheep, goats, and

deer. The disease is highly contagious, for nearly 100% of

exposed animals become infected, and it spreads rapidly

through susceptible populations. Although there is no cure

for FMD, it is seldom fatal, but it can kill very young animals.

The initial symptoms of the disease include fever and

blister-like lesions (vesicles). The vesicles rupture into ero-

sions on the tongue, in the mouth, on the teats, and between

the hooves. Vesicles that rupture

discharge

clear or cloudy

fluid and leave raw, eroded areas with ragged fragments

of loose tissue. Erosions in the mouth result in excessive

production of sticky, foamy, stringy saliva, which is a charac-

teristic of FMD. Another characteristic symptom is lameness

with reluctance to move. Other possible symptoms and ef-

fects of FMD include elevated temperatures in the early

stages of the disease for two to three days, abortion, low

conception rates, rapid weight loss, and drop in milk produc-

tion. FMD lasts for two to three weeks, with most animals

recovering within six months. However, it can leave some

animals debilitated, thus causing severe losses in the produc-

tion of meat and milk. Even cows that have recovered seldom

produce milk at their original rates. Animals grown for meat

do not usually regain lost weight for many months. FMD

can also lead to myocarditis, which is an inflammation of

the muscular walls of the heart, and death, especially in

newborn animals. Infected animals can spread the disease

throughout their lives so the only way to stop an outbreak

is to destroy the animals.

The

virus

that causes the disease survives in lymph

nodes and bone marrow at neutral

. There are at least

seven types and many subtypes of the FMD virus. The virus

persists in contaminated fodder and in the

environment

for up to one month, depending on the temperature and

pH. FMD thrives in dark, damp places, like barns, and can

be destroyed with heat, sunlight, and disinfectants.

The disease is not likely to affect humans, either di-

rectly or indirectly through eating meat from an infected

animal, but humans can spread the virus to animals. FMD

can remain in human nasal passages for at up to 28 hours.

FMD viruses can be spread by other animals and materials

to susceptible animals. The viruses can also be carried for

several miles on the wind if environmental conditions are

appropriate for virus survival. Specifically, an outbreak can

occur when:

people wearing contaminated clothes or footwear or using

contaminated equipment pass the virus to susceptible an-

imals

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Foot and mouth disease

animals carrying the virus are introduced into susceptible

herds

contaminated facilities are used to hold susceptible animals

contaminated vehicles are used to move susceptible animals

raw or improperly cooked

garbage

containing infected

meat or animal products is fed to susceptible animals

susceptible animals are exposed to contaminated hay, feed-

stuffs, or hides

susceptible animals drink contaminated water

a susceptible cow is inseminated by semen from an in-

fected bull

Widespread throughout the world, FMD has been

identified in Africa, South America, Middle East, Asia, and

parts of Europe. North America, Central America,

Austra-

lia

, New Zealand, Chile, and some European countries are

considered to be free of FMD. The United States has been

free of FMD since 1929, when the last of nine outbreaks

that occurred during the nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries was eradicated.

In 2001, an FMD outbreak was confirmed in the

United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, the Republic of

Ireland, Argentina, and Uruguay. Officials in the United

Kingdom detected 2,030 cases of FMD, slaughtered almost

four million animals, and took seven months to control the

outbreak. The economic losses were estimated to be in the

billions of pounds, and tourism in the affected countries was

adversely affected. The outbreak was detected on February

20, 2001; no new cases were reported after September 30,

2001; on January 15, 2002, the British government declared

the FMD outbreak to be over. The outbreak appeared to

have started in a pig finishing unit in Northumberland,

which was licensed to feed processed waste food. The disease

appeared to have spread through two routes: through in-

fected pigs who were sent to a slaughterhouse and through

windborne spread to sheep on a nearby farm. These sheep

entered the marketing chain and were sold in markets and

through dealers, where they infected other sheep, people,

and vehicles, spreading the FMD virus throughout England,

Wales, southern Scotland. As the outbreak continued, cases

were detected in other European countries.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) has developed a on-going comprehensive preven-

tion program to protect American agriculture from FMD.

APHIS continuously monitors for FMD cases worldwide.

