Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels.

The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s ‘protected area’, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers. Yet Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called ‘insider threats’ have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or ‘dirty bomb’ – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under ‘hostile surveillance‘ by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.

Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials. Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an ‘insider threat’. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

There were fears that the Brussels cell of the Islamic State terror group may have been plotting a radioactive nuclear bomb attack. Although there was no official confirmation, media reports claim that two brothers were believed to have been involved in an Isis plan to create a bomb to scatter radioactive material over a populated area.

Since then, the authorities temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant over fears of inside help.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits took place in Washington DC last Friday. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair.”)

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

Robert J Downes is the MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security at King’s College London.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at King’s College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels.

The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s ‘protected area’, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers. Yet Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called ‘insider threats’ have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or ‘dirty bomb’ – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under ‘hostile surveillance‘ by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.

Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials. Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an ‘insider threat’. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

There were fears that the Brussels cell of the Islamic State terror group may have been plotting a radioactive nuclear bomb attack. Although there was no official confirmation, media reports claim that two brothers were believed to have been involved in an Isis plan to create a bomb to scatter radioactive material over a populated area.

Since then, the authorities temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant over fears of inside help.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits took place in Washington DC last Friday. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair.”)

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

Robert J Downes is the MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security at King’s College London.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at King’s College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels.

The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s ‘protected area’, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers. Yet Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called ‘insider threats’ have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or ‘dirty bomb’ – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under ‘hostile surveillance‘ by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.

Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials. Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an ‘insider threat’. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

There were fears that the Brussels cell of the Islamic State terror group may have been plotting a radioactive nuclear bomb attack. Although there was no official confirmation, media reports claim that two brothers were believed to have been involved in an Isis plan to create a bomb to scatter radioactive material over a populated area.

Since then, the authorities temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant over fears of inside help.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits took place in Washington DC last Friday. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair.”)

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

Robert J Downes is the MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security at King’s College London.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at King’s College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels.

The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s ‘protected area’, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers. Yet Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called ‘insider threats’ have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or ‘dirty bomb’ – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under ‘hostile surveillance‘ by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.

Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials. Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an ‘insider threat’. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

There were fears that the Brussels cell of the Islamic State terror group may have been plotting a radioactive nuclear bomb attack. Although there was no official confirmation, media reports claim that two brothers were believed to have been involved in an Isis plan to create a bomb to scatter radioactive material over a populated area.

Since then, the authorities temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant over fears of inside help.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits took place in Washington DC last Friday. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair.”)

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

Robert J Downes is the MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security at King’s College London.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at King’s College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels.

The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s ‘protected area’, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers. Yet Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called ‘insider threats’ have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or ‘dirty bomb’ – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under ‘hostile surveillance‘ by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.

Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials. Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an ‘insider threat’. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

There were fears that the Brussels cell of the Islamic State terror group may have been plotting a radioactive nuclear bomb attack. Although there was no official confirmation, media reports claim that two brothers were believed to have been involved in an Isis plan to create a bomb to scatter radioactive material over a populated area.

Since then, the authorities temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant over fears of inside help.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits took place in Washington DC last Friday. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair.”)

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

Robert J Downes is the MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security at King’s College London.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at King’s College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Belgium’s counter-terrorism efforts are once again being called into question following the recent tragedies in Brussels.

The attacks were carried out against soft targets – the public check-in area of Brussels Airport and Maelbeek metro station – but a series of unusual and suspicious occurrences were also reported at nuclear facilities in the country.

Occurring a week before a major international summit on nuclear security, these events highlight the very real threat to nuclear facilities. For Belgium, this recent episode is one item on a long list of security concerns.

The US repeatedly has voiced concerns about Belgium’s nuclear security arrangements since 2003. That year, Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national and former professional footballer, planned to bomb the Belgian Kleine-Brogel airbase under the aegis of Al-Qaeda.

The airbase, which holds US nuclear weapons, has seen multiple incursions by anti-nuclear activists who have gained access to the site’s ‘protected area’, which surrounds hardened weapons storage bunkers. Yet Belgium only started using armed guards at its nuclear facilities weeks before the March 2016 attacks.

Beyond incursions, so-called ‘insider threats’ have also cost Belgium dearly. The nation’s nuclear industry comprises two ageing power stations first commissioned in the 1970s (Doel and Tihange), and two research facilities, a research reactor facility in Mol, and a radioisotope production facility in Fleurus.

In 2014, an unidentified worker sabotaged a turbine at the Doel nuclear power station by draining its coolant. The plant had to be partially shut down, at a loss of €40 million per month. Based on this history, the Belgian authorities should be primed to take nuclear security especially seriously. But there are serious questions about whether they are.

