Gum

The U.S. /Mexico Border vs. Human Life and Ecosystem

by Samyrha Saba

Introduction

Today the United States border with Mexico is a desert sea of opportunity to those invested in surveillance technologies, border construction, detention centers, border patrol, drug trafficking. This includes all those judicial pieces that participate in and profit from the criminalization of vulnerable migrant lives. Migrants seek the opportunity to escape war, persecution, and poverty whose cause is inseparable from the neocolonial apparatuses that oppress the global south. Also traversing these 2,000 miles of border you will find some of the most ecologically diverse ecosystems that support the livelihood of rare, endangered, and endemic species.

Borders represent a global issue with unique implications everywhere yet strong overlaps in rhetoric, technologies, agencies that sustain them. These intersections have drawn together movements to bring them down heard in today’s rallying chants such as, “From Palestine to Mexico, All the Walls Have Got to Go!” In this paper we will not look at these intersections but will focus solely on the U.S./Mexico border. In particular, we will look at this border region through a social and ecological lens. Socially we will consider the abuse, danger, and death experienced by migrants, the bisection of the Tohono O’odham nation, and the impacts of fear based xenophobic rhetoric. Ecologically we will identify the land designated for conservation within 100 miles of the border and the impacts to the land and to animals especially of endangered or threatened classification.

History

The demarcation of national borders is new in human history. A new form of claiming and expanding the reaches of power manifested through the nation state model. Many of these global boundaries that we recognize today, which bisect bodies of land and water are made by European colonialism, in North and South America, Australia, Africa, the Arab Nations, Asia, the Pacific Islands and more. Much of the world is geographically, systemically, and psychologically shaped by European colonialism.

The expansion and establishment of the United States is one driven by profit and whose beneficiaries still are determined within a white supremacist construct. U.S. imperialism is evident in its economic and military power globally. In addition to the huge mass of Turtle Island and Hawaii settled by the U.S. are the sixteen territories which include Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Island, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

The location of today’s U.S. southern border was first determined in 1848 and extended in 1853 via the Gadsden Purchase to include the mineral-rich areas in southern Arizona and New Mexico. Mexico had gained recognition of independence from Spain in 1821, but was left with little means to prevent Americans from settling in northern territories. Proslavery settlers continued to establish themselves in Texas to profit from the cotton industry built on the back of African slaves. Americans claimed these lands were part of the Louisiana Purchase, and Mexico could do little about it. Under proslavery President John Tyler in 1845 the U.S. annexed Texas from Mexico and identified its border reaching as far south as the Rio Grande. In 1846 James K. Polk sent troops to the Rio Grande and ensued a war with a highly outmatched Mexico. Two years of war culminating in the U.S. occupation of Mexico City and the signing in February 1848 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico looses 40% of it land including CA, AZ, NM, and TX. The U.S. threatened to incite war again if Mexico did not comply with what eventually was settled in the U.S. acquisition of the mineral-rich lands of southern New Mexico and Arizona via the Gadsden Purchase of 1853 (Nevins, 2008).

Since the arrival of the Europeans and the creation of the nation states of both Mexico and the United States this has had detrimental effects on native people on either side of the border. The history of Spanish colonization utilized a scheme of divide and conquer by giving land title to Spanish (ladinos) and mixed Spanish and native individuals (mestizos) (Vazquez, 2003). In the U.S. the “Indian Problem” was dealt with by relocation, reservations, boarding schools, and extermination. When the U.S. gobbled up this much land it also included communities of Mexican and indigenous peoples that conflicted with the construct of the white American. The marginalization of the Mexican populations in territories that became part of the U.S.

In southern Texas in 1915, Mexicans embarked on a series of raids on Anglo ranches, irrigation works, and railroads. This grew to a full uprising with Mexicans from both sides of the border that resulted in the use of force by Texas Rangers and thousands of U.S. soldiers. While dozens of Anglo ranchers died and many temporarily fled, anywhere from conservative estimates of 300 to a much higher 5,000 Mexicans lost their lives (Nevins, 2008). This event is exemplary of the animosity Mexicans and Latinos experience in the United States to this very day, while also revealing the violence the U.S. has always been willing to use in the name of imperialism to Mexico and the whole global south.