When FMD outbreaks are identified, APHIS initiates regu-

lations that prohibit importation of live ruminants and swine

and many animal products from the affected countries. In the

2001 outbreak in some

European Union

member countries,

APHIS temporarily restricted importation of live ruminants

and swine and their products from all European Union mem-

582

ber states. APHIS officials are on duty at all United States

land and maritime ports-of-entry to ensure that passengers,

luggage, cargo, and mail are checked for prohibited agricul-

tural products or other materials that could carry FMD. The

USDA Beagle Brigade, dogs trained to sniff out prohibited

meat products and other contraband items, are also on duty

at airports to check incoming flights and passengers.

The cooperation of private citizens is a crucial compo-

nent of the protection program. APHIS prevents travelers

entering the United States from bringing any agricultural

products that could spread FMD and other harmful agricul-

tural pests and diseases. Therefore passengers must declare

all food items and other materials of plant or animal origin

that they are carrying. Prohibited agricultural products that

are found are confiscated and destroyed. Passengers must

also report any visits to farms or livestock facilities. Failure

to declare any items may result in delays and fines up to

$1,000. Individuals traveling from countries that have been

designated as FMD-affected must have shoes disinfected if

they have visited farms, ranches, or other high risk areas,

such as zoos, circuses, fairs, and other facilities and events

where livestock and animals are exhibited.

APHIS recommends that travelers should shower and

shampoo prior to and again after returning to the United

States from an FMD-affected country. They should also

launder or dry clean clothes before returning to the United

States. Full-strength vinegar can be used by passengers to

disinfect glasses, jewelry, watches, belts, hats, cell phones,

hearing aids, camera bags, backpacks, and purses. If travelers

had visited a farm or had any contact with livestock on their

trip, they should avoid contact with livestock,

zoo

animals,

wildlife

for five days after their return. Although dogs

and cats cannot become infected with FMD, their feet, fur,

and bedding should be cleaned of excessive dirt or mud.

Pet bedding should not contain straw, hay, or other plant

materials. The pet should be bathed as soon as it reaches

its final destination and be kept away from all livestock for

at least five days after entering the United States.

In the United States, animal producers and private

veterinarians also monitor domestic livestock for symptoms

of FMD. Their surveillance activities are supplemented with

the work of 450 specially trained animal disease diagnosti-

cians from federal, state, and military agencies. These diag-

nosticians are responsible for collecting and analyzing sam-

ples from animals suspected of FMD infection. If an

outbreak were confirmed, APHIS would quickly try to iden-

tify infected and exposed animals, establish and maintain

quarantines, destroy all infected and exposed animals using

humane euthanization procedures as quickly as possible, and

dispose of the carcasses by an approved method such as

incineration

or burial. After cleaning and disaffection of

facilities where the infected animals were housed, the facility

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Stephen Alfred Forbes

would be left vacant for several weeks. After this period, a

few susceptible animals would be placed in the facility and

observed for signs of FMD. A large area around the facility

would be quarantined, where animal and human movement

would be restricted or prohibited. In some cases, all suscepti-

ble animals within a two-mile radius would be also euthan-

ized and disposed of properly by incineration or burial. In

addition, APHIS has developed plans to pay affected pro-

ducers the fair market value of their animals.

APHIS would consider vaccinating animals against

FMD to enhance other eradication activities as well as to

prevent spread to disease-free areas. However, vaccinated

animals may still become infected and serve as a

reservoir

for the disease, even though they do not develop the disease

symptoms themselves. Also for continued protective immu-

nity, the vaccines must be given every few months.

APHIS is working with the U.S. Armed Forces to

ensure that military vehicles and equipment are cleaned and

disinfected before returning to the United States.

Preventing FMD from infecting and becoming estab-

lished in an FMD-free area requires constant vigilance and

a well-developed, thorough plan to control and eradicate

any cases that might occur.

[Judith L. Sims]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Haynes, N. Bruce, and Robert F. Kahrs. Keeping Livestock Healthy. North

Adams, MA: Storey Communications, Inc., 2001.

THER

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-

ture. Foot-and-Mouth Disease. [cited June 2002]. <http://www.aphis.usda.-

gov/oa/fmd>.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom.”

Origin of the UK Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in 2001. June 2002

[cited June 2002].

“History of the World’s Worst Ever Foot and Mouth Epidemic: United

Kingdom 2001.” [cited June 2002]. <http://www.pighealth.com/fmdout-

breaks.htm>.