Islamic State is watching you

Islamic State is believed to have taken possession of radiological materials, including 40kg of uranium compounds in Iraq. This suggests a possible interest in fabricating a radiological dispersal device – or ‘dirty bomb’ – that would spread dangerous radioactive materials over a wide area.

It had been assumed that IS was concentrating this activity in the Middle East. But that all changed in late 2015. A senior nuclear worker at the Mol research facility was found to have been placed under ‘hostile surveillance‘ by individuals linked to the Islamic State-sanctioned attacks in Paris.

Reports suggested that the terrorist cell may have planned to blackmail or co-opt the worker to gain access to either the facility or radiological materials. Alongside the 2014 Doel sabotage incident, this raises the spectre of an ‘insider threat’. A worker could use their access, authority and knowledge to sabotage a nuclear plant or remove material for malicious purposes.

This concern is furthered by reports of a worker at the Doel plant, who was associated with the radical Salafist organisation Sharia4Belgium, joining Al-Qaeda-inspired militants in Syria in late 2012. Following his death in Syria, the Belgian nuclear regulator reported that “several people have … been refused access to a nuclear facility or removed from nuclear sites because they showed signs of extremism”.

There were fears that the Brussels cell of the Islamic State terror group may have been plotting a radioactive nuclear bomb attack. Although there was no official confirmation, media reports claim that two brothers were believed to have been involved in an Isis plan to create a bomb to scatter radioactive material over a populated area.

Since then, the authorities temporarily revoked the security clearances of 11 nuclear workers at Tihange nuclear plant over fears of inside help.

Tightening security worldwide

Meanwhile, the fourth and final meeting in a series of international nuclear security summits took place in Washington DC last Friday. This brought together high-level decision makers, including heads of state, to try to improve the international nuclear security regime (which has been described as “a rather messy and complicated affair.”)

While strict processes are in place to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are far fewer shared rules on securing nuclear facilities and materials. This summit has aimed to address this imbalance. The first summit was held in 2010, after US president Barack Obama described nuclear terrorism as the “most immediate and extreme threat” to global security.

So far, the summits have seen significant successes. They have led to the removal of highly enriched uranium from 14 jurisdictions and upgrades to security at 32 material storage facilities. Equipment to detect nuclear materials has also been installed at 328 international borders.

But no further summits are planned after the 2016 meeting and no mechanism has been identified to replace the summit process. That means the future progress of nuclear security is uncertain. And as can be seen in Belgium, the threat remains as real as ever.

Robert J Downes is the MacArthur Fellow in Nuclear Security at King’s College London.

Daniel Salisbury is a Research Associate at King’s College London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The proportion of deaths due to cancer around the world increased from 12% in 1990 to 15% in 2013.

Globally, cancer is already the second-leading cause of death after cardiovascular diseases.

In India, government data indicates that cancer showed a 5% increase in prevalence between 2012 and 2014 with the number of new cases doubling between 1990 and 2013. The incidence of cancer for some major organs in India is the highest in the world.

Reports have also drawn attention to rising rates of breast cancer in urban areas, and, in 2009, there was a reported increase in cancer rates in Tamil Nadu’s textile belt, possibly due to chemically contaminated water.

The increase in prevalence of diabetes is also worrying. By 2030, the number of diabetes patients in India is likely to rise to 101 million (World Health Organisation estimate). The number doubled to 63 million in 2013 from 32 million in 2000. Almost 8.2% of the adult male population in India has diabetes. The figure is 6.8% for women.

In India, almost 76,000 men and 52,000 women in the 30-69 age group died due to diabetes in 2015, according to the WHO. The organisation reports South-East Asia had a diabetic population of around 47 million, which is expected to reach 119 million by 2030.

A new study in The Lancet has found that India and China continue to have the largest number of underweight people in the world; however, both countries have broken into the top five in terms of obesity.

Leading the world in obesity – and in underweight people

India leads the world in terms of underweight people. Some 102 million men and 101 million women are underweight, which makes the country home to over 40% of the global underweight population.

Contrast this with India’s surge in obesity. In 1975, the country had 0.4 million obese men or 1.3% of the global obese men’s population. In 2014, it was in fifth position globally with 9.8 million obese men or 3.7% of the global obese men’s population. Among women, India is globally ranked third, with 20 million obese women or 5.3% of global population.

Although almost half the nation’s under-5s are underweight, the prevalence of underweight children in India is among the highest in the world; at the same time, the country is fast becoming the diabetes and heart disease capital of the world.

Many social and economic factors, including environmental pollution, poor working and living conditions, tobacco smoking, lack of income and economic distress, lack of access to healthcare and poverty, contribute to ill health and disease. However, conditions like cardiovascular disease and obesity have among other things been linked to sedentary lifestyles and/or certain types of diet, not least modern Western-style convenience food (discussed later).

