Nexus magazine Autumn Edition 2015

13 2015 Autumn

no

ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF AGRI-BUSINESS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

YOU CAN’T REAP WHAT YOU CANT SOW

The Seed Industry, Agri-business and Sustainable Food / 20

OCEAN DEPLETION The Current State of our Oceans / 28

ALUMNI: FINANCE Amsterdam and London / 10

TED TALK The Rule of Law in Afghanistan / 46 1

COLOPHON

NEXUS MAGAZINE AUTUMN 2015/2016 Date of Publication 23 November 2015

Nexus

Founder Nexus Magazine Gemma Torras Vives

Graphic Design

Nathalie Bienfait Christian Skrivervik

Nexus Student Association nexus@rug.nl

Cover Photo

The Nexus Magazine Editorial Team 20152016

Logo

Nathalie Bienfait (Editor in Chief) Mihaela Astinova (Secretary) Christian Skrivervik Eve Aycock Kata Magyar Kylie McKenzie Morrell

Contact us at:

Sol Gustavsson

RE_Oslo

Authors

Nathalie Bienfait / Shazana Rohr / Christian Skivervik / Lianne van Aagten / Victoria Pelishatska / Aina De Guia Erikson / Eve Aycock / Kylie Mckenzie Morrell / Cameron Whitford / Teodora Angelevska / Jan Sievers / Mihaela Astinova

magzinecommittee.nexus@gmail.com

)

The Nexus Magazine Committee independently obtained and organized the content of this magazine and is responsible for the publication of the Nexus Magazine. The opinions and ideas expressed by authors of articles in this magazine are solely the opinions and ideas of those authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions and ideas of this magazine or its editors or publishers.

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

) 2

Table of Contents 4

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

6

INTRODUCING Shazana Rohr: the First Year Representative

7

SCHEDULE

Upcoming Nexus Events

8

PRESENTING

NGO: Shipbreaking Platform

10

ALUMNI

Adventures in Amsterdam and London

14

THEME: ANIMAL AGRICULTURE Themed articles

42

DEBATE

Cultured meat: would you eat it?

44

TED TALK

Kimberley Motley: “This is how I defend the rule of law”

46

BIBLIGRAPHY 3

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Animal Agriculture Dear readers, It is with great pleasure that we can present to you the Autumn Edition of the Nexus Magazine 2015. Our theme this issue is “Animal Agriculture and its Effects on the Environment”. We have thought long and hard about this issue, it being a very controversial and fraught topic for everyone who talks about it; the reason for this controversiality is that it, as has been brought to our attention via several media including the documentary ‘Cowspiracy’ which is full explored on page 16, animal agriculture is the one of the most harmful things for the environment, exceeding fossil fuels, the transport and energy industries combined. You may be surprised to hear this information, I know I certainly was when watching Cowspiracy and when conducting my own further research. And this is the crux of the issue that this magazine attempts to address: it is contended that the animal agricultural industry as a whole has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire world and we have not been effectively informed as to what is really be the best way to improve the growing threat to the environment. The logical conclusion to Cowspiracy and to the issues addressed in the articles in this magazine is that we, as the biggest consumers of meat in the

world, must be prepared to drastically reduce the amount of meat that we consume for the sake of the environment.

This point leads to the next problem that the articles in the magazine wish to address: the reason that we do not know about this issue; the reason that every single prominent environmental organisation in the world is not talking about this issue is very simple: to tell people that what they eat is ‘wrong’ boils down to an attack on who people are. The phrase “you are what you eat” is particularly relevant in this situation - food reflects culture, personality and your autonomous choice over with what you choose to fuel your body.

When we are told to give up such a significant part of our diet, we feel under attack; as though our choice is being limited, our culture undermined, and our personalities compromised. I wish to express that I completely understand the arguments against eating less meat, among others, the fact that vegans the world-over are seen as agenda-pushing hippies who advocate their diet as manifesting a moral highground over the rest of us meat-eating mortals. That is not the tone with which I wish you, as our readers, to take the mesNEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

4

sage of this magazine. Instead of trying to convince you, we are trying to inform you of this highly important and topical issue (in preparation for the environmental conference in Paris from the end of November) and enable you to make more informed decisions about what you eat in the future.

Enabling you to reach this goal, we have many fascinating articles in this issue of the Magazine: I have written an article further explaining the documentary Cowspiracy, quoting their statistics and having a deeper look into the arguments for and against a plant-based diet. Aina’s article about seeds, she discusses this very potent issue and how international laws on intellectual property are enabling big business is involved in the reduction in the quality of our seeds by pushing for high yield instead of relying on seeds and plants which have been developed by farmers over several hundred years and which are more suited to the micro-climate in which they are, therefore making resistant to diseases in that area. In addition, Aina mentions the effect that such a problem in seeds affects the nutritiousness of the food produced as well as the need for provision to be made to protect the rights of farmers who feel the economic effects of the power of agribusinesses.

tion of this little considered area of the environment.

Kylie on the other hand turns our eyes towards the oceans, giving us an in-depth insight into the ways in which over-fishing is leaving our oceans tragically empty. She also, as a diving instructor, gives us a personal view on how dramatically the quantity and size of fish she sees now has reduced in just the 5 years she has been working. In addition, she brings to our attention such phenomena as ‘ghost fishing’, fishing with cyanide and explosives, as well as addressing the problems of fish farming and of dubiously trustworthy labelling.

In other themed pieces, we have a debate section in which it is discussed whether cultured meat could be the answer to our sustainable meat problem as well as a personal journey from Alvaro who tells us what it was like for him to take the ’30-Day Vegan Challenge’ which is advocated at the end of Cowspiracy. Finally Kylie adds a refreshing TED talk at the end about … (to be decided).

I really hope you enjoy this issue of the Nexus Magazine, and we would be very interested to hear feedback and your opinion on this (as I have already mentioned) very controversial topic. If you feel as Eve has written for us about the “Ploy of Soy” - an ar- though the topic we have chosen is inappropriate for ticle which allows us to see that soy, quite apart from any reason, we would invite you to contact us and being the main ingredient for tofu, tempeh and other, give reasons for your feelings so that we can publish slightly unfamiliar foods, is a major indirect ingredi- them in the next edition of the Nexus Magazine. ent of our meat and dairy products, being the one of the main ways of feeding cows, pigs and chickens. In Kind regards, addition, Eve’s article addresses the issue of rainforest deforestation in order to provide land to grow the soy beans to feed livestock. Her article ends with a look Nathalie Bienfait - Editor in Chief. to the future and highlights the need for more regula5

GETTING TO KNOW THE FIRST YEAR REPRESENTATIVE:

SHAZANA ROHR TEXT: SHAZANA ROHR / PHOTO: SHAZANA ROHR

Where are you from?

I grew up in Bremen, a hanseatic city in northwestern Germany. Bremen is a beautiful city and a major cultural hub in northern Germany. The city is home to dozens of galleries and museum probably the source of my interest in history and art history. I also feel enormously blessed to live in the city in which the Hachez chocolate company has its headquarters (Unfortunately Hachez isn’t vegan, however I highly recommend it).

Why did you come to Groningen?

One of my favourite high school teachers organized a trip to the University of Groningen about two years ago and I immediately fell in love with the atmosphere in the university and the city.. However, my main reason to study here is that the Bachelor of European and International Law entails many topics in which I am highly interested and unites people of different nationalities from all over the world. I have always considered cultural exchange as something very enriching and believe that this LLB, as well as the city of Groningen, provide the best environment for such experiences.

What about your Dutch?

At the moment my Dutch suffices to order in bars, restaurants and to have tiny conversations with the girl at the bakery shop. I started giving my German a certain Dutch twist (basically the hard ‘g’), which turned out to be a very effective strategy. There were already quite some situations in which people as-

sumed I’m Dutch, just because I added a super hard ‘g’ to the German words I am clearly more familiar with. Although I haven’t had the chance to properly learn the language yet, I am very keen on doing so in future, and am sure that my two wonderful Dutch housemates will help me improve my vocabulary.

Why did you want to apply to be the firstyear representative?

I have been my former school’s representative and the board member and representative of my hometown’s Youth Parliament. For as long as I can remember, being active and involved in an association or organization has not only brought gainful experiences to me, but also introduced me to the most wonderful people and – even though it sounds a bit cheesy - made me the person I am today. For me, the position as First Year Representative is very diverse and the perfect opportunity to continue with my passion of representing people who share the same interests as me.

What other things do you think are important for us to know about you?

That I’m a very creative person. Besides my very uncommon wish of becoming a lawyer as a little girl, I always dreamt of working in an art gallery or as a writer. During my time as school representative I initiated a working group for students that are interested in literature and creative writing and supervised several art events in my hometown’s gallery.

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

6

UPCOMING NEXUS EVENTS SCHEDULE

November Current Affairs Debate and Drinks Masters Event*

16 23 December

1

Nexus Block Drinks*

7

Mocktrial and rehearsal*

15 *Items with an asterix are still subject to review at the discretion of committees*

7

Lisa-Nexus-Vintres Christmas Party

Text: Nicola Mulinaris. Nicola graduated the LLM International Economic and Business Law Programme in 2014. During his time in Groningen, he was a member of the Nexus LLM Committee and photographer for the Nexus Magazine. After interning at the NGO Shipbreaking Platform and a brief working experience with a Brussels-based waste federation, Nicola returned to the Platform where he now works as Communications and Legal Advisor.