Social Impacts

            Economically the U.S. Mexico border and the establishment of new relations between these two nation states has meant more marginalization for Mexico’s poor working class and indigenous communities. In the period between 1800-1860 U.S. income rose 1,270.4% and Mexico’s declined 10.5%. Mexican towns drew further north towards the border, weakening ties with the central government in the south. The time of the Porfiriato (1880-1911) when Porfirio Diaz rose and fell and forced his way into the precedency, his government “gave many wealthy U.S. business interests control over large swaths of land, and domination over Mexico’s oil and mining sectors and much of the country’s agriculture” (Nevins, 2008).

            In regards to migration into the United States from the southern border there is a long history of discrimination and abuse. From laws in the 1800’s that banned convict, prostitutes, and lunatics, to the infamous 1882 law that banned Chinese nationals, though they still managed to get in. In fact, until 1882 the Bureau of Immigration functioned solely to encourage European immigration. Throughout the decades until today the U.S. has benefited from cheap migrant labor despite so many laws that have subjugated migrants and incremented border enforcement. Between 1929-1935 about 500,00 to 1 million Mexicans were forcefully removed including tens of thousands of U.S. citizens of Mexican decent. On Jun 9, 1954 Congress passed Operation Wetback were in just half a year an estimated 1 million migrants were apprehended and deported from major U.S. cities.

Since the 1990’s the U.S. border control efforts have been driven by “prevention through deterrence” strategies which adopt the notion that more border patrol and border infrastructure would deter migrants from attempting to cross. Because these strategies were first implemented in the areas of major cities, migrants were forced to cross deeper into the rural desert having various devastating effect. In 1994 the Clinton administration implemented Operation Gatekeeper that involved constructing fences and militarization of the border.

“The number of entries and apprehensions did not decrease, and the number of deaths due to dehydration and sunstroke in the summer or freezing in the winter surged dramatically. In 1994, fewer than 30 migrants died along the border; by 1998 the number had risen to 147; in 2001, 387 deaths were counted; and in 2012, 477 bodies were found. From 2007 to 2013, over 2,000 known migrant deaths occurred along the Mexico Arizona border” (Hing, 2015). This last number translates to just under one person dying every day, and that’s only within the Arizona desert. This information does not account for all the migrants that die before ever reaching the border from various communities of origin.

Figure 1 Between October 2017-September 2018 Pima County Forensic Science Center, the morgue for most of southern Arizona, received the remains of 122 people found in the desert. This only accounts for those found in Southern Arizona and reported. (No More Deaths, 2018)

The construction of physical barriers increased during the George W. Bush administration after Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006 which originally mandated more than 800 miles of border wall construction. This happened in a post-9/11 framework that pushed policy with the drop of a singe word, “terrorism.” Under the administration of the 45th U.S. president in January of 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a travel ban of countries mostly of Muslim faith. On January 25, 2017 the 45th U.S. president also signed Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which order for the construction of a wall along the 2,000-mile border.

The U.S. Mexico border represents a scar on the land for indigenous people who moved up and down and traded throughout the northern and southern continent prior to colonization and the establishment of today’s nation states. For the Tohono O’odham Nation the border splits their community in two. It’s important to recognize that originally this nation covered a much larger span of land which was reduced during the Gadsden Purchase and the lack of consideration to the nation. On the U.S. side the Tohono O’odham Reservation covers 2.8 million acres in southern Arizona. The tribe has 34,000 members 2,000 of whom are on the Mexican side (Montiel, 2017).

News of a border wall is of great importance to this native nation as it would be a physical barrier to reaching their relatives south and for the domestic and wild animals on their land. Today the reservation runs along 62 miles of international border. Although the tribal government spends 60% of their time on border relation issues, for nearly two decades has spent 3 million of its own funds on border, and has collaborated with the U.S. government and even used their own funds to help construct a vehicle fence, there is no question that they do not want a wall. “The Tohono O’odham Legislative Council issued a resolution on February 7th in opposition to the wall” (Montiel, 2017). While there seems to be consensus over the wall, there is much division over the collaboration with Border Patrol in the installation of Integrated Fixed Towers, which includes 15 surveillance and sensor towers. A more conservative older generation from the nation especially contrast with younger and activist perspectives on the reservation. A short film is on the nations tribal government website, “There’s No O’odham Word for Wall.”