Western junk food aside, it will be shown that even when we have access to sufficient calorific intake or seemingly nutritious and wholesome traditional diets, there is little doubt that due to the processes involved in growing and processing the food we eat, diet can be a (major) contributory factor in causing certain conditions and illnesses.

The junk food revolution, ‘free trade’ and poor health

The impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the subsequent flood of cheap US processed food into the country has adversely affected the health of ordinary people. Western ‘convenience’ (junk) food has displaced more traditional-based diets and is now readily available in every neighbourhood.

Increasing rates of diabetes, obesity and other health issues have followed. This report by GRAIN describes how US agribusiness and retailers have captured the market south of the border and outlines the subsequent impact on the health of Mexican people.

In Europe, due to the ‘harmonisation’ of food regulatory standards, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could seriously impact the health of Europeans. Washington wants Europe to eliminate all restrictions on imports of food from the US and to adopt a US-style food supply regulatory regime, stripped of the precautionary principle.

US corporations want to make it difficult for European consumers to identify whether what they’re eating is food that was produced using health-damaging practices that EU consumers are against, like GMOs, chlorine-washed chicken and meat from animals treated with growth hormone.

These types of trade agreements represent little more than economic plunder by transnational corporations. They use their massive political clout to author the texts of these agreements with the aim of eradicating all restrictions and regulations that would impede greater profits.

Western agribusiness, food processing companies and retail concerns are gaining wider entry into India and through various strategic trade deals are looking to gain a more significant footprint within the country.

The Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture and the ongoing India-EU free trade agreement (like TTIP, both are secretive and largely authored by powerful corporations above the heads of ordinary people) talks have raised serious concerns about the stranglehold that transnational corporations could have on the agriculture and food sectors, including the subsequent impact on the livelihoods of hundreds of millions and not least the health of the public.

Western style fast-food outlets have already been soaring in number throughout the country. Pizza Hut now operates in 46 Indian cities with 181 restaurants and 132 home delivery locations, a 67% increase in the last five years). KFC is now in 73 cities with 296 restaurants, a 770% increase.

McDonalds is in 61 Indian cities with 242 restaurants as compared to 126 restaurants five years back, a 92% increase). According to a study published in the Indian Journal of Applied Research, the Indian fast food market is growing at the rate of 30-35% per annum (see this).

And now, the extra burden of disease

Heart disease, liver damage, stroke, obesity and diabetes are just some of the diseases linked to diets revolving around fast-food. Frequent consumption of fast food has been associated with increased body mass index as well as higher intakes of fat, sodium, added sugars and sugar-sweetened beverages and lower intakes of fruits, vegetables, fibre and milk in children, adolescents and adults.

Fast food also tends to have higher energy densities and poorer nutritional quality than foods prepared at home and in comparison with dietary recommendations (see this). To further appreciate just how unhealthy even seemingly healthy food can be in well-stocked supermarkets, this report in the Guardian reveals the cocktails of additives, colourants and preservatives that the modern food industry adds to our food.

Moreover, in many regions across the globe industrialised factory farming has replaced traditional livestock agriculture. Animals are thrown together in cramped conditions to scale up production and maximise output at minimum cost. For example, just 40 years ago the Philippines’ entire population was fed on native eggs and chickens produced by family farmers. Now, most of those farmers are out of business.

And because world trade rules encourage nations from imposing tariffs on subsidised imported products, they are forced to allow cheap, factory-farmed US meat into the country. These products are then sold at lower prices than domestic meat. There is therefore pressure for local producers to scale up and industrialise to compete.

Factory farms increase the risk of pathogens like E coli and salmonella that cause food-borne illness in people. Overuse of antibiotics can fuel the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the use of arsenic and growth hormones can increase the risk of cancer in people and crowded conditions can be a breeding ground for disease.

Genetically modified animal feed is also a serious issue, leading to concerns about the impact on both animal and human health.

The green revolution, micronutrient deficient soil and human health

We often hear unsubstantiated claims about the green revolution having saved hundreds of millions of lives, but any short-term gains have been offset. This high-input petro-chemical paradigm helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health (see this report on India by botanist Stuart Newton – p.9 onward).

Adding weight to this argument, the authors of this paper from the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state (references in article):

“Cropping systems promoted by the green revolution have increased the food production but also resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients. Micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of chronic diseases (cancer, heart diseases, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis) in many developing nations; more than 3 billion people are directly affected by the micronutrient deficiencies. Unbalanced use of mineral fertilizers and a decrease in the use of organic manure are the main causes of the nutrient deficiency in the regions where the cropping intensity is high.”