The NGO Shipbreaking Platform is a coalition of environmental, human, and labour rights organisations. In 2005, it was realised by some of the few NGOs working on the shipbreaking issue that a broader base of support both geographically and in orientation was needed to challenge the powerful shipping industry, which is not used to being held accountable for its substandard practices. Due to increased political momentum, in part generated by the Platform itself, the coalition quickly evolved from being a European platform to a global one, including NGOs based in the largest shipbreaking countries - India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

The overarching goal of the Platform is to prevent toxic end-of-life ships from being beached in developing countries. The majority of the vessels sold for breaking today are simply run up on the tidal shores of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In 2014, 1.026 ocean ships reached the end of their service life and were broken down to recover steel. Yet, only a fraction was handled in a safe, sustainable manner.

More than 70% of all end-of-life ships ended up in South Asia, where unscrupulous shipbreaking companies exploit minimal enforcement of environmental and safety rules to maximize profits. Indeed, the beaching practice is the source of extremely severe pollution, dangerous working conditions, exploitation of workers, and a blatant violation of international hazardous waste management laws.

The vessels are full of toxics such as asbestos, lead, PCBs and heavy metals; the toxic wastes sicken the workers and ravage coastal ecosystems, and, because the muddy sand and shifting grounds of tidal beaches cannot support heavy lifting equipment or safety gear, accidents injure or kill hundreds of workers each year. Causes of death at the shipbreaking yards in South Asia include explosions, fire, suffocation and accidents caused by extremely heavy steel

beams and plates, which fall and crush workers under their weight. Also, the constant exposure to toxic materials and fumes is the source of many diseases, including cancer. In Bangladesh, children under 15 years of age count for 20% of the workforce. There, and elsewhere, the total death toll runs into the thousands. Also, miles of protected mangrove trees, essential to ecosystem health and protection from monsoons, are being cut to make way for ships. This, and the accompanying poisons from shipbreaking, have killed or devastated dozens of aquatic species, while simultaneously destroying the livelihoods of surrounding fishing communities.

The shipping industry is in most cases not being held accountable for the human rights abuses and the severe pollution caused by shipbreaking practices in South Asia today. It is extremely easy for a ship owner to circumvent existing laws that aim to protect developing countries from the dumping of toxic wastes. Prompt and sustained action, both in the marketplace and in the courts, is required.

The Platform has already had success in blocking and forestalling ship exports and imports while promoting sustainable solutions requiring producer/industry responsibility for their products throughout their entire life cycle. Successfully bringing to the fore the intolerable realities of today’s shipbreaking practices, the Platform has also seen great traction with its call for reforms within the EU, with certain OECD ship recycling interests, and most recently in South Asia.

Join us in raising awareness on the important issue of shipbreaking. For more information about what we do, visit our website or contact us at info@shipbreakingplatform.org.

NEXUS AUTUMN

SHIPS. BEACHES. HOPES. LIVES. LAWS.

SAFE WORK. CLEAN ENVIRONMENT.

NGO Shipbreaking Platform @NGOShipbreaking www.shipbreakingplatform.org

ALUMNI:

LIFE AFTER

GRONINGEN TEXT & PHOTOS: LIANNE VAN AAGTEN

LIANNE VAN AAGTEN / ALUMNI

When Christian approached me about a contribution to Nexus Magazine’s segment “Life after Groningen”, my first thought was: yes I’d love to! Then I realized I had no clue what to write…. so I started thinking about how I actually came to be where I am now. Because it is really only one and a half years ago that I was still convinced becoming a lawyer and (especially) working at a big law firm did not suit me. I wanted to be involved in international affairs; work for the UN or the EU, but most of all, I wanted to live abroad.

Now, I live in Amsterdam and work at a big law firm, which is – by the way – three minutes biking from my shared apartment. So, not quite what I imagined eighteen months ago, although the work I do is very international. But more about that later.

What happened to me?

Looking back, I guess it all started on a typical Thursday afternoon, during a coffee break with a study friend. A man approached us. He seemed to be selling stuff, so I tried to ignore him. My friend, however, was interested in what he had to say, and as it turned out, he wasn’t selling anything. He was recruiting Dutch law students to participate in a contest called the University Battle (Universiteitsstrijd), which would involve all the nine law faculties of the Netherlands. We both signed up, though in the end my friend didn’t participate and I did (ironically, my friend is currently interning with the European Commission in Brussels and I am not). The ‘Battle’ consisted of two separate days. During the first day, we received training and workshops (mainly on negotiation and pitching) at five different top law firms in Amsterdam. This was already excitement enough for me, as I had never set foot in any such place before. One thought I had that day was: even if this battle doesn’t work out, it would have still been worth it for the food!

Anyway, it was at the first firm, Allen & Overy, that the recruiter told me about their business course, ‘the Insiders’. She encouraged me to apply, as they were still interviewing applicants. Even though I felt very

much like an ‘outsider’, I decided to give it a shot and wrote the letter. To my surprise, I was invited to the interview round which, coincidentally, would take place a week later, one day before the second University Battle day. My interview did not go too well I thought, but luckily that same recruiter saw me negotiating and pitching the next day during the Battle.

And suddenly I was one of the Insiders!

This business course was the reason I changed my mind about working at a law firm, because the whole experience was amazing. The way the course was set up was as a competition between several teams of ‘lawyers’, working on one high profile case throughout the week. It was organized extremely well, which made the game seem very realistic and exciting (journalists hiding in the bushes and fake newspapers were all part of the show). As this was a competition, I was eager to win it, and fortunately my team won. I personally won even more, as thanks to my performance during the course, they offered me an internship with the firm.

At this point, l realized that I had never quite had a proper view of what working at an international law firm meant. The business course made me see that NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

10

1

2

3

this kind of work can definitely be very internationally oriented. My internship at the Competition section confirmed this. The work I did there was so varied, with topics ranging from international private law to European competition law, to Dutch administrative or civil law. Moreover, cases often involved huge multinationals (stuff you read in the newspaper!).

Another aspect that positively surprised me was the work culture and the type of people I met. I found people with the same work ethos, which was a relief compared to what I had experienced while acting for committees of a non-governmental organization.

People worked hard and focused, and were direct in communicating their opinion on the quality of someone’s work, but were at the same time always in for a chat or some drinks. Personally, I appreciate working with people who can deliver quality and are not afraid to tell others when something doesn’t meet the standard.

Apparently, the positive feeling was mutual, because I was asked to apply for a position as Advocaat-stagiaire, which is basically a lawyer/trainee associate.

I applied in March, and got an offer to start after graduating my Masters (I still had to finish writing my thesis at this point). We settled on me starting in September, which gave me perfect time to finish my thesis and travel through South-East Asia for three months.

So now my working life has really begun. I started working at the Projects & Real Estate section, where I focus on project finance. This is obviously completely new to me, but very interesting as it involves huge

11

4

5

1. Beëdiging - Becoming a lawyer to the Bar 2. Amsterdam - Roof Top Terrace 3. Indonesia - Travel 4. Allen & Overy Building 5. London - The Insiders

projects such as an offshore wind park financing. In one and half years I will switch sections, probably to the Competition section.

I get up relatively early (compared to a student’s life anyway) at eight o’clock, bike to work and get my breakfast smoothie and soy cappuccino there.

A normal work day would entail team meetings to discuss everyone’s current cases, know-how lunches on recent jurisprudence, emailing with clients or talking to them on the phone, writing legal advice pieces, and drafting loads of documents which will be reviewed and must then be amended again by me.

Every day, we work closely with our A&O offices (or liaised offices) in other countries, often London but also China, the US, Australia or anywhere in Europe.

Once in a while, we have global events where teams from the same section (so in my case: Projects & Real Estate) but different location gather to learn from each other and to socialize. In my first week, I was lucky enough to participate in such an event, and I found myself having dinner next to the head of Projects team from Sydney.

Even though this is not exactly what I had expected to be doing after my International & European Law studies, I am very happy to be where I am now. I am learning new things every day, while working with great people. I guess the advice I would give to anyone is just to stay open to new things, and to grasp each opportunity. You’ll never know where it will get you ;)

Lianne graduated the LLB in 2013 and the LLM European law in April 2015. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to email her at: ae.vanaagten@gmail.com.

- Lianne van Aagten

ALUMNI:

LIFE AFTER

GRONINGEN TEXT & PHOTOS: VICTORIA PELISHATSKA

VICTORIA PELISHATSKA / ALUMNI

All I could think about during my last year in Groningen was to buy myself more time to figure out where I wanted to be and what I wanted to do in future. So I did what every Bachelor student does… I applied for an LLM degree. I got accepted to University College London (UCL) fairly easily and after three months of summer vacation I headed to London having little idea what exactly I was going to study during the Masters’ degree.

The good news about the UK LLM is that you can choose all your subjects without any specific requirements. UCL gave us one week in which we could visit all sorts of classes, meet teachers and at the end compile our own curriculum. I thought – ‘what a smart idea!’ I chose a mix of subjects – half of my degree focused on Maritime law and the other half on Competition issues. But very soon I realized that choosing my subjects was the least of the problems I was about to face while trying to develop a career in London. Here is something I would have liked to be aware of before going to the UK: In order to be able to qualify as a lawyer, you need to go through two very intensive qualification years of studying- GDL and LPC (you do not get paid for either and the qualifications are pretty expensive). Heads up future lawyers: A Masters degree is absolutely not necessary.

