I Cover My Hair and I look Highly Fashionable! Don't Ya ThinK???

** I would like to share with you the New Generation of Muslim Women**** Aaahhhh I could so relate!

"Full coverage," not your typical fashion show prerequisite, was the theme at a "fashion seminar" recently hosted by Nordstrom at the tony Tysons Corner Center mall in McLean, Va. The show, called "Interpreting Hot Trends for Veiled and Conservative Women," was perhaps the first high-fashion hijab event sponsored by corporate America. The target: well-heeled Muslim women living in the suburbs of Northern Virginia, where mansions and mosques are filled with rich Muslim immigrants, an increasing number of whom shop at Tysons Corner. The Nordstrom show is part of a growing trend: Western retailers and designers are beginning to market directly to Muslim women.

In 2000, for instance, European designers Yves Saint-Laurent and Jean-Paul Gaultier showed at the International Festival of African Fashion in Niger while ultraconservative Muslims paraded through the streets in protest of the "satanic" presentation. A 2004 Hermes ad featured two women with the dark hair, dark eyes, and olive skin of many Middle Easterners and wearing the company's iconic scarves wrapped around their heads in the Muslim style of hijab. (When asked, the Hermes advertising department would say only that its marketing pitch is "global.") And a little over a week ago, French designer Judith Duriez, co-owner of the Dubai-based company Arabesque, debuted her fall 2005 collection of "sheilas" (veils) and "abayas" (gowns) for the cloaked Muslim woman. These fashions, traditional long black gowns (the color is one rule Duriez refuses to break), are enhanced by non-traditional accents such as mother-of-pearl trimmings and chiffon ribbons. Retailers have likely caught on to the fact that conservative Muslim women are as interested in fashion as any other women and that, as a population numbering at least 500 million -- an estimated half of which cover up regularly -- they constitute a large, and potentially lucrative, untapped market. Indeed, to anyone who's paying attention, it's evident that Muslim women are going to great lengths (and in some cases spending a substantial amount of money) in an attempt to reconcile their religious mandate to dress modestly with their desire to look fashionable. Many women interpret the idea of "hijab" -- the term comes from the Arabic word "hajaba," which is translated as "to cover," and is used generally to refer to modesty, and more specifically, to mean headscarves and formless gowns -- quite liberally. They wear Diane Von Furstenberg mini-dresses over Levi jeans or rapper-style do-rags as headscarves. Other women don scarves by designers such as Christian Dior, Hermes, Gucci, and Dolce & Gabbana. And even the traditional dress is no longer black and shapeless but comes in various cuts, colors, patterns, and textures: slim-cut, baggy, silk, chiffon, fringed, fur-cuffed, hand-painted, and even embroidered with rhinestones and feathers. The trend would be just another marketing gimmick, except that the hijab is not merely an article of clothing, but a politically charged symbol. The hijab, as most people know by now, has become emblematic of an ideological and political movement that promotes a puritanical interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia. In this interpretation, it is "haram," or illegal, for a women to reveal her arms, legs, or any bodily curves. In the most conservative circles, revealing the face, ankles, neckline, and hands is also verboten. (The Quran, while calling for modesty, does not mandate that women wear hair scarves or long gowns.) To attend the fashion seminar, I had to go undercover in more ways than one. Nordstrom's publicity department called the show a "private event" that was closed to the press. When I asked why, I was told the company hadn't "media trained" its sales representatives. What if, God forbid, a Nordstrom saleswoman pitched a gauzy scarf that left a woman's hair visible? I'm a Muslim woman, I do cover my hair sometimes with a hoodie over my head in a look I call "ghetto hijab." So, at the diner across the street, I draped a hot pink scarf from the Tie Rack over my head and covered my body in a flower-patterned Nine West trench coat -- more Grace Kelly than hijabi Muslim, but it worked -- and prepared to see what Nordstrom thought was in fashion for the veiled-and-shrouded set. The morning of the event, about 100 women -- their hair covered by scarves, their bodies cloaked in abayas or burqas, and at least two of them with their faces fully veiled -- pulled into the Tysons Corner parking lot in Volvos, BMWs, and Lexus sedans. In liberal Muslim circles, these women are sometimes derisively called "hijabis." The chicest among them -- those who wear silk Hermes scarves and long Barneys jackets -- are dubbed "fashionable fundies" (as in "fundamentalists"). The women call themselves "muhajabah," or "women of hijab." The women and I slid into chairs set up at the top of the store's escalators, a few feet away from a display of slinky Nicole Miller gowns. The Nordstrom sales team was composed mostly of non-Muslim Americans, but there was one Muslim saleswoman with a scarf pulled up high over a bun in her hair. A chipper Nordstrom saleswoman in an appropriately modest business suit opened the show by pointing to a row of mannequins outfitted in what she called "the latest fall trends." There was a full-length Eileen Fisher skirt: "It allows for full coverage," she emphasized. And a black Anne Klein jacket: "It closes up high," the sales lady stressed. Finally, a $425 green-and-black Tesori tweed coat: "Just perfect for your unique style." In other words, it would cover the contour of a woman's butt -- another no-no to reveal. The Nordstrom Web site promotes the jacket as a "tailored fit," but that wasn't part of the sales pitch here. But something was obviously missing. A saleswoman stepped forward: "Of course, we have scarves!" Of course! Each mannequin had a scarf wrapped around its neck, ready to be pulled up. There were also broaches, which were said to be "perfect for pinning up scarves." A Muslim woman in the audience snickered at the effect of one broach atop a headscarf; it looked like a cake decoration.