The authors imply that the link between micronutrient deficiency in soil and human nutrition is increasingly regarded as important:

“Moreover, agricultural intensification requires an increased nutrient flow towards and greater uptake of nutrients by crops. Until now, micronutrient deficiency has mostly been addressed as a soil and, to a smaller extent, plant problem. Currently, it is being addressed as a human nutrition problem as well. Increasingly, soils and food systems are affected by micronutrients disorders, leading to reduced crop production and malnutrition and diseases in humans and plants.

“Conventionally, agriculture is taken as a food-production discipline and was considered a source of human nutrition; hence, in recent years many efforts have been made to improve the quality of food for the growing world population, particularly in the developing nations.”

Pesticides, the environment, food and health

Hand in hand with the practices outlined above has been the growth of the widespread intensive use of chemical pesticides. There are currently 34,000 pesticides registered for use in the US. Drinking water is often contaminated by pesticides and more babies are being born with preventable birth defects due to pesticide exposure.

Illnesses are on the rise too, including asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases and several types of cancer. The association with pesticide exposure is becoming stronger with each new study.

In Punjab, pesticide run-offs into water sources have turned the state into a ‘cancer epicentre‘, and Indian soils are being depleted as a result of the application of green revolution ideology and chemical inputs. India is losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is become deficient in nutrients and fertility.

India is one of the world’s largest users of pesticides and a profitable market for the corporations that manufacture them. Ladyfinger, cabbage, tomato and cauliflower in particular may contain dangerously high levels because farmers tend to harvest them almost immediately after spraying. Fruit and vegetables are sprayed and tampered with to make them more colourful, and harmful fungicides are sprayed on fruit to ripen them in order to rush them off to market.

Consider that if you live in India, the next time you serve up a good old ‘wholesome’ meal of rice and various vegetables, you could take in half a milligram of pesticide also. That would be much more than what an average North American person would consume.

Research by the School of Natural Sciences and Engineering (SNSE) at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore has indicated disturbing trends in the increased use of pesticide. In 2008, it reported that many crops for export had been rejected internationally due to high pesticide residues. Moreover, India is one of the largest users of World Health Organization (WHO) ‘Class 1A’ pesticides, including phorate, phosphorus, phosphamidon and fenthion that are extremely hazardous.

Kasargod in Kerala is notorious for the indiscriminate spraying of endosulfan. The government-owned Plantation Corporation of Kerala aerially sprayed the harmful pesticide on cashews for a period of over 20 years. Consequently, it got into rivers, streams and drinking water. Families and their children have been living with physical deformities, cancers and disorders of the central nervous system ever since.

Officials and the pesticide companies benefited from the spraying. At the time, cashew was grown without pesticides throughout Kerala, but the government-run plantation invested millions of rupees of public money in spraying the deadly pesticide. Endosulfen poisoning cases also emerged elsewhere, including Karnataka.

The SNSE notes that pesticide use across India has greatly increased over the years. This not only impacts the health of consumers but also the health of agricultural workers who are subject to pesticide drift and spaying, especially as they tend to wear little or no protection. Research by SNSE shows farmers use a cocktail of pesticides and often use three to four times the recommended amounts.

Forced-fed development: who benefits?

If there are any beneficiaries in all of this, it is the pesticide manufacturers, the healthcare sector, especially private clinics and drug companies, and the transnational food and agribusiness companies, which now see their main growth markets in Asia, Africa and South America, where traditionally people have tended to eat food from their own farms or markets that sell locally-produced foods.

Of course, the commodification and privatisation of seeds by corporate entities, the manufacturing and selling of more and more chemicals to spray on them, the opening up fast food outlets and the selling of pharmaceuticals or the expansion of private hospitals to address the health impacts of the modern junk food system (in India, the healthcare sector is projected to grow by 16% a year) all amounts to the holy grail of neoliberal capitalism, GDP growth; which increasingly means a system defined by jobless growth, greater personal and public debt and massive profits for large corporations and banks.

While there are calls for taxes on unhealthy food and emphasis is placed on encouraging individual ‘lifestyle changes’ and ‘healthy eating’, it would be better to call to account the corporations that profit from the growing and production of health-damaging food in the first place and to get agriculture off the chemical treadmill.

Part of the solution entails restoring degraded soils. It also includes moving towards healthier and more nutritious organic agriculture, encouraging localised rural and urban food economies that are shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets and shying away from the need for unhealthy food-processing practices, unnatural preservatives and harmful additives.

In India, it also involves calling a halt to the programmed dismantling of local rural economies and indigenous agriculture under the guise of ‘globalisation’ for the benefit of transnational agribusiness and food retail corporations.