Figure 2 The Green Dotted line marks original O'odham land. Yellow dots are O'odham communities in Mexico. The light colored area is O'odham Reservation land.
Ecological Impacts

While there are some studies on the ecological impacts of existing physical barriers and the potential impacts of a 2,000-mile wall, there isn’t as much research as you would suspect with a project of such great magnitude. This is largely thanks to the fact that Congress gives the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security the power to waive more than 35 laws that would otherwise kick in during the planning, implementation, and management of development projects like the installation of physical barriers and surveillance technologies at the border. Therefore, dozens of laws such as NEPA, CEQA, or ESA can all be waived by the stroke of a pen in the name of national security. The wording for this power ascribed to the Secretary of the DHS is found in Section 102 of the 2005 Real ID Act (Sierra Club, 2018).

Along the 2,000 miles you’ll find three mountain ranges “Today there are 25 million acres of protected US public lands within 100 miles of the line. That includes six wildlife refuges, six national parks, tribal lands, wilderness areas, and conservation areas — all of them managed by various federal agencies and tribal governments” (Barclay, 2018). In the far west of the border is the Tijuana Estuary, considered one of the most ecologically diverse areas in the state of California (Sierra Club, 2018). The border in the far east is home to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, home to 19 federally threatened and endangered species and 57 state protected species including the ocelot, bobcat, and armadillos (Barclay, 2017). In southern Arizona alone and into Mexico are the protected areas of Barry M. Goldwater Range, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar.

Figure 3 From the Vox report on the ecological impacts of the wall. Photo credit Sarah Frostenson

According to a 2011 study co-authored by Jesse Lasky of Penn State’s biology department there are an estimated 134 mammals, 178 reptiles, and 57 amphibian species within 30 miles of the line, 50 species, and 3 subspecies that are globally or federally threatened in Mexico or the United States. A higher estimate by the Center for Biological Diversity that includes species who are low in numbers but not yet listed, these are known as candidate species. The CBD suggests that a total 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species would potentially be impacted by the wall, this includes plant species (CBD, 2017). The full list is in their May 2017 report. For these species a border wall translates to habitat loss and isolation, which in turn reduces genetic diversity and the chances of reestablishing self sustaining populations. In an ever changing climate, a wall further exasperates unpredictable and often scares resources with further reduction in the ability to move freely in search of water. For other insects such as butterflies the lights on sections of the wall have been know to attract and zap the insects (Barclay, 2017).

The hydrological cycles along the border could also be impacted by the wall in ways similar to a dam. Flooding, erosion, and scouring are all possibilities with walls or levee walls and it has already happened. Within the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument there is an average of nine inches per year and has two wet seasons. When the rain comes the dry cracked desert floor moves water quickly causing natural flash floods. These floods tend to carry debris and more so after fires. In 2008 2 inches fell in less than two hours, as the water picked up debris, the pedestrian fence acted as a dam and the water ran laterally flooding Lukeville. The Army Corp of Engineers responded by installing lift-able gates in the fence, when the Nation Park Service published a report in 2008 regarding the impacts of the pedestrian fence. These gates failed to open in 2011 and the same problem happened during another flash flood (Reinig, 2012)

With the continued enactment of xenophobic policies that make crossing more difficult and dangerous, this land and the plants and animal species that reside here are more threatened. Today there is about 650 miles of fencing, about 300 miles are vehicle barriers and 353 miles are pedestrian barriers. While the vehicle barriers are passable by animals, the existing pedestrian barriers are not. Research shows these movement barriers are already impacting animals who previously roamed freely through this area. Besides fencing impact is also highly attributed to trails for patrolling and development of the border. “Department of Homeland Security has built hundreds of miles of roads to allow the Border Patrol to access remote regions” (Barclay, 2018).
The Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)
Endangered

Figure 4 Mexican Gray Wolf (Bartletti, Don)

Smallest gray wolf in North America. Once found throughout southwestern Texas, southern Arizona New Mexico, and down into central Mexico, but they were hunted to near extinction by the U.S. government. Eliminated in the U.S. by 1930, the U.S. government maintained a hunter to shoot any wolves coming in from Mexico. The Endangered Species Act in 1976 protected these wolves, and the surviving population was taken into a captive breeding program in 1981. The wolves were reintroduced in 1998. As of 2017 there 113 wolves in the wild, particularly eastern Arizona and western New Mexico. In Mexico they were reintroduced in in 2011 and have resulted 35 wolves in northern Mexico. A border wall would separate the northern and southern populations and prevent genetic exchange critical for an endangered population.
Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis)
Endangered

Figure 5 The Sonoran Pronghorn. (CBD)