On the contrary, but there is one positive point of having a degree from a top London school – your CV becomes much more marketable for UK employers.

The Masters was very different from our LLB. There are almost no assignments to do at home so it depends completely on your own time-management skills how and when you are studying (also no midterm exams). You could get rather bored, or, you could consider it an opportunity to secure your next step. While everyone else on the Island (UK) were heavily applying for the so desired training contracts (another two years of qualification for a lawyer,

although this time you are getting paid), I thought I should find a job where my skills would be unique without having all those sought after qualifications.

At that time, it happened that a London law firm was executing a very important Bulgarian-Russian intergovernmental case. I found out about it almost accidentally and I thought my language skills could be useful for this specific case. I decided to be brave and sent my CV directly to one of the partners to the case (whose name I saw in a website article). My email said something like: “this is my CV, these are my skills, let me know if I could be helpful”- I was very surprised when they called me two days later for an interview for a job that was not even announced.

But apparently they really needed someone. So I spent half of my week going to lectures, and the other half going to work at a top-tier US law firm. It was fun!

My internship ended late summertime and I had to start working on my dissertation. I spent about 8 days on it and when it was done I was left with no direction on what was to happen next… I decided to apply for the training contracts like everyone else (not my smartest strategy). As a result, I was jobless for about 4-5 months until I decided to start applying for all kinds of jobs. My first interview was for a position as a receptionist at a hotel (6 hours assessment day - what an overstated process). I got the job, but thankfully, right before what was supposed to be my NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

12

1

2

3

first day at work, I received an offer for a paralegal position at a small law firm. At first, I was extremely happy about this turn of events. However … … disappointment came fast. The law firm was outside of the city. Getting to the office cost a fortune and I was offered the same salary as that of a receptionist. From my first day at work at that law firm, I promised myself I was going to get out of there as soon as possible. So from that day onwards, everything I was doing was focused on getting another job.

I took a day off already during my second week to go to three interviews in a row. On the Friday of my fourth week, I received an offer for a temporary job at a Magic circle (one of the top 5 UK law firms internationally). I thought: temporary or not, I promised myself to get out of the other place and I accepted the offer. Initially, it said “two week internship” but I ended up working there for two months. Finally!

I was working in the City with the big players and game changing lawyers.

There was one small problem, though. Everything was all about finance law, and guess what: I knew nothing about finance. I tried to read through the pleadings and I could not understand the specificities of the deals involved. Of course the job of a paralegal does not require you to understand the substance of the cases at all, but I really wanted to know what I was devoting my time to (and it really is a devotion, knowing that sometimes I was getting home at 3am).

Therefore, knowing that this was a temporary job, I decided to resume an old application for a financial services company with a very solid training process

4

5

1. Graduation at UCL 2. London at sunset 3. St Paul’s Cathedral- view from Madisons bar 4. The Shard 5. Vacation in Bulgaria

in finance. I started the application process and I had to go through five interviews. Yes - five! As a result, every Wednesday lunch break at the law firm was actually spent at another employer’s premises for an interview (good thing the two buildings were 20 steps from each other). This is how I started working for Bloomberg LP, and so far (November 2015) I have successfully conquered 15 finance exams and have won a price for a best employee of the quarter.

Little did I know that finance could also be one of my passions!

This is how, during a period of about three months, I accepted 4 job offers, changed 3 jobs and started a new chapter of my career in the finance world. But, as people say, everything comes at a price. There was no such thing as a summer holiday, no such thing as long hours of sleep. My personal life suffered and so did my health. Currently, I have managed to recover almost everything lost, although I am still struggling with some health disruptions. Right now I am focused primarily on my wellbeing and excelling at my job. Hopefully, I will be able to make up for all that stress I went through. But my story can show you two things, (1) that London is insanely dynamic and high-pressured, but it can also hide a number of opportunities to avail of. And (2) only you decide what price you should pay for these opportunities. With regards to what my next step would be - I am not sure. Remember that everything can change in just 3 months’ time…

Please feel more than free to reach out to Victoria on vpelishatska@gmail.com. She would be more than happy to share any experiences that might help you in your life after Groningen.

13 - Victoria Pelishatska

ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

FOOD & SUSTAINABILITY

ANIMAL AGRICULTURE: AN OVERVIEW

Assessing the impact of food on the environment / 16

YOU CAN’T REAP WHAT YOU CAN’T SOW

The seed industry, agribusiness and sustainable food / 20

THE PLOY OF SOY

The secret ingredient in all our food / 24

OCEAN DEPLETION

The current state of our oceans / 28

EXTRAS

Debate and 30-Day Vegan Challenge

PHOTO: SOL GUSTAVSSON

PHOTO: COWSPIRACY.COM; TEXT: NATHALIE BIENFAIT

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

16

THEME

What, Me? Exploring the Effects of the Animal Agriculture Industry on the Evironment 91% all deforestation of the rainforest is due to it. It is responsible for consuming a 1/3 of all fresh water on the planet. It is the producer of more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, lorries, trains, and aeroplanes combined. What is it? The answer will not come as a welcome or easy message to swallow: meat. “Deforestation, land-use, water scarcity, the destabilisation of communities, world hunger�, says Demosthenes Maratos from The Sustainability Institute (Molloy College), are the effects of one overriding factor: the growing of food and cultivation of animals in order to feed the huge and bourgeoning demand for meat in the western world. Increasingly, we are seeing the demand for meat also grow in China and India in the developing middle classes, meaning an even greater burden is being placed on the world’s resources, a burden which can in no way be sustainable for the coming decades.

17

A

ccording to the documentary “Cowspiracy” which inspired us to write this issue, the animal agriculture industry is “the single biggest contributor to every environmental ill know to us as humankind.” In Cowspiracy, the idea that the animals we raise for food are more harmful to the environment than we had ever previously known is explored in full. The protagonist Kip Anderson (whose name is unfortunately the word for “chicken” in Dutch) starts out by explaining that he was (and still is) a very committed environmentalist, cycling everywhere, having short showers and turning off lights. He does some research, however and by chance comes across UN statistics claiming that cows produce more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation industry combined, in addition to being the leading cause of resource consumption and environmental degradation on the planet today. For example, the raising livestock in the US alone uses a staggering 34 trillion gallons of water per year, while one quarter-pounder burger uses as much water as is used in 2 months’ of showering.

These are shocking statistics and should be taken as seriously as the damage they will reap on our society in the future if left unchecked. The logical conclusion to these statistics is that we should all start living an entirely plant-based lifestyle, however, as found out

by Anderson in the documentary, the solution is not as simple as it sounds. The problem illustrated in Cowspiracy is one that goes deeper that just the nutritional content of what we eat.

VEGANISM: CAN WE GET OVER THE LABEL? As briefly mentioned in the Letter from the Editor, when we are told that we must not eat certain foods, we automatically become defensive and are disinclined to agree with the person giving us this information. Why? Because food is more than just nutrients from which we get energy and the fuel to survive; it represents so much more to us: food can remind us of potent memories, reinforce our culture and heritage, and help us define our personality. For these reasons, we are automatically opposed to the idea of living a plant-based lifestyle because it would mean giving up an enormously important part of our diet (according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2012 the average American ate around 0.16kg meat per day, which is 1.12kg per week). In addition, there are many very legitimate health concerns which are raised meat and dairy eaters, worrying that it is not possible to get enough of the right nutrients from a totally vegan diet. There are also problems of stigma because “vegans” are seen as agenda-pushing freaks who will not allow any to not know that they’re vegan and whose philosphy is helplessly full of holes.

Furthermore, there are also arguments that in some climates it is not possible to grow crops on all land on which it is possible to graze animals. In answer to these arguments, I would emphasise the importance of keeping in mind the notions of balance and moderation in our lives: of course it is okay to eat meat if make that personal choice, however it making that choice which is the important thing - in this magazine, we would encourage our readers to be able to make more informed choices about they eat in the future, while trying not to completely disregard the

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

18

KIP ANDERSON LEFT; KEEGAN KUHN RIGHT; PHOTO SOURCE: COWSPIRACY.COM

IS OUR FORMER CLIMATE REALITY NOW A CAPITALIST FICTION? In the documentary Cowspiracy, the main point being explored by the producers, Kip Anderson and Keegan Kuhn, is that global agricultural industry has been making sure that environmental organisations have not been telling us about the real effects of animal agriculture on the environment. When watching the documentary, I thought to myself “how many times have I been told by environmental pressure groups, charities, political parties, reinforced by government legislation, that the main cause of environmental degradation, resource depletion and species extinction was the use of fossil fuels in the energy and transport sectors. Before watching this film I considered myself a committed environmentalist: I turned off lights, took short showers and never flew. These are all relatively easy changes that can be incorporated into a modern lifestyle; they require little planning and are hardly intrusive on an individual’s everyday life. The argument put forward by Cowspiracy, therefore is that these environmental organisations have chosen the easy route in order to 19

not compromise their image - on which how many people sponsor them is dependant; ultimately making decisions about what message they back by how much money they make.

It may sound rather hard-core left-wing, but how much do we want our society to be ruled by the interests of money?