And it entails placing less emphasis on a headlong rush towards urbanisation (and the subsequent distortion of agricultural production), while putting greater emphasis on localisation.

Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher, based in the UK and India.

Support Colin’s work here.

This article is was originally published on Colin’s website.

Several hours down the fast-moving Bobonaza River, churning brown with sediment and swollen from recent rains, our dugout canoe careened around the bend, forest on each side, and came upon a bridge spanning the river.

Kids were strewn across it, jumping into the water, in an afternoon post-school ritual.

We had arrived in Sarayaku, the pillar of resistance to resource extraction in Ecuador’s Amazon, thorn in the side of the oil-hungry administration of President Rafael Correa, and home of Kichwa indigenous people named for the husks of corn that would float down the rivers throughout their ancestral homeland.

Accompanied by our Executive Director Leila Salazar-López and others, we journeyed into Sarayaku and the remote mountainous rainforest territory of the Sápara to hear firsthand from leaders and community members about the Ecuadorian government’s aggressive push to open up their lands to new oil drilling.

As I write this article, the Ecuadorian government has just announced that it began drilling the controversial ITT (Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini) oil field in Yasuní National Park. It hopes that the first oil will be produced by the end of 2016.

The well platform, known as Tiputini C, is on the border of the park, while the rest of the field and Block 43 concession overlaps what is widely understood as one of the most biodiverse places on the planet and home to indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.

With freshly-inked oil contracts with Chinese state-run Andes Petroleum for two blocks covering a majority of Sápara territory and an important swath of Sarayaku lands and plans to auction off several more oil concessions in late 2016, the fate of the people and forests of Ecuador’s southern Amazon hang in the balance.

We are defending Mother Earth

The next day, Gerardo Gualinga led us further downriver. Known as Charapa, a small but strong species of turtle from the region, Gerardo is a member of the WIO, Sarayaku’s traditional security patrol named for a fierce jungle ant that has been critical in monitoring attempts by the government, military, and oil companies to enter their territory illegally.

He is also the son of Sarayaku’s most renowned medicine man, Don Sabino. We pulled off the river, tied up the canoe, and after a short walk through the forest, Gerardo brought us to a towering ceibo tree, teaming with life. Gerardo explained the importance of these sacred giants:

“For us, the conservation of nature, of Mother Earth, is very important. Here we have a great sacred tree. If you visualized, in the vision of Ayahuasca, it’s like a great city, like a house. Here are the sacred spirits. So we conserve that. We respect it very much. The new threats that the government is pushing will destroy this. This is what we’re defending here. Mother Earth.”

Returning to Sarayaku, we turned into a small tributary, where the brown turbulent water slowly turned a crystal clear turquoise, gurgling over perfectly rounded stones and smooth pebbles – a perfect swimming hole. And an ever better place to find lunch.

Several disoriented fish floated by, still inebriated and slow from the barbasco root being used upstream by families fishing, which makes for an easy catch in shallow water. Families walked by with an impressive haul of a variety of species of fish – and baskets full of harvest from their chackras – yucca, plantains, and papa china.

But these are more than just idyllic, postcard scenes. They are the rituals of daily life in the forest. They’re the physical and spiritual sustenance of indigenous peoples like Sarayaku and the Sápara. Tragically, however, they are few and far between further north, where some fifty years of oil extraction at the hands of Chevron, PetroAmazonas, Repsol, and others has ravaged the forests and cultures of Sarayaku’s indigenous northern neighbors.

“In the rainforest, everything is possible”, explained Gerardo. “Here are our pharmacies. Here are our libraries. Here is our treasure, our life. Not only for us, for the entire world. So our future generations, your children, your children’s children, can live and breathe clean air.”

We heard similar sentiments from the Sápara over several days with women, men, youth and elders in the community of Llanchama.

In the place where the spirits dwell

Our three-passenger Cessna slammed down on a dicey airstrip filled with weeds and rocks, stopping just short of a palm frond abyss. Surrounded by mountains, it was hard to grasp that this was the Amazon Basin. Steep ravines, cloud vapor clinging to treetops, rocky rivers: the topography is stunning and unexpected.

The Sápara are only 575 people, and they were often lumped in with the Kichwa, Shiwiar, or Waorani nationalities. Encroachment on their territory and inter-marrying among neighboring nationalities has left the Sápara culture at risk. Only a handful of elders speak fluent Sápara, and their traditions and customs as a people are eroding. After forming their first political federation in 1999, they gained recognition from UNESCO for their unique and vulnerable language and culture the same year.

Gloria Ushigua leads us through the forest, slashing her machete as needed. Every plant has a name, a use, or a reason to avoid touching it. There’s what roughly translates as the ‘Fart Plant’, which you can drink as a tea to relieve gas, a sweet cane plant, and ants that taste like lemon.

