Ebola is not a new virus. It has been an affliction on humanity for countless years, but not until recently has it hit American soil on such profound terms. The 2014 outbreak has become the largest on record with a total of 66 cases and 49 deaths reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, per the Center of Disease Control. American health workers sought to treat these victims and as a result had brought strains of the virus to US soil. This proximity has magnified the terrors of Ebola in ways not felt by citizens since the Polio epidemic of the early 1900s.

The adequacy of the United States’ response to the Ebola threat can be best understood in two overarching categories: timeliness and limitation. Response to the former was highly effective; within days there was protocol set and initiated to quarantine any potentially transmittable strains of the virus. Despite this seemingly-comprehensive contingency, its initiation out of the abstract worst-case scenario into its physical implementation proved disastrous. Thomas Eric Duncan brought the virus home to Dallas from a “hot zone” in Liberia. Health contractors were reluctant to clean his apartment. The ER at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital misdiagnosed  Duncan upon his arrival, as Dr. Joseph Howard Meier reportedly “looked him over, checked his vital signs and ordered tests. After a few hours, Meier diagnosed him with sinusitis, prescribed antibiotics and sent him home.”  This resulted in up to 100 additional people having made contact with Duncan after arriving in the United States.

These linear mishaps only reinforce the importance and difficulty in actively carrying out a contingency plan, especially in the case of a disease as dangerous and potent as Ebola. American College of Emergency Physicians spokesperson Dr. Ryan Stanton characterized the recognize and respond process to Ebola as “a needle in a hayfield we’re going to find.”

Despite these enormous boundaries the country must overcome to better handle the Ebola crisis, there is still reason to believe in ever-improving response measures since September and through this new year. President Obama has committed the United States to greater humanitarian efforts in the countries most affected by the outbreak; this will, of course, aid the US indirectly as well because it will better quarantine the virus before it can travel to domestic soil again. His assertiveness in laying way for more field hospitals and health workers has vindicated his intentions to make the outbreak a top national security threat. Ultimately, President Obama’s toughened policies on this outbreak have resulted in increased adequacy in this ongoing fight for humanitarian protection and against Ebola.

Referenced:

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/history/summaries.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29483946

http://www.dallasnews.com/ebola/headlines/20141206-er-doctor-discusses-role-in-ebola-patients-initial-misdiagnosis.ece

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-scare-prompts-us-hospitals-prepare-outbreak/story?id=26105274

Amy Harmon’s article, A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, provides a thorough detail of an oft-overlooked topic: GMOs and their various implications across society and its environment. Walk into any chain supermarket and many any of the foods you will see are affected or produced by GMOs- namely produce, beef, poultry, eggs, and milk. So common are these modified foods in supermarkets today that there is now a specially-marked aisle as “organic,” “whole foods,” “good harvest,” or a range of other semantically-pure words to indicate that the items in this aisle do not have direct GMO effects (thus implying that the rest of the store may). According to Harmon, “about three-quarters of processed foods now have such ingredients, mostly corn syrup, corn oil and soy meal and sugar.” This alone places GMOs directly at the center of sustainability debates.

Despite this proximity to the American people, the topic of genetically modified crops and organisms has garnered a shockingly low level of salience. Through this long piece for the New York Times, Harmon intends to shed further light on GMOs and rid some of the ambiguity surrounding their purported effects on food as beneficial or poisonous. This is essential in understanding growth and sustainability of a world food supply with the understanding that the global population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion people by the year 2050.  If GMOs are proven safe and sustainable for annual use, it will be an enormous discovery. If not, we risk an industrial collapse not unlike the DDT scare of the 1960s. It is clear that this issue requires a much higher level of salience than is currently given.

Harmon hit on an especially important aspect of the GMO debate in regard to popular opinion’s acceptance as fact in some cases. Oftentimes this opinion will masquerade as a scientific conclusion due to the sheer volume of the argument in circulation. Such is seen on show Real Time With Bill Maher and guest Republican David Frum:

“Mr. Maher’s audience, in turn, recently hissed at a commentator who defended genetic modification as merely an extension of traditional breeding.”

Is Maher distorting the risks of GMOs or basing his arguments on logical conclusions delivered by way of irony and humor? This article vehemently argues the former and offers caution to Maher’s tactics, although it is likely a Republican-based group attempting to dissuade his arguments with political advantage. Furthermore, despite the clarity in which a supermarket shopper can see chicken breasts and legs as far bigger and unnatural than 10 years ago, it is still difficult to validate GMOs’ dangers because it is a relatively young proponent and therefore lacks the longevity to fully see their effects. In other words, Maher’s debate against the GMO corporatocracy is not strong enough to stand alone yet.

In all, Harmon’s characterization here of the public’s distrust of companies like Monsanto and GMO products in general is testament to the ambiguity of the GMO debate itself. What is popular opinion, and what is scientific finding? To find a truly sustainable option (whether or not it is GMO-related) will rely on establishing the relationship between these doctored crops and potential affects on humans in the coming years. This larger sample size will firmly determine the arguments made by catalysts of the anti-GMO movement like Greggor Ilagan and Margaret Wille and generate conclusions to their role in food sustainability.

Welcome to Blogs @ Suffolk University. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Posts or make a new one under Posts>Add New, then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Appearance option to choose a new look for your blog!.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.

Happy Blogging!