In conclusion, the issue of how much animal agriculture affects the environment is clearly as real as the effects that the human population are having on the environment. The subject is also highly controversial and sensitive, and I hope that the arguments presented in this magazine are enough for you to be motivated to do your own research into the subject and reach your own conclusion. Instead of trying to ‘turn’ everyone vegan, rather the Nexus Magazine wishes to persuade you to merely think more about the food you eat and enable you to make more informed choices about what you eat in the future.

YOU CAN’T REAP WHAT YOU CAN’T SOW THE SEED INDUSTRY, AGRIBUSINESS AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD

PHOTO: FRACTUREDPARADIGM.COM/ TEXT: AINA DE GUIA ERIKSSON

I

ncreasing the numbers of legislation pertaining to the rights and powers of agribusinesses over seeds are bolstering the role of agribusinesses in the food industry. However, environmental damage is often attributed to the intensive, large-scale farming practices that agribusinesses promote.

To what extent can the empowerment of agribusinesses in the seed industry have negative impacts on the goal to more sustainable food production system?

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

20

The United Nations defines sustainability as ‘ensuring human rights and well-being without depleting or diminishing the capacity of the earth’s ecosystems to support life’. Sustainability refers to all our actions on this earth where we utilize its resources. In this way, sustainability is multi-dimensional, ranging from issues of fossil fuel consumption to carbon emissions, clean energy and the production of food. Although there are many paths to sustainability, a significant point of interest is the current food production industry.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) mentions sustainable agriculture as one of the 14 themes of the post-2015 development agenda and millennium developments’ goals. This entails the improvement of efficient resource use, nurturing healthy ecosystems and supporting the sustainable management of land. The FAO also includes global governance, which promotes, amongst others, issues concerning food security in trade regimes as a means to ensure sustainable food production.

Simultaneously, modern day food production is dominated by agribusinesses. The average farm size in the European Union is 15 hectares, whereas in the United States it is 180 hectares. These are largescale, intensive farms, producing only one crop (also known as mono-cropping) for the competitive market and rely on heavy machinery. This type of food production is attributed to several environmental crises, such as water pollution, drought, soil degradation, and pollution due to the transportation and use of fertilizers and pesticides. Considering the methods of production that agribusinesses utilize and their growing legal privileges, this begs the question whether agribusinesses are inhibiting the creation of a sustainable food production system. In this regard, the example of agribusinesses and seed production displays how the domineering role of agribusinesses actually does inhibit the creation of a more sustainable food production system.

21

AINA DE GUIA ERIKSSON / ALUMNI

Before the engagement of agribusinesses in the ‘seed market,’ the sole actors in seed saving and plant breeding were farmers. Throughout agricultural history, farmers have observed their crops, identified desirable characteristics in each yield and saved the seeds from a specific plant, thus, saving a stronger strain and ensuring a better crop for the next planting season. Such characteristics can be a desired taste, form, color, or texture, or can simply be its ability to grow well in the climate of production.

This process yields a selection of plants that suit not only the fertility and quality of the land but also the availability of water and the cultural preferences of consumers.

Furthermore, farmers have been the main actors in plant breeding. Plant breeding can be defined as the creation of new varieties, which farmers can achieve via two processes. Firstly, through cross-breeding two different varieties of the same species, or secondly, through selective breeding via successive seed saving. Cross-breeding a new variety is achieved by identifying desirable characteristics in two different varieties of the same plant, and later allowing them to cross-breed through open pollination. This process applies only to plants that are openly pollinated by bees, birds, and the wind. For example, cross-breeding two varieties of corn is accomplished by inter-planting, in the same field, two varieties intended to be crossed and then saving the seed. The

PHOTOS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: GREENPEACE.ORG; EBAY.COM; BBC.MUNDO; WHEATBERRY.ORG

next planting season will show whether the desired characteristics are expressed in the new variety. If achieved, the seeds are saved, and the new variety is planted for production.

Plant-breeding through seed-saving is done by harvesting and selecting the seeds from the specific plants that have the most desired characteristics. By continuously saving desired seeds from each offspring the characteristics will stabilize and give you a variety that continuously expresses desired characteristics. Varieties created by farmers from these two processes are often referred to as landraces.

Both cross breeding and breeding through seed saving are slow processes and require the passage of several planting seasons in order to secure a new variety that will surely express the desired characteristics. It also requires the free access to propagation material like fertile seeds and the free use of already existing varieties.

The importance of landraces is three-fold. Firstly, they contribute to upholding and promoting biodiversity. As farmers all over the world have engaged in seed saving and plant breeding, new varieties have been developed in every part of the world. The plants produced are specific to their climate and growing

conditions, so much so that even farmers within the same country, but in different regions, will not produce the same plant. For example, two villages within southern Vietnam will develop different varieties due to conditions of dry rice planting versus wet paddy rice planting. Differences in microclimates and soil quality develop different characteristics, and thus, different varieties. An impressive example is the 5,000 different rice varieties in Vietnam alone. This is also a prime example of the genetic diversity of varieties that have accumulated over generations of farming and traditional selective breeding done by farmers.

Secondly, landraces do not require the need of heavy fertilizers or pesticides. Since landraces are developed on the land instead of controlled environments like laboratories, only the plants that have withstood the climate, pests and diseases will be chosen and saved for the next planting season. This ensures that only the strongest or best-suited variety to continue existing. Agribusinesses, however, push for high yield within a short time frame, and implement fertilizers and pesticides to do so. Their seeds are not allowed the time needed for the natural selection process to ensue, thereby prohibiting the plant from developing the necessary characteristics to exist in its environment unaided. This is because the evolutionary

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

22

process of adaptation to the environment is not undertaken, and as a result, disallowing the plant the opportunity to adapt from generation to generation and thereby develop tolerance. Landraces, however, build up the tolerance and adapt to the climate.

Consequently, such seeds are not as dependent upon fertilizers and pesticides as a variety that is not accustomed to the area of production.

Lastly, landraces are not burdened with patents or other property rights. In the past 50 years, research and development companies have entered the ‘seed business,’ and as a consequence of their involvement, a system of intellectual property protection has been applied to plant breeding. This is to protect and reimburse the company for its research. The objective of this system is to promote creativity, development and disclosure of new inventions (seed varieties) by protecting the creator, either by remuneration or by exclusive control over the invention. This is achieved through granting proprietary rights over the new variety, thereby subjecting its production, distribution and sale to the authorization of the right holder.

This form of protection grants powerful rights to agribusinesses. The controversial issue is the disparity between the legal rights of farmers, as traditional plant breeders, and the agribusinesses. Today, there

23

are two international treaties that push forward the rights of agribusinesses but make no mention of the rights of traditional plant breeding and the preservation of landraces. The UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) provides a legal framework for plant breeder’s rights. It allows for breeders to maintain exclusive control of the variety and its propagation material. The only exception is for non-commercial use. As a result, farmers are prohibited from saving or sharing seeds, as well as breeding new varieties from a protected variety, thereby inhibiting farmers from plant breeding freely to suit their needs. Consequently, these exclusive rights act as a hinder to accessing and developing new varieties and furthering genetic diversity.

This wouldn’t seem to be a problem if traditional plant breeders could also register landraces. The UPOV mandates four requirements to be met: novelty, distinctness, uniformity, and stability. The variety is deemed to be new if it has not been under commercial exploitation in the past year in the respective country of protection. A variety is distinct if its botanical characteristics are different from exiting varieties, such as shape, size, and color. A variety is uniform if the botanical characteristics are consistent from plant to plant within the variety. Lastly, the variety is stable if the characteristics are expressed

consistently from generation to generation. These required criteria make it difficult for varieties developed by traditional breeding to be registered.

Farmer’s varieties do not produce crops that show consistent characteristics from plant to plant.

The size and colors of, for example, rice will vary depending on the land it is grown on, the nutrients in the soil and the microclimatic conditions.

Furthermore, the selective breeding of traditional rice farmers has never been focused on attaining uniform rice grains in each rice plant, but rather on aromas, colors or texture. Therefore, this criterion cannot be achieved in the case of landraces, consequently making PVP under the UPOV inaccessible to farmers.

Although the UPOV is not a universal treaty, the TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, 2007) is mandatory for all

WTO members states and mandates protection for plant breeders, either through the UPOV or through patent law. Since the TRIPS and the UPOV both leave out farmer’s rights and the protection of landraces while mandating the recognition, implementation, and enforcement of plant breeder’s protection, it opens up business opportunities for agribusinesses in countries that previously did not recognize such rights, nor grant exclusive control over plants and their propagation material. In effect, through these treaties, an imbalance of rights is created granting advantages for agribusinesses in the food production system.

In defense of how things stand today, agribusinesses usually adopt the position that the pressing issue of hunger around the world demands new varieties to be produced quickly.

The problem with this stance, however, is that it

The FAO clearly states the world is not under-producing food. Each year one-third, 1.3 billion tons, of food, is wasted in the food supply chain, along with wasted resources needed for production. The problem is not under-production, but unequal distribution.

blatantly ignores the already existing landraces that can alleviate hunger or malnutrition. Take for example the high rates of anemia in Indian women. Because anemia is the result of an iron deficiency, the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, with funding from Bill Gates, are developing a genetically engineered banana with higher levels of iron than a regular banana.

Naturally, a banana contains about 0.44 mg of iron per 100 g of edible portion. The genetically modified banana has an increased iron content of 2.6mg, a six-fold increase. This is, however, 3000% less than turmeric, niger or lotus stem, all varieties native to India. With this in mind, is there really an urgency to develop new varieties in the name of hunger or malnutrition? What about the unknown risk of GM crops and their effects on ecosystems? If there are already several varieties that can solve the problem of anemia, why are

they not being produced? This issue is linked with the nature of the commercial food market.