The fastest land mammal in North America reaching speeds of 60 mph. The Sonoran pronghorn is an endangered subspecies of pronghorn that is endemic to the Sonoran Desert. There are a small 100 pounds and 3 feet tall. Hunting and habitat degradation has led to their decline in numbers and there are a total of about 1,000 living in the wild in Mexico and the U.S. combined. The wall would again separate populations impacting genetic diversity essential in survival and making access to food and water more difficult.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)
Endangered

Figure 6 Nesting in large cacti.
Photo Credit Blue Planet Biomes

These little owls average 7 inches in heights any only 2.5 ounces but they are ferocious predators who prey on mammals, birds, and reptiles. One of three subspecies of the ferruginous pygmy-owl. Though they were once common in the bi-national Sonoran Desert they are in serious risk of extinction. Since 1993, no more than 41 have been found in a single year. While more abundant in Mexican Sonoran Desert, there too they have declined 26% since 2000.

A petition by the Center for Biological Diversity granted this pronghorn listing in the ESA and in turn 732,000 acres of critical habitat in 1999. Developers with the support of the Bush administration filed a lawsuit resulting in the bird’s overturned listing in 2006. In 2007 the CBD filed a new petition for the pygmy’s listing, after which the 9th District Court of Appeals upheld the delisting again. The CBD filed a lawsuit 2012. The latest is a 2017 court order for the USFWS to make a decision. For this bird the wall would represent a gap in vegetation, significant due to their nesting in cacti. They are also low flying birds. Interesting research has found that any wall 18 to 30 feet in height would exceed their flight range and divide their population (Center for Biological Diversity)

Jaguar (Panthera onca)
Endangered

The largest cat native to North America once ranged north to Monterey Bay California and east into the southeastern United States, before being hunted to near extinction. They are now listed as endangered in the U.S. and Mexico and the USFWS has identified providing natural jaguar dispersal between the two countries for the jaguar’s recovery. At least seven have been spotted in the last few decades in the U.S., like the jaguar in the photo above. The population is several time larger in the Mexican Sonoran Desert, and a wall would completely destroy any opportunities for this cat to establish reproducing populations in the north.

Conclusion

            The creation of the U.S. Mexico border and its impacts are massive. This report only begins to scratch the surface of ecological impacts and the many ramification of social impacts caused by this border. The border has transformed North America drastically giving the United States a drastic increase in capital that has influenced its impacts to the world at large. The history of abuse and stigmatization of migrants is only particularly looked at here. There is little to no mention of the abuse within detention centers, dispossession of migrant property, physical and sexual abuse to name some of the many issues fueled by this border complex. For native communities the creation of the borderlands and their continued enforcement has transformed the way in which native people live and engage with the land. Here we looked in part at the experience of the Tohono O’odham but the impact is experienced by native people beyond the border region and to other nations such as the Yaqui or Kumeyaay.

In regards to the environment the creation of a wall much like any development, but unique in its whole obstruction of movement is a terrible possibility for wildlife. Though this report does not detail impacts to vegetation, there is no guarantee that with the passage of the Real ID Act that the Department of Homeland Security will hold high standards for the mitigation of damaged vegetation or prevention of invasive plant species colonization during construction.

All of the many side effects of the border wall mentioned and unmentioned here will continue to occur and worsen with the construction of a border wall. So long as the root problems that lead communities to migrate are left unresolved, there will be migrants by any means necessary. While we began this report looking at the beginning of U.S. imperialism, we also must look to the end of U.S. imperialism in order to find a solution to this issue that impacts the world at large. The normalization of the wall is one that should not be a given but rather is worthy of the highest most experienced, impacted, and educated examination. The border could have the effect of further normalizing the whiteness, xenophobia, privilege, racism, animosity, desensitization, imperialism, and hate that it stands for. In the name of dignity for all life, may this wall and those that stand for this fall with the power of the people whose backs these walls have stood on.

Works Cited

Barclay, E., Frostenson, S. The Ecological Disaster that is Trump’s Border Wall: A Visual Guide. Vox (October 29, 2017).

Bradley, Curt et al. A Wall in the Wild: The Disastrous Impacts of Trump’s Border Wall on Wildlife. Center for Biological Diversity. (May 2017).

Center for Biological Diversity. Saving the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/cactus_ferruginous_pygmy_owl/index.html. (Access December 12, 2018)

Hing, Billy Ong. The Racism and Immorality of the Operation Gatekeeper Death Trap. University of Oxford Faculty of Law. (April 13, 2015)

Nevins, Joseph. Dying to Live: A Story of U.S Immigration in an Age of Global Apartheid. City Lights Books. San Francisco. (2008).