She shushes us as we approach a dark, apparently bottomless cave off to the side of the trail. “This is where the spirits dwell”, we are told. The Sápara make it a point to not be passing by here as evening approaches, as that is the time spirits are most active. Her brother Manari, current President of the Sápara federation suddenly and firmly grabs my ankle around my rubber boots. “Like this. This is how they can grab you.”

Gloria has been the most outspoken and fierce defender of her people and lands, unwavering whether confronting government representatives, oil executives, or false climate change solution schemes like REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) that offset northern contamination with alleged forest protection in the south using carbon markets yet strip communities near refineries and frontline forest peoples of rights and environmental equity.

Not surprisingly, she has become a repeated target of her powerful adversaries. Gloria has been detained at Ecuadorian immigration after traveling and speaking abroad, threatened after marches and press conferences, and attacked with tear gas inside her other house in the jungle town of Puyo.

An adamant opposition to extractive industries

In Llanchama, everything is moving. Everything is singing. Everything is growing. The unique call of the Oropendula and their hanging nests, flocks of parrots and toucans screeching overhead. The evening cacophony of insects and frogs. Over candlelight, people swapped jaguar stories – both sightings and the significance of the jungle’s most powerful teachers and feared predators.

What we heard repeatedly from everyone we talked to was an adamant opposition to oil and other natural resource extraction, the failure of the government to properly consult them, and that they will die defending their lives, land, and cultures.

But we also heard frequently about the collective conscious of the forest itself, and the inseparable relationship between between the forest, spirit, and people. “The oil is underground, and that’s where the spirits are”, says Sápara leader Manari Ushigua. “If we extract the petroleum, a hole is left and the spirits are weakened. If we kill these spirits, we are killing ourselves.”

“Our forest is full of spirits. These spirits maintain the balance of life in the forest. We must listen to them to defend the forest. If we do not, the balance of life will be altered and we will not survive. In the Sápara vision, we have to maintain this spiritual space that guards the natural functions of the world, not only for the Sápara but for the whole world. When we talk about petroleum, we are talking about ourselves. If we use the oil, we are damaging ourselves and all of nature.”

One would think that in a country that was the first to include the Rights of Nature and includes the indigenous concept of Sumak Kawsay – or ‘good living’ – in its constitution, that peoples and places like the Sápara and Sarayaku would be iconic symbols of a country that respects rights, the environment, and its plurinational indigenous cultures.

However, the government’s Amazonian drilling policies, driven by some $15.2 billion in oil-backed loans from China, are driving a new desperate drilling gambit.

There is nothing ‘revolutionary’ in drilling your way to prosperity

The administration of President Rafael Correa and his ‘Citizens’ Revolution’ and ’21st Century Socialism’ portray the drilling plans as an essential part of a national poverty alleviation policy. Ecuador has reduced poverty under Correa’s watch, but as Nina Gualinga, a youth organizer from Sarayaku, observes, “Poverty reduction can’t come at the cost of rights violations of the country’s Amazonian indigenous peoples.”

It seems little has been learned since the early days of Ecuador’s first oil boom, when the country pinned its high hopes on Texaco to bring the country out of poverty. Half a century later, Ecuador is still caught in the boom and bust cycles of commodity dependence, a classic symptom of the resource curse that has trapped so many countries.

There is nothing revolutionary about trying to drill your way to prosperity, particularly if you have to borrow from China to do it, and pay the piper in black gold. But Ecuador seems intent on continuing down the same road at any cost.

Make no mistake: it’s time to sound the alarm. The fate of Ecuador’s remaining rainforests are being decided as you read this. And with an estimated 60% of Ecuador’s dirty Amazon crude going to California, it’s time to take action and join the Sápara, Sarayaku, and the other indigenous peoples in Ecuador’s southern Amazon whose lands are on the chopping block.

We must all work to #keepitintheground!

Action: ‘Stand with the Sápara People to Reject This Sham Contract and Defend Their Territory Against Oil Exploration‘.

Twitter: #keepitintheground

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Ecocide in the Amazon – Chevron evades $9.5bn restitution order‘ by Orlan Cazorla & Miriam Gartor

This article was originally published by Amazon Watch.

Bialowieza Forest is the kind of place you imagine from the Grimm fairy tales.

Huge firs, oaks and ashes tower over you, woodpeckers and other birds call all around you and the guides who work there know the intimate history, and names, of many individual trees.

For anyone, it is a magical place – and, as a forest ecologist, visiting it was a dream come true. However, the features that make it so unique may be under threat thanks to new plans for large-scale logging.