The FAO clearly states the world is not under-producing food. Each year one-third, 1.3 billion tons, of food, is wasted in the food supply chain, along with wasted resources needed for production. The problem is not under-production, but unequal distribution. Large-scale industrial farms produce food for the commercial market. This means that the kind of crop, its’ quality and features will be determined by the market. Take for example the production of soy in Argentina. Today, soy production covers 31 million hectares of agricultural land and brings in 26% of the country’s total sales abroad. In 1990, only 4.8 million hectares were occupied by soy. The change is attributed to the application of genetically modified soy in Argentina starting in 1996. Since then, soy production

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

24

has increased, taking over more agricultural land, displacing small farmers and decreasing the varieties of crops grown in the area. This example illustrates how agribusinesses influence agricultural practices and the availability of a variety of crops. It is worth noting that this GM soy is not suited for human consumption. This means that Argentina is allocating vast areas of arable land to the production of a crop that ultimately will not be feeding its local populations.

We can see that agribusinesses will promote and develop only crops that are beneficial on the commercial food market. Consequently, the interests of agribusinesses are those with economic gain rather than promoting sustainability.

There are other concerns raised with regards to the increasing role of agribusiness in the seed industry.

For example, gene contamination of a patented gene makes seed saving illegal, even for farmers who plant a non-protected variety. Cases like Monsanto Canada v Schmeiser or Bowman v Monsanto both dealt with crops of nearby farms that had been contaminated with a patented gene from another farm growing a Monsanto variety. These farmers had been growing unmodified corn, which crossbred through open pollination with nearby farms growing GM corn with the patented gene of Monsanto. In both cases, the farmers were prohibited from saving and using seeds from their own crop that contained the gene held under a Monsanto patent. Cross-contamination is a major concern for many organic or non-GMO farms across both South and North America. It is also concerning in relation to preserving traditional landraces, which are at risk of contamination through open pollination. Furthermore, by empowering agribusinesses one also indirectly promotes

25

the system of farming that agribusinesses attend to.

That is intensive, large-scale industrial farming that uses large quantities of water, dangerous pesticides and herbicides like roundup and the planting of only one crop (mono-cropping). This only contributes to resource depletion at the same time as resource contamination.

It would seem like a given that the promotion of varieties that are locally adapted, tolerant and enduring, would be a key step in securing sustainable agriculture. If farmers and traditional plant breeding create more resilient, resource friendly, and genetically diverse plants, why are they not given the same legal standing and protection as modern plant breeders and landrace varieties? The regulations being created are promoting a system based on economic benefit and promoting it as the modern way of farming. In reality, we are ignoring the accumulated knowledge of our ancestors and slowly eradicating the use of valuable varieties of landraces. We are simultaneously damaging our water sources and soil quality rather than practicing farming methods that contribute to the renewal of natural resources.

The FAO also highlights ‘good governance that promotes food security in trade regimes and trade policy,’ yet such a controversial trade agreement like the TRIPS leaves out the very actors that have played an important role in not only food production, but also promoting genetic diversity and sustainability.

It would seem that a true effort towards sustainable agricultural systems would be to minimize or restrict agribusinesses’ legal privileges and promote already existing sustainable pathways, such as landrace farming.

§

THE PLOY OF SOY:

Unearthing the root problems of the beans devouring the Amazon

THEME

s

oy is arguably the gastronomic realm’s best-kept secret ingredient. While many think that soy is solely consumed by the likes of vegans and vegetarians, the majority of it is embedded throughout livestock and poultry products in refrigerators across the world. Its insidious growth means that once verdant areas such as the Amazon rainforest have been bulldozed to make way for this prolific product, giving us food for thought about our consumption choices.

Due to the salubrious composition of soybeans, they are branded ‘the king of beans’. This title is not unsubstantiated: soybeans remarkably contain 38% protein – double that of pork, triple that of eggs, and twelve times more than in milk. This protein comprises increased variety of amino acids than the majority of other foods. An additional virtue of the soybean is that it consists of as much as 18.4% unsaturated fat when dry.

The origin of the soybean can be traced back to its first cultivation in eastern China some 6,000 years ago, meaning it is among the first domesticated food crops. Although soybean cultivation dispersed to Europe and North America in the 18th century, the acceleration in soybean growth is a

recent developTEXT: EVE AYCOCK / LLB 1 ment. Indeed, soy production has doubled in the past two decades, and shows little sign of relenting. Since 1950, global soybean yield has risen from 17 million tonnes to 250 million tonnes, and by 2050, it is estimated that world soy production will reach a colossal 515 million tonnes.

So where does the 250 million tonne global soybean harvest actually go?

Food: Only 6% of soybeans are consumed directly as food, and this consumption is mostly concentrated within Asian countries like China, Japan and Indonesia. Whole beans are eaten as a vegetable, or can be included in tofu, tempeh, soya milk or soy sauce.

Fuel: The use of soybean as a biofuel is a contemporary advancement. Today, 2% of soybean oil is used in the production of biodiesel. It is estimated that soy will provide 10% of Europe’s biofuel production by 2020.

Feed: It is the rapid increase in meat consumption that has triggered such titanic growth in soy

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

26

production in recent decades. Indeed, an enormous 75% of soy produced globally is used for animal feed, mostly for the poultry and pigs that we consume as part of our diet. This explains why on average Europeans consume 61kg of soy annually. Soy thus acts as an indirect ingredient; infiltrating the meals of people around the globe – and most of the time it is without their knowledge.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Most of the soy consumed in Europe is cultivated in South America. Due to the extensive amount of land required to grow soy, its production entails obliterating millions of hectares of South America’s ecosystems such as forest, savannah and grasslands. Not only does soy growth cause direct destruction to such habitats, it also carries with it a chain of undesirable

From 1990 to 2006, soy production in the Brazilian Amazon tripled.

Soy’s seizure of elephantine expanses of Amazonian land has inexorably induced widespread loss of natural ecosystems. Soybean production is conceivably amongst the most furtive root causes of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. Seemingly unrestrained, snarling entanglements of jewel green jungle pulsating with life are bulldozed and clinically cut into constructs that appear like a bewildered maths student’s scribbles in a trigonometry exam.

While deforestation may seem a transient problem – trees can grow back, right? – the inertia of the Amazon rainforest means that it takes many years for verdure to regenerate. This is because in the rainforest, the majority of carbon and key nutrients are locked up in the living vegetation,

The average European consumes 61kg of soy per year as an indirect ingredient of our meat. impacts. The Amazon rainforest encompasses an area of 6.7 million km2 – double the size of India. Its abundant concentration of fauna and flora biodiversity; role in supplying and recycling within the global water cycle; and contribution to regulating the world’s climate by acting as a store of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (the Amazon rainforest alone stores 90140 billion tonnes of carbon) mean that it is crucial to ensure protection of the Amazon biome.

This is important both on an intrinsic level, and as a means of curbing the global climate change phenomenon. The establishing of a new type of soybean specifically engineered by scientists to suit the Amazon’s equatorial climate stimulated the groundbreaking drive for soy production.

leaving the soil beneath thin and deficient in nutrients. So when such vegetation is cut down, all that remains is sterile soil incapable of cultivation.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference in September 2015 stressed how this localised problem has a global outreach. It was envisioned that a 40% loss of the Amazon rainforest would not only devastate the biodiversity and communities of the region, but would significantly exacerbate worldwide climate change, as deforestation destroys the carbon ‘sink’ that helps limit the escape of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

PHOTO SOURCE: FANSHARE.COM

27

FURTHER CONTROVERSIES Environmental

Soy production prompts a whole host of more implicit issues. As soy is intensively grown, it demands resources like soil, agrochemicals and water.

Soy production is a major cause of soil erosion in areas such as the Amazon rainforest. Soil erosion can lead to soil infertility and degraded land. In Brazil, erosion caused by soy production entails annual loss of 55 million tonnes of topsoil. Furthermore, scientific analysis of soy production in the Cerrado region, Brazil discovered that per year, there were losses of 8 tonnes per hectare; generating depletion of organic matter, soil compaction and acidification.

Yet, there is hope: soybean varieties genetically

modified to endure herbicides enable producers to deploy zero tillage or conservation tillage production methods, which vastly limit soil erosion and runoff – even in areas most vulnerable to erosion. It is due to innovation like this that has prompted a worldwide decline in soil erosion as a result of soybean production.

However, regardless of such improvements in production techniques, the fact that lands noted as being highly erodible are increasingly being used for growing soy threatens resurgence of soil erosion. The Brazilian National Development Bank has cautioned that “without well defined technical criteria”, soybean cultivation could leave soil in many areas of the Amazon completely infertile.

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

28

Social

As well as environmental problems, agrochemicals can additionally impact human health: for instance, research executed in the state of Mato Grosso (Brazil’s top soybean producer) tested 62 samples of breast milk for traces of agrochemicals. At least one toxic agrochemical was found in every sample. Soy cultivation can also lead to other social impacts, not all of which are negative. Research has shown that there is correlation between economic development in Mato Grosso’s non-agricultural sector and soy expansion. This is based on the fact that Mato Grosso’s soybean growing areas are among the highest-ranking regions in northern Brazil in terms of the United Nation’s Human Develop-

soy farms.