Stephen Alfred Forbes (1844 – 1930)

American entomologist and naturalist

Stephen Alfred Forbes, an entomologist and naturalist, was

the son of Isaac Sawyer and Agnes (Van Hoesen) Forbes.

Forbes was born at Silver Creek, Ill. His father was a farmer,

and died when Stephen was 10 years old. An older brother,

Henry, then 21 years old, had been independent since he

was 14, working his way toward a college education, but on

his father’s death he abandoned his career, took the burden

of his father’s family on his shoulders, and supported and

583

educated the children. He taught Stephen to read French,

sent him to Beloit to prepare for college; and when the Civil

War came he sold the farm and gave the proceeds (after the

mortgage was paid) to his mother and sister for their support.

Both brothers then joined the 7th Illinois Cavalry, Henry

having retained enough money to buy horses for both. Ste-

phen, enlisting at 17, was rapidly promoted, and at 20 be-

came a captain in the regiment of which his brother ulti-

mately became colonel. In 1862, while carrying dispatches,

he was captured and held in a Confederate prison for four

months. After liberation and three months in the hospital

recuperating, he rejoined his regiment and served until the

end of the war. He had learned to read Italian and Spanish

in addition to French, before the war, and studied Greek

while in prison.

He was a born naturalist. His farm life as a boy and

his open-air life in the army intensified his interest in

nature

After the close of the war, he began at once the study of

medicine, entering the Rush Medical College where he

nearly completed the course. His biographers have not as

yet given the reason for the radical change in his plans which

caused him to abandon medicine at this late stage in his

education; but the writer has been told by his son, that it

was “because of a series of incidents having to do mainly

with operations without the use of anesthetics which con-

vinced him that he was not temperamentally adapted to

medical practice.” His scientific interests, however, had been

thoroughly aroused, and for several years while he taught

school in southern Illinois, he carried on studies in natural

history. In 1872 through the interest and influence of Dr.

George Vasey, the well-known botanist, he was made curator

of the Museum of State Natural History at Normal, Ill.,

and three years later was made instructor in zoology at the

normal school. In 1877 the Illinois State Museum was estab-

lished at Springfield; and the museum at Normal, becoming

the property of the state, was made the Illinois State Labora-

tory of Natural History. Forbes was made its director. During

these years he had been publishing the results of his re-

searches rather extensively, and had gone into a most inter-

esting and important line of investigation, namely the food

of birds and fishes. He studied intensively the food of the

different

species

of fish inhabiting Illinois waters and the

food of the different birds. This study, of course, kept him

close to entomology, and in 1884 he was appointed professor

of zoology and entomology in the University of Illinois. The

State Laboratory of Natural History was transferred to the

university and in 1917 was renamed the Illinois Natural

History Survey. He retained his position as chief, and held

it up to the time of his death. He was appointed state

entomologist in 1882 and served until 1917, when the posi-

tion was merged in the survey. He retired from his teaching

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Francois-Alphonse Forel

position as an emeritus professor in 1921. He served as dean

of the College of Science of the university from 1888 to 1905.

All through his career Forbes had been publishing his

writings actively. As early as 1895, Samuel Henshaw, in his

Bibliography of the more Important Contributions to American

Economic Entomology, listed 101 titles. It is said that his

bibliography runs to more than 500 titles. And the range of

these titles is extraordinary; they include papers on entomol-

ogy, ornithology,

limnology

, ichthyology,

ecology

, and

other phases of biology. All of his work was characterized

by remarkable originality and depth of thought. Forbes was

the first writer and teacher in America to stress the study

of ecology, and thus began a movement which has gained

great headway. He published 18 annual entomological re-

ports, all of which have been models. He was the first and

leading worker in America on hydrobiology. He studied the

fresh-water organisms of the inland waters and was the first

scientist to write on the

fauna

of the

Great Lakes

. His

work on the food of fishes was pioneer work and has been

of very great practical value. Forbes was a charter member

of the American Association of Economic Entomologists

and served twice as its president. He was also a charter

member of the Illinois Academy of Science; a member of

the

National Academy of Sciences

and of the American

Philosophical Society; and in 1928 was made an honorary

member of the Fourth International Congress of Entomol-

ogy. Indiana University gave him the degree of Ph.D., in

1884, on examination and presentation of a thesis. He mar-

ried, on December 25, 1873, Clara Shaw Gaston, whose

death preceded his by only six months. A son, Dr. Ernest

B. Forbes of State College, Pa., and three daughters sur-

vived him.