Montiel, Anya. The Tohono O’odham Nation and the Border Wall. American Indian. Vol. 18 No. 2. (Summer, 2017).

Quijano, Elaine. How a Border Wall May Affect the Tohono O’odham Nation. CBSN Originals. (January 29, 2018).

Reinig, Corey. Flooding in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. National Border, National Park: A History of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. (2012).

Vasquez, Rafael Gallegos. Los conceptos “Indio” Y “Ladino”: construcciones histórico sociales definidas por sus relaciones. Universidad Rafael Landivar. (September, 2003)

12/13/2017

0 Comments

Read Now

By Roman Sanchez
Introduction
   With over 100,000 tons of chewing gum being consumed every year, it is no wonder that an estimated 374 trillion sticks are produced amongst 115 manufacturing companies in over thirty countries (Chewing Gum). So while it seems as though every person on this planet knows what gum is and plants theories on its practices, this is not the case.
   With a vast history spanning hundreds of years and a multi-billion dollar industry, the true impact chewing gum has had on us, as a civilization, and on our planet which we call home is extraordinary. Why it has taken us so long to realize the drastic negative impact it has caused and why we have not taken necessary precautions to caution ourselves and our planet’s wellbeing is beyond me.
A Short History of Chewing Gum
   People throughout history have been recorded chewing on natural materials for centuries. Some Northern Europeans have been historically credited for chewing birch bark tar for over 9,000 years for reasons ranging from medicinal to enjoyment. Even the Mayans chewed a sap called chicle from the sapodilla tree to fight hunger and quench thirst, which they later taught to colonists. Chicle was popular to the native Mexicans and Aztecs whom structured a social acceptance around the chewing of the aforementioned materials. In their traditions, single women and children were publicly allowed to consume. An even more specific aspect is that widows and married women were allowed to chew it privately when using it to freshen their breath. Men were not publicly allowed to do so but, in private, they would do so in order to clean their teeth. The ancient Greeks were even fond of this pastime for similar reasons, as a form of hygiene.
   John Curtis is credited in the 1840s for producing the first commercial spruce tree gum in which he cut them into strips, similar how we identify packaged chewing gum today. Curtis learned, however, that spruce resin ended up getting hard after chewed and tasted gross which is why he moved to paraffin wax.
   Following Curtis, New York City’s Thomas Adams was able to cooperate with Mexican President Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna to attain chicle. Antonio had hopes for turning the ingredient into rubber but gave up after not concluding any extraordinary results. Adams followed up with chicle by incorporating it into a set of ingredients to form a better type of chewing gum which was later manufactured to great success. By the 1880s, he was selling his gum all across the country to no surprise.
   One of the most well-known gum makers today, Wrigley, actually started as a salesman. By this point, there were a plethora of competitors in the chewing gum industry but he did not let this stop his ambition to be the best. Instead, he knew the secret to success was outstanding marketing tactics—Wrigley sent out samples to millions of random people found in phone books and later sent them out to children on their birthday. Clearly, as this was many’s first experience with chewing gum, they couldn’t get enough of it.
   The concept and evolution of bubble gum came from Frank Fleer, who was a gum maker since the 1880s too. He, like Wrigley, was searching for a way to separate himself from his competition so he spent resources to develop a new chewing gum ideal for blowing bubbles with. The Blibber-Blubber was introduced in 1906 to no success due to the over-stickiness and it wasn’t until 1928 that Dubble Bubble was brought into the market (Wrigley).
   Today, each brand of chewing gum has various specific ingredients to get it to their ideal texture and taste but most contain the same core components. Like all mass productions, the process is fully mechanized into a concise set of five steps: making the basis gum base, adding flavor, articulating the chewiness, cutting, and packaging (Chewing Gum Facts).
Risks, Hazards, and Benefits
   One of the most common and highly debated benefits to chewing gum is that it improves brain retention/health which leads to more success in school. In one of these many extensive lab tests, a group of researches studied over two hundred students from St. Lawrence University.
   They found that a burst of gum-chewing before testing improved a student's            performance on several of the tests, but only for a short period. The effect was strongest        right after gum-chewing, and dropped to normal levels within 20 minutes. The gum-       chewing helped during recall and memory tasks especially. ‘Within the 15-to-20-minute        'window' of the effect, the chewing-gum group recalled 25-to-50-percent more items than    the controls, which is statistically significant, but in practical terms amounts to a            difference of two-to-three words’ (Welsh).
   In short, scientists believe that the stimulation in the brain is what helps get more blood flowing to the head and literally get the creative juices flowing. Other benefits to chewing gum include less occupational stress (Smith) because of reduction of stress hormones like cortisol (Scholey).
   Another debated benefit to chewing gum is how healthy sugar-free gum is to your teeth’s wellbeing. The welfare comes with the type of gum one chooses. The beneficiaries are in the sugar-free gums that are sweetened with xylitol which make it easy for the oral bacteria, Streptococcus, to grow. This prevents cavities from growing because the bacteria loses the ability to stick to the tooth. If chewed routinely, this process can aid in providing protection long-term against certain types of bacteria that causes decay on the surfaces of your teeth. Henceforth, this act of chewing sugarless gum can prevent tooth decay if consumed approximately twenty minutes after meals. The American Dental Association recommends purchasing and using chewing gums that have the ADA Seal of Acceptance.
   One more highly discusses topic surrounding the chewy snack is what happens when one swallows it. Some debate that it is digestible and nothing hazardous can come from it while others insist that the substance is indigestible and will live inside your stomach for years at at time. However, science has proven that the gum’s ingredients are all completely digestible and does not need years to process. Rather, it only needs a day or two to pass in stool with a bowel movement.