Straddling the border between Poland and Belarus, Bialowieza is the last remainder of the vast primeval forest that once covered most of Europe.

It is a hotbed of biodiversity, home to nearly 20,000 plant and animal species including wolves, lynx and the largest remaining population of European bison. Rare birds, including several woodpecker species, provide a glimpse of the bird life that used to exist in European forests before humans transformed the continent.

Unfortunately, on the Polish side of the border, only one third of Bialowieza Forest is protected. Outside of this area as much as 35% has been earmarked for felling and the fear is that this will result in an increasingly isolated small ‘island’ of protected forest surrounded by fragmented and poorer quality woodland, which has already been shown to support lower bird populations than the protected park area.

Logging limits blown wide open

Felling around Bialowieza has been controlled in the past; quotas were set in 2012 to limit how much wood could be removed. However by 2015, 90% of that quota had already been logged – and the new proposals will triple the permitted volume of logging.

The proposal for further logging is controversial. Poland’s state forest department, Lasy Panstwowe, views the felling as necessary to combat outbreaks of spruce bark beetle, the larvae of which burrow under the bark of living spruce trees to lay its eggs. The developing larvae feed on inner woody layers and can eventually kill the tree.

However, both local scientists and NGOs, such as Greenpeace Polska, argue that removing damaged trees will cause more harm than good and that further logging is driven by economic rather than management interests.

Professor Tomasz Wesolowski, who has studied Bialowieza’s birds for more than 30 years, told me it would be a disaster, as logging and replanting would completely change the quality of the forest habitat and threaten its UNESCO heritage site status.

There is even a suggestion that this violates Poland’s environmental commitments under the EU’s Natura 2000 program. The newly proposed logging areas cover 20% of the old-growth forest, as well as areas overgrown by endangered bog woodland habitat.

Mass logging would dramatically alter the character of both the areas in question and the surrounding habitat – even more than the bark beetles.

Dead wood logging is unnecessary and damaging

In fact, across the world this form of ‘salvage logging’ to recover economic value from damaged forests often causes more damage to ecosystems than the initial natural disturbance. After a bark beetle invasion hit Sumava National Park, that stretches across the border between Bavaria and the Czech Republic, evidence showed that salvage logging delayed forest recovery.

The proposed increased logging in Bialowieza includes removing quantities of dead wood, yet this dead wood plays an important role in the functioning of a healthy forest. Forests are often built from the bottom up, with dead wood as the foundation.

While aesthetically they may not be that pleasing for us, dead trees are a vital habitat for saproxylic insects which feed on dead and decaying matter. Bialowieza supports large populations of endangered saproxylic beetles and invertebrates which rely on dead wood and, in turn, these provide food for birds, small rodents such as shrews and voles, and bats including the rare barbastelle. In turn these animals are eaten by larger predators such as owls, wolves and lynx.

Dead and dying spruce stumps are almost exclusively used by some woodpecker species as nests and also act as great hosts for lichens and mosses, some of which are facing extinction in Europe. If the dead wood is removed, the entire forest ecosystem will suffer.

Logging is not the only solution to the spruce bark beetle problem. Pheromone traps, for instance, effectively attract large numbers of beetles while outbreaks in the UK are controlled by unleashing a specific predator beetle, Rhizophagus grandis, that targets the spruce beetle. Due to its widespread use in commercial forestry, R. grandis is relatively cheap and readily available, and Forestry Commission research showed it was more effective at controlling outbreaks than salvage logging.

In any case, a beetle infestation might be disastrous for individual trees but it won’t necessarily harm the forest itself. Like many ecosystems, Bialowieza is vulnerable to climate change. As species such as Norway spruce are weakened by changing climatic conditions, the bark beetle is able to take hold.

This is an invaluable part of the forest regeneration process, allowing deciduous trees that are better able to cope with changing climatic conditions to grow in the gaps left by dying spruces. In the long run it may be better for Bialowieza Forest to let nature, and regeneration, take its course.

Lucinda Kirkpatrick is a PhD researcher in Forest Ecology at the University of Stirling.

Also on The Ecologist

• ‘Timber! Poland’s bid to increase logging 8-fold in primeval Bialowieza Forest‘ by Zachary Davies Boren
• ‘In defense of the Bark Beetle: a keystone species of Western forest ecosystems‘ by Chad Hanson.

This article was originally published by The Conversation.

A coalition of environmental, consumer, and commercial and recreational fishing organizations is suing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

At issue is the agency’s approval last November of the first-ever genetically engineered (GE) food animal, an Atlantic salmon engineered to grow quickly.

The lawsuit challenges FDA’s extraordinary claim that it has authority to approve and regulate GE animals as ‘animal drugs’ under the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Those provisions were meant to ensure the safety of veterinary drugs administered to treat disease in livestock and were not intended to address entirely new GE animals that can pass along their altered genes to the next generation.