[Leland Ossian Howard]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Croker, Robert A. Stephen Forbes and the Rise of American Ecology. Washing-

ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001.

ERIODICALS

Dictionary of American Biography. Base set. American Council of Learned

Societies, 1928–1936. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farm-

ington Hills, MI: The Gale Group. 2002.

Schneider, Daniel W. “Local Knowledge, Environmental Politics, and the

Founding of Ecology in the United States: Stephen Forbes and ’The Lake

as a Microcosm’ 1887.” Isis 91, no. 4 (December 2000): 681–705.

Francois-Alphonse Forel (1841 – 1912)

Swiss professor of medicine

Francois-Alphonse Forel created a legacy by spending a

lifetime studying a lake near which he lived. As the recog-

584

nized founder of the science of the study of lakes,

limnology

Forel meticulously observed Lake Geneva. His observations

not only contributed directly to the modern-day ecological

and environmental direction. He helped to uncover the mys-

teries of the seiche—movements caused by wind or air pres-

sure and that occur in lakes.

Forel was born in Morges, Switzerland on February

2, 1841. As a professor of anatomy and physiology at the

University of Geneva, (also known as Lake Le man) he spent

most of his time investigating the life and movement of the

lake near his home, world-famous Lake Geneva. To that

purpose he created the word “limnology” referring to the

study of lakes. On April 2, 1869, he found a nematode

worm 40 meters down in the lake. That discovery was the

beginning of his lifelong work. Before publishing his first

major work, Forel recruited help in describing the types of

algae and invertebrate animals he had found. A preliminary

study he published in 1874, La Faune Profonde des Lacs

Suisses, (The Bottom Fauna of Swiss Lakes), provided the

basis for his later work.

When his book on the lake, Le Le man, was published

Forel himself noted there that, “This book is called Limno-

logical Monography. I have to explain this new word and

apologize, if it would be necessary. The aim of my description

is a part of the Earth, that’s geography. But the geography

of the ocean is called oceanography. But a lake, as big it is,

is by not means an ocean; its limited area give it a special

characteristic, which is very different of the one of the endless

ocean. I had to find a more modest word to describe my

work, like the word limnography. But, because a limnograph

is a tool to measure the water level of lakes, I had to fabricate

the new word

limnology

. The limnology is in fact the

oceanography of the lakes.” A second book, Handbuch der

Seenkunde (Handbook of Lake Studies) also became a stan-

dard work in the study of lakes. According to Ayer Company

Publishers—the publisher that reprinted the work in 1978—

Forel realized that his original work was an encyclopedia

which might not hold the interest of students. He published

his handbook to be used as the first textbook for the study

of limnology.

Forel died on August 7, 1912. In 1970 his work was

honored when the F.-A. Forel Institute was founded in

his honor by Professor Jean-Pierr Vernet who directed the

laboratory until 1995. The institute became a part of the

Earth Sciences department of the University of Geneva in

1980, and plays a vital role in the International Commission

for the Protection of Lake Geneva’s water (CIPEL). The

active research that occurs through the institute includes

limnology, environmental geochemistry,

ecotoxicology

and quaternary geology. It is also the home of the secretariat

of the Center of Earth and Environmental Sciences Studies

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Dave Foreman

(CESNE) and the Diplome d’etudes en sciences naturelles

de l’environment (DESNE).

One of the other ways in which Forel has been honored

is the use of his name added to a device known as the

Forel-

Ule Color Scale.

According to the Marine Educatin and

Research Program at Occidental College, the scale is ued

in marine studies, and consists of a series of numbered tubes

(from 1 to 22) that contain various shades of colored fluids

that range from blue (lowest numbers) through green, yellow,

brown, and red (highest numbers).

[Jane Spear]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Forel, Francois-Alphonse. Le Leman. (Reprint) Geneva: Slatkine Re-

prints, 1969.

Forel, Francois-Alphonse. La Faune Profonde des Lacs Suisse. (Reprint)

Manchester, NH: Ayer Company Publishers.