A further problem relating to human rights is the eviction of indigenous communities from their traditional homeland, leaving them in poverty. This issue is worsened by the institutional discrimination against Brazil’s impoverished indigenous community. The proposal of an amendment to Brazil’s constitution (referred to as ‘PEC 215’) that switches the authority to demarcate indigenous land from the executive to the legislature is seen by the indigenous peoples as an attempt to legalise theft and invasion of their land by agri-business.

This is a particularly pressing matter for the

“There is no joy for us in any of this… But we’re going to resist, whatever happens. We have to guarantee the future survival of our people and our culture.”

- Ari Karai, the chief of Tekoa Ytu

ment Index (HDI), as evidence suggests that soybean production has encouraged reduced poverty and improved education.

Job opportunities are also seen to be greater in soy farming than in cattle ranching. However, the negative social impacts unequivocally outweigh the benefits. Soy production can put pressure on fundamental human rights. Greenpeace has reported cases of where slaves were used in soy farms in the Amazon. The Brazilian government is said to maintain a ‘dirty list’ of farms that have been prosecuted. In 2004 alone, for example, it interceded 236 cases of slavery in

29

indigenous communities in Jaraguá, São Paulo, who face eviction after a judge recently granted a court order to the landowner. The leaders (caciques) of Tekoa Pyau and Tekoa Ytu, the two established Indian tribes in Jaraguá, have been at the forefront of organising resistance against PEC 215 with other communities ranging from Mato Grosso and Espírito Santo in Brazil to indigenous people as far as Argentina and Paraguay. Ari Karai, the chief of Tekoa Ytu, says: “There is no joy for us in any of this… But we’re going to resist, whatever happens. We have to guarantee the future survival of our people and our culture.”

PHOTO SOURCE: CANADAFOOD.HK

1. GOVERNMENTS IN SOY-PRODUCING COUNTRIES

Governmental policies aimed at conserving forests and other native vegetation could assist in bringing soy farm expansion to a halt. For instance, Brazil has a range of laws protecting its rainforests. There is a network of protected areas in the Amazon.

The most significant legislation concerning private farms is the Forest Code. In the Amazon, this Code obligates landowners to maintain 80% forest cover. However, for legislation to be effective, it is often up to non-governmental organisations to ensure that producers adhere to the standards set.

2. GOVERNMENTS IN SOY-CONUSUMING COUNTRIES

Strengthen legislation governing soy imports to ensure that legal and ethical standards are met. For example, the Netherlands – the second largest importer of soy worldwide – aims for 100% of soy for the Dutch market to be ‘responsible soy’.

This would help ensure that soy farmers in Brazil become legally compliant and adopt sound agricultural procedure. In addition, although Norway has a smaller role in the global soy market, it has led efforts to contend rainforest deforestation and to ensure solid sustainability standards are maintained at every stage of global production chains. This is done through the Norwegian industrial company Denofa’s partnership with Amaggi, the Brazilian largest private soybean producer worldwide, which imports the majority of soybeans from Brazil to Norway. Reduce food waste: A huge 8.3 million ha of agricultural land is required to produce meat and dairy products wasted in households in the United Kingdom and by consumers, retailers and food services in America, which is seven times the amount of land deforested in Brazil in 2014. South Korea can be viewed as a successful model for waste reduction – it has the world’s most stringent food waste laws, which prohibit food residues from being disposed of into landfills and waterways.

PHOTO: LEOFFREITAS/GETTY

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

30

SOLVING SOY: WHAT CAN BE DONE?

3. NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS

NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF are vital in raising public awareness and pressurising governments and companies to take steps to reduce the environmental impact of soy. For instance, Greenpeace led a campaign that saw McDonald’s agree to stop selling chicken fed on soy grown in areas of the Amazon rainforest. An example of a successful non-profit organisation promoting lessened meat consumption is ‘Meat Free Monday’, launched by Paul McCartney.

This aims to encourage people to have at least one meat-free day each week.

THE FUTURE

k

While deforestation is occurring mainly within the boundaries of Brazil, the global growth in consumption of meat and dairy is the predominant factor spurring it.

Increased exposure of the convoluted chain of impacts caused by high demand for meat is required, to prompt people across the world to move down the food chain and reduce meat consumption. It lies within the hands of governments and NGOs to promote these ideologies and enforce legislation that conserves vulnerable ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest, that remain critical in constraining global climate change.

31

OCEAN DEPLETION THE CURRENT STATE OF OUR OCEANS

E

very year hundreds of thousands of fish are plundered from our seas for the consumption of the general public. The pressure on the Oceans to provide for our insatiable hunger for seafood is at its greatest in the history of mankind and this hunger shows no signs of slowing down in the near future. People are eating four times as much fish now as they were in the 1950’s which comes to an average of 17Kg of fish per person per year. Fish are the only remaining food source that humans continue to catch in the wild and at the rate that fish are currently

being caught we will be the last generation to do so. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 96% of the worlds fishing areas are exploited and only 3% are underexploited, the remaining 1% are in recovery. Even if all fishing stopped today it would take over fifty years for fish stocks to return to their original levels.

Why is this happening?

The main problem is that fish are being caught for consumption before they are able to replace themselves in the next generation, which leads NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

32

PHOTO SOURCE: M. XQXTP.COM

THEME

to an overall decrease in the number of fish available and with demand at an all time high the situation can only get worse. High demand is not the only reason for this however there are many other factors involved.

A major reason for the depletion of natural fish stocks is poor management of fisheries. In many countries government regulations are not adequate or not enforced as harshly as necessary, which, coupled with the influence of corruption in many African and Asian countries, gives rise to massive overfishing. The temptation to make quick profits overrides the fact that sustainable fishing would lead to an overall higher yield.

Another major problem is pirate fishing - fishing 33

TEXT: KYLIE MCKENZIE MORRELL / LLB 1

that goes on illegally without official government licenses, a situation which is made more complicated by “flags of convenience” or FoCs - the international law that states that any vessel on the high seas is only governed by the laws of the country it was registered in. This means that fishing companies may register their fishing boats in countries where the fishing laws are very lax and then take advantage of this almost anywhere in the world. This situation in turn can lead to unfair completion and therefore encourages sustainable fishing companies to look toward taking these measures to avoid closure.

Unfair fisheries partnerships also have a role in overfishing. Such a deal is when one country makes a deal with another to be able to fish in their waters for a particular sum of money which usually consists of a ‘rich’ western country paying a ‘poor’ country for rights to fish in their waters. The developed countries involved have also been accused of paying minimum fees for rich fishing grounds and paying little attention to illegal fishing by their fleets in distant waters, which obviously contributes to increased fishing and fishing that is not controlled effectively.

The impact of over fishing is not reserved to what’s on your menu.

Exotic marine animals such as turtles, sharks, whales, and dolphins are being pushed to the brink of extinction. These animals are often caught as ‘by-catch’ by large fishing trawlers, for

example shark populations have decreased by 80% in the last few years. Every year, at least 7.3 million tons of marine life are caught simply by getting in the way of these nets. In some fisheries, the percentage of by-catch far outweighs the amount of target catch. For example, for every shrimp caught by nets dragged behind trawls in the Gulf of Mexico, over four times its weight is caught in by-catch.

Proven solutions do exist, such as modifying fishing equipment so that fewer non-target species are caught or can escape but despite these solutions bycatch is still a major problem.

Destructive Fishing practises Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats, particularly coral reefs and seagrass meadows which are vital fish breeding grounds, leading to an overall decrease in fish procreation. When covered with marine life, these seabed areas provide habitat for juvenile fish and other species. Like removing forest, removing this cover decreases the area available for marine species to live and thrive in. The most destructive method of fishing is bottom trawling. In the 1980’s “rockhopper trawls” were introduced, these trawls are fitted with large rubber tires or rollers that allow the net to pass easily over any rough surface. The largest of these are very powerful and are capable of moving boulders weighing 25 tonnes, now most of the ocean floor can be trawled down to a depth

of 2,000m. The destruction of these trawls can been seen in the heavily fished areas around southern Australia where 90% of the surfaces on which coral used to grow are now bare rock.

Cyanide and Dynamite fishing practises are also particularly destructive to the environment and coral havens. Cyanide fishing is a way of fishing that includes squirting sodium cyanide into the water, stunning but not killing the fish making them very easy to catch. The most profitable business to come out of cyanide fishing is supplying live reef fish for the restaurants of Hong Kong, Singapore, and, increasingly, mainland China. Some 20,000 tonnes of live fish are eaten annually in the restaurants of Hong Kong. For every live fish caught using cyanide, a square meter of their coral reef home is killed. The dynamite fishing technique even more destructive than the Cyanide method. To kill the fish dynamite or other explosives are let off underwater the fish killed then float up to the surface of the water where they may easily be collected. The explosives completely destroy the underwater world leaving only desolation and rubble behind.

Finally ‘Ghost Fishing’ plays a role in the destruction of our seas, Ghost fishing occurs when fishing gear is lost or abandoned at sea. The gear can continue to catch fish, dolphins, whales, turtles, and other creatures as it drifts through the water NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

34

LEFT PHOTO: HUFFINGTONPOST.COM; RIGHT PHOTO: FISHFARMING.COM

and after it becomes snagged on the seabed, an estimated 1,000km of ghost nets were released each year into the North Pacific Ocean, a quarter of the rubbish on the bottom of the North Sea is fishing nets, while fishermen speak of a dolphin and turtle graveyard among the nets that drape the cliffs of Cape Wessell, Northern Australia.