   The real danger of chewing gum lays in the chance that one can choke on a piece when consuming. Plain and simply, the American Academy of Pediatrics has listed chewing gum as a choking hazard as it poses a threat to clogging the child’s throat (Encyclopedia). With over 80% of the children whom are treated in emergency hospitals being age four or younger, obstruction to windpipes have been one of the leading causes. Too, the death rate for children under the age of three whom have passed due to choking on a food item is skyrocketing with non-food items close behind.
   The caution of choking does not pertain exclusively to children and toddlers but even poses a threat to adults. With about 3,000 adults dying each year from choking on food, it is a not uncommon to recognize the serious caution that should be taken when consuming this tasty treat. Too frequently can one run across a news article about a semi-bizarre case involving someone choking to death on gum and there is no clear solution to it rather than the obvious Heimlich Maneuver and CPR.
   Looking through a much broader lens, the production of chewing gum and its’ after life have had a tremendous impact on the environment. One of the most prominent points is the act of littering or improper disposal of the gum and its’ packaging.
   The first issue is the cleaning materials and chemicals needed to clean gum off of public sidewalks and pavements. The chemicals are not environmentally friendly and are actually considered toxic to nature. With the manufactured ingredients comes a downside of not being biodegradable. This means that when the gum does not end up in a nearby trashcan and instead gets spit out into the dirt or grass, it poses another set of variable threats. Because it is incapable of breaking down naturally like other fruits and compost can, it remains as a pink, white, or blue blob of material in nature. It is common to see animals such as birds, squirrels, and other small forest creatures mistake the chewed up blob for a berry or food (Baer). This is clearly a serious threat as it clogs their digestive system and causes them to choke or not be able to consume foods which leads to deadly outcomes.
   In addition to the lifespan of the gum, the industrial waste (resources, time, and energy) that are needed to mass produce this highly demanded product is very unhealthy for our environment. More specifically, the processes to make the product results in byproduct that is damaging our air quality and serving as a catalyst in long-term effects such as global warming and street pollution. Speaking of street pollution, the impact the necessary wrapping and packaging has when transported (in obvious large bulks and quantities) adds to this concept of air pollution.
   The other most commonly or most obvious signs of pollution is the improper waste disposal of the packaging and wrapper. Over $2,000,000 is spent to dispose and collect gum packaging from landfills every year even when only 20% of gum is disposes properly.
   Another aspect that negatively impacts the environment is due to one of the ingredients: acetate, a gum flavorer. This ingredient happens to be a natural bee pheromone which causes bees to think it is a flower. However, after getting too close to it, it increases the likelihood of one getting stuck to the waste. Especially in today’s climate and circumstances, the bee’s story has been intensely brought into the limelight so many are aware of the risks that extinction would pose on our environment and society.
Political Economy
   Simply put, millions of dollars are being spent on removing gum waste. In London alone, millions of pounds are spent on just the removal from public streets. This is a testament to the hard-working tax dollars (56 million pounds across the United Kingdom) being virtually and arguably wasted on something that could easily be prevented. Now when private businesses, mom and pop shops, or small associations have to get rid of the improperly disposes waste, the costs come from their savings and it is sad that they even have to hit these precautions when it’s not their fault (Lam).
   In America, chewing gum has median sales upwards of $657 million each year as over 56% of the country chews. It is not hard to comprehend these huge numbers when considering that over 7% of American households have chewed more than sixteen pieces of gum in the last week. This pattern of chewing articulates how addicting the act is and, similar to other drugs or addicting substances, makes people want more than one any given day.
   In non-profit land, there are many environmental organizations whom have ongoing projects that outline how they will attempt to clean and declutter the gum wastage on areas of our planet. One in particular, Pure Shore in England, has been exceptionally successful. Their website states the following:
   The campaign demonstrates just how big a problem chewing gum is in our public spaces.        Last year, the amount of gum removed from Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond        Street equated to the size of around 12 football pitches, costing millions of pounds to        clean up. Rory Stewart MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Environment and        Rural Affairs, commented: “Councils spend around £56 million per year cleaning up the        horrible mess it leaves and so I’m pleased to see efforts to help highlight the            problem.” (Pure Shore)
   Organizations similar to Pure Shore are putting in valid efforts but the costs to sustain them are significantly high, as noted above and raises the question of whether or not it is ethically, financially, and/or physically worth the time and effort.
Conclusion
   With all of this said, I firmly believe that there is no right or wrong solution. Nor am I one to judge because I’d be lying if I didn’t say I chewed an abnormal amount of gum myself. No single answer will make everyone content but if there is one aspect everyone should be aware of, it is the drastic impacts we are making on the world around us with this single object. How can we change things? Can one person have an impact? Based on the aforementioned statistics, I do believe that we can and that it is rather easy. For gum chewers, we must make absolute sure to properly dispose of our sticky friends and perhaps cut down just a tad every once in a while—perhaps an Altoid or Tic Tac instead? For the non-gum chewers, remind your friends of the previous note and I’d also challenge you to consider what other products you consume that could be having very similar effects on our society and environment and try to cut back on that too. As Robert Kennedy said, “the purpose of life is to contribute in some way to making things better” and this is one step.
Works Cited
Baer, Andrew. What Effects Does Bubble Gum Have On The Environment? Sciencing. Nature        Column. 24 April 2017. Accessed 9 December 2017. https://sciencing.com/effects-       bubble-gum-environment-8439501.html