Forel, Francois-Alphonse. Handbuch der Seenkunde. (Reprint) Manchester,

NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 1978.

ERIODICALS

Korgen, Ben. The Seiche Newsletter. ldquo;Bonanza for Lake Superior,rdquo;

February 2000.

THER

F/-A. Forel Institute. “Dr. F.-A. Forel.” History. [cited July 2002]. <http://

www.unige.ch/forel>.

Marine Education and Research Program, Occidental College. “Water

Cooler.” Equipment and Methodology. 2002 [cited July 2002]. <http://tethy-

s.oxy.edu/MERP>.

RGANIZATIONS

F.-A. Forel Institute, 10 route de Suise, Geneva, Switzerland +4122-

950-92-10, Fax: +4122-755-13-82, Email: wyss@terre.unige.ch,

www.unige.ch/forel

Dave Foreman (1946 – )

American radical environmental activist

Dave Foreman is a self-described radical environmentalist,

Co-founder of

Earth First!

, and a leading defender of “mon-

key-wrenching” as a direct-action tactic to slow or stop

strip

mining

, clear-cut

logging

of old-growth forests, the dam-

ming of wild rivers, and other environmentally destructive

practices.

The son of a United States Air Force employee, Fore-

man traveled widely while growing up. In college he chaired

the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and worked

in the 1964 presidential election campaign of Senator Barry

Goldwater. In the 1970s Foreman was a conservative Repub-

lican and moderate environmentalist who worked for the

Wilderness Society

in Washington, D.C. He came to be-

lieve that the

petrochemical

, logging, and mining interests

585

were “extremists” in their pursuit of profit, and that govern-

ment agencies—the

Forest Service

, the

Bureau of Land

Management

, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture

, and

others—were “gutless” and unwilling or unable to stand up

to wealthy and powerful interests intent upon profiting from

the destruction of American

wilderness

. Well-meaning

moderate organizations like the

Sierra Club

Friends of the

Earth

, and the Wilderness Society were, with few exceptions,

powerless to prevent the continuing destruction. What was

needed, Foreman reasoned, was an immoderate and unre-

spectable band of radical environmentalists like those de-

picted in Edward Abbey’s novel The Monkey Wrench Gang

(1975) to take direct action against anyone who would de-

stroy the wilderness in the name of “development.” With

several like-minded friends, Foreman founded Earth First!,

whose motto is “No compromise in defense of Mother

Earth.”

From the beginning, Earth First! was unlike any

other radical group. It did not issue manifestoes or publish

position papers; it had “no officers, no bylaws or constitu-

tion, no incorporation, no tax status; just a collection of

women and men committed to the Earth.” Earth First!,

Foreman wrote, “would be big enough to contain street

poets and cowboy bar bouncers, agnostics and pagans,

vegetarians and raw steak eaters, pacifists and those who

think that turning the other cheek is a good way to

get a sore face.” Its weapons would include “monkey-

wrenching,” civil disobedience, music, “media stunts [to

hold] the villains up to ridicule,” and self-deprecating

humor: “Radicals frequently verge toward a righteous

seriousness. But we felt that if we couldn’t laugh at

ourselves we would be merely another bunch of dangerous

fanatics who should be locked up (like the oil companies).

Not only does humor preserve individual and group sanity,

it retards hubris, a major cause of environmental rape,

and it is also an effective weapon.” But besides humor,

Foreman called for “fire, passion, courage, and emotional-

ism...We [environmentalists] have been too reasonable,

too calm, too understanding. It’s time to get angry, to

cry, to let rage flow at what the human

cancer

is doing

to Mother Earth.”

In 1987 Foreman published Ecodefense: A Field Guide

to Monkeywrenching, in which he described in detail the

tools and techniques of environmental sabotage or

monkey-

wrenching

. These techniques included “spiking” old-

growth

redwoods

and Douglas firs to prevent loggers from

felling them; “munching” logging roads with nails; sabotag-

ing bulldozers and other earth-moving equipment; pulling

up surveyors’ stakes; and toppling high-voltage power lines.

These tactics, Foreman said, were aimed at property, not at

people. But critics quickly charged that loggers’ lives and

jobs were endangered by tree-spiking and other techniques

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974)

that could turn deadly. Moderate or mainstream environ-

mental organizations joined in condemning the confronta-

tional tactics favored by Foreman and Earth First!