Is Fish Farming the solution?

On the surface fish farming looks like a good solution to the problems of overfishing, it would allow wild fish stocks the chance to recover and at the same time still be able to fulfil the world’s demand for seafood. The supply of fish would also become more stable and the industry would provide work alternatives to fishermen. Today the aquaculture industry supplies nearly 40% of the seafood we eat and is growing faster than any other agricultural sector. Unfortunately the news is not all good, fish farms also give rise to several environmental concerns most of which come from the crowding together of thousands of fish in an artificial environment. Waste products including faeces, uneaten food and dead fish are often flushed (untreated) into the surrounding waters which causes considerable contamination. Additionally these waste products include pesticides and veterinary drugs that have been used to treat the fish and these chemicals have adverse effect on the ecosystem at large. These fish must also be fed, many fish species 35

such as salmon and shrimp are carnivorous and must be fed on other fish, to produce the fish that we like to eat directly, it can take up to 1kg of high protein fishmeal as well as fish oil (from other fish) and 4.5kg of smaller fish to produce one adult fish, for example it takes 11.7kg of feed to produce 0.5kg of bluefin tuna.

Fish farming could be a viable solution only if it were managed better with strict enforcement of regulations and more research on sustainable practices.

Responsible, sustainable fish farming is an obtainable goal but one that may take time to achieve.

(Un?)Sustainable labelling The Marine Stewardship Council or MSC are a worldwide non-profit organisation that aim to reward fishermen or fishing companies for using sustainable fishing practises by certifying them as sustainable and allowing them to make use of the MSC label. MSC claims to use the “highest benchmarks for credible certification and ecolabelling, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization guidelines and the ISEAL (International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling) Code.” and “its label guarantees that the wild seafood was caught using methods that do not deplete the natural supply. It also guarantees that fishing companies do not cause serious harm to other life in the sea, from coral to dolphins.” In theory every item that has the MSC label on it is sustainably fished but

PHOTO SOURCE: GREENPEACE VIA VISIONVERT

sadly in practise this may not be the case. Critics say that the MSC system has been certifying some fisheries despite evidence that the target fish are in trouble, or that the fishing industry is harming the environment. The MSC system has certified other fisheries as sustainable even though there is not enough evidence to know how they are affecting the environment.

Opinion of a Diving Instructor For five years now I have been diving in Kenya, where the Chinese have fisheries partnership with the Kenyan government and trawl the waters.

Often the official agreements on how much the Chinese should trawl and how many fish should be caught are not adhered to, and because of corruption the Chinese easily get away with it. Even in this relatively short period of time I have seen a major decrease in the number of large fish that I see on the average dive. In 2010 I would see fish

ranging up to the size of one meter on a regular basis. Now if I saw a fish that large it would be cause for excitement and celebration, most are now half the size or even less than that. It has also caused huge problems for the local fishermen who practise traditional fishing methods which are not a threat to overfishing; they can no longer catch large fish and find it difficult to catch enough to feed themselves and their families.

Is this the end of the line?

Overall it’s a pretty complicated situation with no easy answers, the best thing you could do is eat less fish but if that’s not an option for you then buy the MSC labelled fish or buy fish from local fish markets. Fish farms could potentially offer a solution but only after more research has been done and stricter regulations have been put in place and implemented.

NEXUS AUTUMN

36

Green Office is a student-driven and staff-supported university department, which manages, coordinates and facilitates all agreements and activities according to the University’s sustainable development. Do you want to improve sustainability at the University of Groningen and do you want to contribute to one of our projects? Contact us by email, facebook, phone or come by our office.

- Greenoffice@rug.nl - 050 363 4884 - Visserstraat 49, 9712 CT Groningen -

30-DAY VEGAN CHALLENGE

TEXT: ALVARO TRUJILLO OLAIZ / EXCHANGE

V

egan - I even disliked the word before I had given much thought to what it really meant and what ‘they’ tried to achieve; but after being convinced by the environmental argument well presented in the documentary, Cowspiracy, I decided to give the 30 Day Vegan Challenge a go.

From the first day I was met with difficulties. I had already bought plenty of animal products and stored them in my fridge and cupboards; this ranged from minced meat to honey. But nonetheless, I had decided to do the challenge, and knowing that some of the products would expire by the end of it, I decided to simply give them away to my friends. This then led to the next difficulty, what do I buy at the grocery store? It felt like I was limiting my diet and stripping myself from life’s pleasures. I felt that while my efforts

did contribute for the benefit of the environment and animals, they remained minute. But gradually, I took an approach at looking at the challenge by considering compound interests, knowing that a single day of eating vegan might have a small impact, but reminding myself that every day that I kept going, my contributions grew and that by the end of the month, I will have had made a difference, that while still being small, was 30 times larger than the I had achieved by the end of the first day.

Prior to this challenge, I had never gone into a restaurant and even considered ordering something from the menu that did not contain a meat of some sort. I believe my tunnel vision came from the ‘protein myth’ that these meats are our sacred sources of protein, and that without them, I’d struggle to maintain my health, let alone any athletic aspirations.

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

38

The Magazine Committee is fully aware that this topic is very controversial and we have thought very long and hard about the message that we wish to send to you, our readers, by publishing such a difficult message. If you feel as though we are being unduely enthusiastic in promoting the plant-based lifestyle, we would very much like to hear your opinion as well as your reasons for your beliefs. We will, subject to your permission, publish your comments in the next issue.

Please email us at: magazinecommittee.nexus@gmail.com

THEME

Thankfully, it wasn’t long until I came across academics and life examples that proved to me that this myth, was exactly that: a widely held but false belief.

One of the most rewarding discoveries from this 30 Day Challenge has been the learning process that has come with it. I have a much greater understanding of the nutritional components specific foods bring. Surprisingly enough, I’ve also enjoyed my own cooking even more, by having expanded more in regards to both taste and range. On top of further enjoying my food, the 30 Day Challenge also helped me with my everyday life. I found it drastically easier to get up in the morning, go to the gym, and I’ve even noticed my hangovers haven’t hit nearly as bad as they did in the past. Whether these benefits are a coincidence, a placebo effect or directly related to my change in diet, I can’t assure you, but I can say I’ve enjoyed them enough to continue my stretch as a vegan.

39

I previously saw vegans as a sort of cult of hippies, whom I disliked for their extreme demonstrations and protests attacking what I had been led to believe my entire life was the right way of living. Since then, I have exposed myself to academic literature with focused on the health benefits of the diet, as well as documentaries pushing the agenda from an ethical and moral perspective. The cumulative experience has been enough for me to adopt this lifestyle indefinitely. I could not be happier to have taken on this plant based diet, I honestly feel its benefits every day, and believe I’ll be even more content with my decision for years to come. If you’re considering taking the 30 Day Challenge, I recommend you consider Robin Sharma’s (not a vegan) quote on change: “all change is hard at first, messy in the middle and gorgeous at the end.”

TEXT: MIHAELA ASTINOVA / PHOTO: ONEGREENPLANET.ORG

A

s has been explored earlier in this magazine, we are facing serious threats to the environment which seem to be neglected by the majority of the population. In order to combat this impression that people wilfully ignore the campaigns of environmental organisations, there are famous celebrity figures who have used their power to exert influence which cannot be achieved by environmental groups.

Among one of the most fervent environmental activists is Leonardo DiCaprio who has been engaged in a determined fight against the serious ecological challenges and severe climate changes for more than a decade. His environmentalist path is mainly associated with the establishment of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation (LDF) which - through various grants, campaigns, and media projects - fights for protecting biodiversity, access to clean water, oceans and wild-lands conservation, and climate change. Leonardo DiCaprio himself is also a member of different

environmentally oriented organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Global Green USA, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). Last year, he was also designated as UN Messenger of Peace with focus on climate change by the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Kimoon.

In September 2014, DiCaprio delivered a speech before the UN panel on Climate Change, where he described climate change as “the greatest threat to global security”. He also urged for “decisive largescale action from the world’s governments, industries, and individuals” to fight climate change together, otherwise none of us would be able to enjoy our inalienable human right to health, directly related to the necessity for clean air and water, green forests, animal diversity, and liveable climate.

Furthermore, nearly two months ago, LDF joined a rapidly growing anti-fossil fuel coalition together with more than 400 institutions to fight climate

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

40

Leonardo DiCaprio MORE THAN HOLLYWOOD EYECANDY

THEME

change. The so called Divest Invest Pledge (supported by 43 countries, health and education bodies, governments, UN Climate Agency, etc.) focuses on the idea that companies, governments, and individuals should refrain from investing in fossil fuel industries, and instead direct their assets to clean energy investments. Since September 2014, the number of the institutions pledged to divest from fossil fuel companies has grown from 181 to 436, and the divestment supporters guarantee that the figures will triple in number

by December 2015 when the UN Climate negotiations take place in Paris.

Another great achievement of DiCaprio is bringing the eye-opening documentary “Cowspiracy” to Netflix in September this year. Closely related to LDF’s cause, “Cowspiracy” suggests that animal agriculture industry, just like all global industries, is responsible for the global warming, water depletion, ocean dead zones, deforestation, and animal species extinction. Another project 41

of DiCaprio’s can be found in the documentary “The 11th Hour”, describing the state of Earth affected by human actions.