The approval of the GE salmon opens the door to other genetically engineered fish and shellfish, as well as chickens, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits and pigs that are reportedly in development.

“FDA’s decision is as unlawful as it is irresponsible”, said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety and co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“This case is about protecting our fisheries and ocean ecosystems from the foreseeable harms of the first-ever GE fish, harms FDA refused to even consider, let alone prevent. But it’s also about the future of our food: FDA should not, and cannot, responsibly regulate this GE animal, nor any future GE animals, by treating them as drugs under a 1938 law.”

The lawsuit also highlights FDA’s failure to protect the environment and consult wildlife agencies in its review process, as required by federal law. US Atlantic salmon, and many populations of Pacific salmon, are protected by the Endangered Species Act and in danger of extinction.

“The FDA has failed to adequately examine the risks associated with transgenic salmon”, said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “The long term effects of people eating genetically modified foods have never been adequately addressed-and this GE salmon is no exception. This fish is unnecessary, so why take the risk?”

Severe ecological damage threatened by transgenic salmon

Salmon is a keystone species and unique runs have been treasured by residents for thousands of years. Diverse salmon runs today sustain thousands of American fishing families, and are highly valued in domestic markets as a healthy, domestic, ‘green’ food.

When GE salmon escape or are accidentally released into the environment, the new species could threaten wild populations by mating with endangered salmon species, outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, and/or introducing new diseases.

“Atlantic salmon populations including our endangered Gulf of Maine fish are hanging on by a thread – they can’t afford additional threats posed by GE salmon”, said Ed Friedman from Friends of Merrymeeting Bay, one of the parties who successfully petitioned to classify most Maine Atlantic salmon as endangered.

“The law requires agencies like FDA, who aren’t fisheries biologists, to get review and approval from scientists with that expertise. FDA’s refusal to do this before allowing commercialization of GE salmon is not only irresponsible, it violates the law.”

Studies have shown that there is a high risk for GE organisms to escape into the natural environment, and that GE salmon can crossbreed with native fish. Transgenic contamination has become common in the GE plant context, where contamination episodes have cost US farmers billions of dollars over the past decade. In wild organisms like fish, it could be even more damaging.

“Once they escape, you can’t put these transgenic fish back in the bag. They’re manufactured to outgrow wild salmon, and if they cross-breed, it could have irreversible impacts on the natural world”, said Dune Lankard, a salmon fisherman and the Center for Biological Diversity’s Alaska representative. “This kind of dangerous tinkering could easily morph into a disaster for wild salmon that will be impossible to undo.”

FDA ignored 2 million comments to approve the application

The man-made salmon was created by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. with DNA from three fish: Atlantic salmon, Pacific king salmon, and Arctic ocean eelpout. This marks the first time any government in the world has approved a GE animal for commercial sale and consumption.

The FDA’s approval ignored comments from nearly 2 million people opposed to the approval because the agency failed to analyze and prevent the risks to wild salmon and the environment, as well as fishing communities, including the risk that GE salmon could escape and threaten endangered wild salmon stocks.

In approving the GE salmon, FDA also determined it would not require labeling of the GE fish to let consumers know what they are buying – which led Congress to call for labeling in the 2016 omnibus spending bill.

The world’s preeminent experts on GE fish and risk assessment, as well as biologists at US wildlife agencies charged with protecting fish and wildlife heavily criticized the FDA decision for failing to evaluate these impacts. FDA ignored their concerns in the final approval.

“There’s never been a farmed salmon that hasn’t eventually escaped into the natural environment“, said Golden Gate Salmon Association executive director John McManus. “Why should we believe that long term, these frankenfish won’t be the same?

From Panama to Alaska, a global supply chain

AquaBounty’s GE salmon will undertake a 5,000-mile journey to reach US supermarkets. The company plans to produce the GE salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island, Canada. The GE salmon will then be grown to market-size in a facility in Panama, processed into fillets, and shipped to the US for sale. That complicated scheme is only for the initial approval, however.

AquaBounty has publicly announced plans to ultimately grow its GE fish in the US rather than Panama, and sell it around the world. Despite this, FDA’s approval only considered the current plans for the far-flung facilities in Canada and Panama, leaving the risk of escape and contamination of US salmon runs unstudied.

“On Prince Edward Island and across Atlantic Canada, indigenous peoples, anglers and community groups are working hard to protect and restore endangered salmon populations and rivers“, said Mark Butler, policy director at Ecology Action Centre in Nova Scotia. “Genetic contamination threatens all this work and in return there is little or no economic benefit to the region.”