In his autobiography Confessions of an Eco-Warrior

(1991) Foreman defends monkey-wrenching as an unfortu-

nate tactical necessity that has achieved its primary purpose

of attracting the attention of the American people and the

media to the destruction of the nation’s remaining wilder-

ness. It also attracted the attention of the FBI, whose agents

arrested Foreman at his home in 1989 for allegedly financing

and encouraging ecoteurs (ecological saboteurs) to topple

high-voltage power poles. Foreman was put on trial to face

felony charges, which he denied. The charges were ques-

tioned when it was disclosed that an FBI informant had

infiltrated Earth First! with the intention of framing Fore-

man and discrediting the organization. In a plea bargain,

Foreman pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and received a

suspended sentence.

Foreman left Earth First! to found and direct The

Wildlands Project in Tucson, Arizona. He continues to

lecture and write about the protection of the wilderness.

[Terence Ball]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Foreman, D. Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,

1991.

———. “Earth First!” In Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader, edited by T. Ball

and R. Dagger. New York: Harper-Collins, 1991.

———, and B. Haywood. Ecodefense: A Guide to Monkeywrenching. Tucson:

Ned Ludd Books, 1985.

List, P. C., ed. Radical Environmentalism: Philosophy and Tactics. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth, 1993.

Manes, C. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of

Civilization. Boston: Little, Brown, 1990.

Scarce, R. Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Move-

ment. Chicago: Noble Press, 1990.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act (1974)

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act (RPA) was passed in response to the growing tension

between the timber industry and environmentalists in the

late 1960s and the early 1970s. These tensions can be traced

to increased controversy over and restrictions on timber har-

vesting on the national forests, due especially to

wilderness

designations and study areas and

clear-cutting

. These envi-

ronmental restrictions, coupled with a dramatic increase in

the price of timber in 1969, made Congress receptive to

timber industry demands for a steadier supply of timber.

Numerous bills addressing timber supply were introduced

586

and debated in Congress, but none passed due to strong

environmental pressure. A task force appointed by President

Richard Nixon, the President’s Panel on Timber and the

Environment, delivered its recommendations in 1973, but

these were geared toward dramatically increased harvests

from the national forests, and hence were also unacceptable

to environmentalists.

One aspect of the various proposals that proved to

be acceptable to all interested parties—the timber industry,

environmentalists, and the Forest Service—was increased

long-range resource planning. Senator Hubert Humphrey

of Minnesota drafted a bill creating such a program and

helped guide it to passage in Congress. RPA planning is

based on a two-stage process, with a document accompa-

nying each stage. The first stage is called the Assessment,

which is an inventory of the nation’s forest and range re-

sources (public and private). The second stage, which is

based on the Assessment, is referred to as the Program. Based

on the completed inventory, the

Forest Service

provides a

plan for the use and development of the available resources.

The Assessment is to be done every 10 years. A Program based

on the Assessment will be completed every five years. This

planning was to be done by interdisciplinary teams and to

incorporate widespread public involvement.

The RPA was quite popular with the Forest Service

since the plans generated through the process gave the agency

a solid foundation to base its budget requests on, increasing

the likelihood of increased funding. This has proved to be

successful, as the Forest Service budget increased dramati-

cally in 1977, and the agency fared much better than other

resource agencies in the late twentieth century.

The RPA was amended by the

National Forest Man-

agement Act

of 1976. Based on this law, in addition to

the broad national planning mandated in the 1974 law, an

Assessment and Program was required for each unit of the

national forest

system. This has allowed the Forest Service

to use the plans to help shield itself from criticism. Since

these plans address all uses of the forests, and make budget

recommendations for these uses, if Congress does not fund

these recommendations, the Forest Service can point to

Congress as the culprit. However, the plans have also been

more visible targets for interest group criticism.

Overall, the RPA has met with mixed results. The

Forest Service has received increased funds and the planning

process has been expanded to each national forest unit, but

planning at such a scale is a difficult task. The act has also

led to increased controversy and to increased bureaucracy.

Perhaps most importantly, planning cannot solve a problem

based on conflicting values, commodity use versus forest

preservation, which is at the heart of

forest management

policy. See also Old-growth forest

[Christopher McGrory Klyza]