Chewing Gum Facts. How Chewing Gum Is Made? Accessed 9 December 2017. http://           www.chewinggumfacts.com/making-chewing-gum/how-chewing-gum-is-made/

Delta Dental. Gum Chewing: Helpful or Harmful? Accessed 9 December 2017.                https://www.deltadentalins.com/oral_health/gum-chewing.html

Encyclopedia. Gale Encyclopedia of Children’s Health: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2006.        Accessed 9 December 2017. http://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/diseases-and-       conditions/pathology/choking

Lam, Bourree. Chew On This: What Gum Has Cost Society in Its 5,000-Year History. The        Atlantic. 5 December 2014. Accessed 9 December 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/       business/archive/2014/12/chew-on-this-what-gum-has-cost-society-in-its-5000-year-       history/383452/

Pure Shore. The Cost of Chewing Gum. 7 January 2016. Accessed 9 December 2017.            www.pureshore.co

Scholey, Andrew. Chewing Gum Alleviates Negative Mood and Reduces Cortisol During Acute        Laboratory Psychological Stress. NCBI: PubMed. US National Library of Medicine        National Institutes of Health. 22 June 2009. Accessed 9 December 2017.
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19268676

Smith, AP. Chewing Gum, Occupational Stress, Work Performance. NCBI: PubMed. US            National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. 10 October 2016. Accessed 9        December 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390954

Welsh, Jennifer. Live Science. Gum-Chewing Improves Test Performace, Study Suggests. 16        December 2011. Accessed 9 December 2017. https://www.livescience.com/17520-       chewing-gum-test-performance.html

Wrigley. History of Gum. Wrigley: A Subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated. Accessed 9 December        2017. http://www.wrigley.com/global/about-us/history-gum.aspx

0 Comments

The U.S. /Mexico Border vs. Human Life and Ecosystem

Gum

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Archives

Categories