Regrettably, many people around the world are rather sceptical about the positive outcome of the fight against climate change, since fossil fuel industries continue drilling trillions of dollars of oil every day, emitting extortionate amounts of CO2 into the air. Even though some might believe that the combat for our environment had already been lost, figures such as Leonardo DiCaprio proved the concept that climate change is a “‘common concern of mankind”. For that reason, celebrities can be regarded as the leading role models in our society, and by consistently sharing with us their struggles and great success, people can do nothing but support and follow.

Mankind should finally accept the colossal environmental problems we face, and acknowledge our own role in making a positive change.

DEBATE: Is Cultured Meat the Answer to our Sustainibility Problem?

DEBATE

TEXT: KATA MAGYAR/ LLB 1

T

he issue of cultured meat has been igniting fierce debates since the first artificial beef burger was created by Dutch scientists in 2013. The question arises evidently: what does actually distinguish cultured meat from average meat? First of all, meat created in a labo- ratory is also known as ‘victimless meat’, since instead of killing animals, a certain amount of muscle cells are taken from animals in a painless way. Owing to the fact that cells are capable of multiplying themselves it would be apparently possible (or at least in theory) to feed the entire population via this method of meat production.

According to the summary of New Harvest in many cases conventional meat consumption results in either food-borne diseases or other types of serious illnesses such as diabetes stemming from the excessive intake of meat products filled with artificial ingredients, such as flavour enhancers.1 Need- less

to say not only our health can be subjected to the questionable effects of conventional meat, but nature as well. Harvesting more and more cropland, pesticide or fertilizer in or- der to provide smooth meat processing undoubtedly exacerbates the situation of natural resources in trying to keep up with our demand for meat. Due to the above mentioned rea- sons advocates for cultured meat are convinced that artificial meat could present an adequate and expedient solution to all the inconvenience can be traced back to meat produc- tion. As opposed to conventional meat, this alternative can be regarded as a much more humane way of producing meat. Furthermore, owing to the possibility of controlling fat con- tent, some might say cultured meat can at the same time potentially serve the interest of nature and exert favourable impact on our health if we are willing to adjust it to our diet.

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

42

I am supportive of finding a solution that includes abundant protein intake without taking away innocent animals’ lives. However, as long as the alternative for conventional meat cannot be regarded as entirely exempt from damaging side effects, I will not try it by any chance. Despite these alternatives I believe that meat is too crucial for sufficient protein intake, especially for little children, since they are not fully developed on a physical level. Depriving meat from them would cause more harm than good and to be honest I would never feed them with artificial meat. If a safe alternative for producing meat without taking animals’ lives were to be provided in the future, I will be the first customer to buy it. However, what scientists can offer now is rather endangering to the health of human beings. Even though this way lives of animals are spared, it is sadly a fact that eventually they will get killed for other purpos-

TEXT: TEODORA ANGELEVSKA LLB / 1

es such as the fashion industry’s demand for animal fur. Therefore, even if this method gets more refined and developed in the near future, it will not necessarily result in considerable and drastic change regarding the number of animals killed for the purpose of feeding the world.

I am a dedicated vegetarian, therefore I approve of the potential merits of the idea, for instance the fact that producing artificial meat requires considerably less resources regarding water, grain or grass. If all the promises could become reality that would be actually beneficial concerning both the nature and humanity. Regarding the side effects, I believe it is worth taking a risk, since on hand at this very moment we are not aware of any poJAN SIEVERS / INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS / 1

43

tential side effects, so how should we gain information unless we give it a try? Needless to say I find the abusive behaviour of the meat industry aggravating, in addition to the constantly growing consumer demand. However, to tell the truth even I have reservations about artificial meat. As far as I see, cultured meat is nothing more than a eu- phemistic version of actual meat and to be fair I am rather pessimistic about the outcome in the near future.

K

Kimberley Motley is Afghanistan’s only foreign defence lawyer, she is a US citizen, and has helped both foreigners and Afghans trapped in the country’s judicial system. She doesn’t speak Pashto or Farsi and uses an iPad app to translate tracts of Sharia law from the Quran. She argues with prosecutors through a group of specially trained legal translators.

In her Ted Talk Motley is incredibly inspiring, and her thoughts on justice - what it is and how it should be administered - are clear and bold. Motley defines “justness” as using laws for their intended purpose: to protect. This ideology of the protection of those who are weak is what underlies the entire talk and all her work in Afghanistan. She talks about her own experiences in Afghanistan and some of her successful cases, the tales of two little girls, one six- and one twelve-year old. Sadly in Afghanistan women don’t

get to have all that much say in their futures and both of these girls were sold by their families to other men to become their wives.

In the instance of the six year old her father owed a debt to a neighbour which he was unable to pay back therefore the father and the neighbour sat down in a ‘jirga’ (a customary meeting to resolve disputes usually comprising village elders) where it was decided that the six year old girl would marry the son (an adult) of the neighbour and that this would settle the debt of the father. When Motley heard about the situation she convinced the father of the girl along with her brothers and the girl’s husband to have another jirga with her present. By the end of the second jirga Motley persuaded them to change their decision and to free the girl from the marriage. The twelve year old had a far more difficult time, her new husband attempted to force her into prostitution, and when she refused he had her beaten and tortured with fire; NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

44

TED

TALKS

KIMBERLEY MOTLEY

HOW I DEFEND THE RULE OF LAW

the girl eventually escaped with the help of an NGO. Motley took on case this girl’ case to help her receive justice.

Many people see Afghanistan as a failed state, therefore it may surprise you to hear, that it does have legal system, based on Sharia law in the Quran, in addition to several customary and court legal proceedings that are in place, despite the fact that most issues among the local people are resolved in a traditional manner. The twelve year old girl, with Motley as her lawyer, took her case to the Supreme Court where she won compensation for damages as well as successfully imprisoning her bother and husband.

Motley cites three main reasons in Afghanistan as well as on a global scale that make justness hard to achieve. The first being a severe lack of knowledge of what peoples’ legal rights are; secondly that even if there are written laws and statutes these are often 45

disregarded TEXT: KYLIE MCKENZIE MORRELL / LLB 1 in favour of tradition and custom; and third that there are not enough people and lawyers fighting for these laws. “This is the only place that I’ve seen where procedure trumps law,” she says. “If the unwritten procedure says this is the way we do things, then that’s how it’s done.” Motley’s bold approach (and her refusal to pay bribes) means she has met with plenty of opposition. She regularly receives anonymous emails threatening her with rape or death.

Motely is a brave and inspiring woman whose dedication to law and justice is something to admire. Her tenacity and refusal to give up in the face of opposition has made a difference in the lives of many, I highly recommend watching her Ted Talk because it reminded me of why I want to be a lawyer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY WHAT, ME? - http://www.cowspiracy.com/ - http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-meat-do-americans-eat-then-and-now-1792/ - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20 on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=3045642_nihms-253312-f0001.jpg YOU CAN’T REAP WHAT YOU CAN’T SOW - The FAO.org -Biber-Klemm, S., Cottier, T., Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Basic Issues and Perspectives, (CABI Publishing 2006) - Shiva, V., Stolen Harvest: The High jacking of the Global Food Supply, (South End Press 2000 - firstforsustaianbility.org - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-631_en.htm\ - Grain.org - Navdanya.org THE HIDDEN WORLD OF SOY - http://grist.org/article/growing-demand-for-soybeans-threatens-amazon-rainforest/ - http://worldinfo.org/2012/01/food-for-thought-soybean-endangers-brazil-amazon-rainforest/ - http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/consumers/ (soy diagram) - http://www.wildmadagascar.org/overview/rainforests2.html - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fate-of-the-rainforest-is-irreversible-1643083. html - http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/soil_erosion/

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

46

OCEAN DEPLETION - http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/destructive_fishing/ - http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing - http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf - http://www.bycatch.org/about-bycatch - http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fisheries_Depletion_full_case_study_web.pdf - http://www.npr.org/2013/02/11/171376509/is-sustainable-labeled-seafood-really-sustainable - http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2008/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-fish-farming/ - http://healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-fish-farming/ - https://www.msc.org/about-us LEONARDO DICAPRIO - http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/leoardo-dicaprio-un-climate-change-summit-speech/ - For further reference, see art. 12 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the preamble of the 1946 World Health Organization, Article 25 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

- http://www.alternet.org/environment/leonardo-dicaprio-joins-26-trillion-fossil-fuel-divestment-movement - http://divestinvest.org/ DEBATE: CULTURED MEAT - new-harvest.org - 2Maddie Stone: The Future Will Be Full of Lab Grown Meat (http://gizmodo.com/the-future-will-be- fullof-lab-grown-meat-1720874704)

47

FINALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL CONTRIBUTORS, HELPERS AND READERS FOR MAKING THE COMPLETION OF THIS MAGAZINE POSSIBLE. THIS FANTASTIC PROJECT IS ENTIRELY FOR YOU, SO WE RELY ON YOUR FEEDBACK, COLLABORATION, INPUT, AND COMMENTS IN ORDER TO KEEP PRODUCING MAGAZINES YOU WANT TO READ. SO PLEASE BE IN TOUCH!

NEXUS MAGAZINE COMMITTEE

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

48

49

NEXUS AUTUMN 2015 |

50