Of course, the most puritanical Muslims would say that hijab is not meant to be flashy. According to these men and women, it's supposed to be the sartorial equivalent of a burlap sack, not a trimly tailored Anne Klein jacket. It's supposed to be black, not trendy colors like fuchsia and teal. Preachers from New Jersey to California rail at the pulpit against women who put too much fashion in their hijab. To quote one rant on a conservative Muslim Web site: "Everyday we see our Muslim sisters proudly displaying names and initials on their clothing. … What are they advertising? CD, YSL, D&G," -- as in Christian Dior, Yves Saint Laurent and Dolce & Gabbana -- "How ironic that the most modest of dressing -- the cloak and scarf -- should become contaminated by advertising the names of some of the most shameless and perverted people in the world." But women will no doubt continue to thwart such dictates in a desire to look stylish while remaining pious. And it may be Muslims themselves, versed in the nuances and requirements of the hijab, who will be best equipped to introduce it to the world of high fashion. Next month, Femmes Arabes, a magazine for Arab women, will sponsor a fashion show in Montreal featuring caftans -- long flowing garments popular among Muslim women in North Africa -- designed by five Canadian designers and five Arab designers; it held a similar show last year. And Eve N Black, a Dubai-based boutique founded by Muslim fashion designer Mohammad Bahrami, sells abayas that cost anywhere from $1,500 to $10,000 and are often displayed with matching shoes and purses. (If she spends $6,500 or more, a woman can get a copyright for her personal abaya design.)

If the Nordstrom event made one thing clear, it was that it's not easy to combine high fashion with religion. While one woman walked away with a long orange duster sweater, women on both sides of the figurative catwalk were grumbling unhappily. A Moroccan woman found a black polka-dotted top inappropriate because of its "three-quarter-length sleeves." Sleeves, according to the strictest standards of hijab, must extend to the wrists. A George Mason University law school student groused that a black Anne Klein skirt was "too short" because it hit the calves. A young scarved woman became frustrated that she wasn't able to find "an A-line skirt without a slit." And the Nordstrom cashiers mumbled to each other they weren't ringing up enough sales. Indeed, the fashion seminar, to borrow a phrase from the fashion world, was a definite miss.

An Outsider Looking Within

It was my third day of lying around in the sticky, blistering hot weather. I never imagined that I was going to spend my summer in Sudan. My mother came into my room and attempted to get me up from my lethargic state. After she realized I wasn’t getting up she yelled, “Esraa, Goumi (Get up)!” I sluggishly got up and got ready. My uncle was patiently waiting for me in the living room.

He briefly said, “Salaam (greetings)! Are you ready to go to the doctor’s office?” I had a scheduled appointment for an eye exam so I could get a pair of glasses. I answered, “Yeah, sure.” We went outside and entered the car. I was really jetlagged and decided to fall asleep during our trip. My dreamless sleep seemed to end as soon as it started, when my uncle woke me up. The sun baked my skin as I walked into the doctor’s clinic. It wasn’t anything like the clinics back in America. The ceramic tiles were old and worn out. In addition, a loud and creaky air conditioner tried to cool the extremely hot room. There were chairs scattered here and there, but they all wore the same random spots of dirt and dust on them. I chose to sit at the chair closest to the air conditioner.

Suddenly, a woman strolled in with a little boy by her side. She was dressed in a wrinkly, thin toub (traditional Sudanese female outfit). As she passed, I tried to be nice and waved at her son. Her son shyly looked at me and grabbed onto his mother’s toub. His eyes were filled with fear and sadness. He looked down then gave me a quick glance and I knew that look; I’ve seen it before. People have given me stares like that before. They all assume I’m foreign. That issue never affected me till that day. His look burned in my memory. I never knew the fact I was raised in another country was so noticeable. To them I was equivalent to an American or a German who came to visit Sudan; I was someone with nothing tying me to the country, no family, friends, or identity. The fluent Arabic I thought I speak was looked upon as broken and is often mocked. My jeans were too tight and my shirts were too short. I was an outsider of a country that both of my parents call home. Although I was considered an outsider, I still knew that Sudan was an important part of my life. Sudan is a part of me and it’ll never be erased.

Where Do We Draw The Line? Cultural Relativism and Female Genital Mutilation

How are we to judge the ethical standards and actions of other people who do not share our cultural background? Since the 1970’s, there was a serious debate in the fields of international public health and human rights about whether FGM/C is an issue of cultural relativism or human rights. In this post I will examine the issue of cultural relativism versus universalism (human rights) in regards to justifying or disapproving FGM/C.

Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism in regards to FGM/C

Due to globalization, we came in contact with many indigenous groups. So, what happens when people from one society with its own moral code encounter another society that practices a strange and terrible custom that goes against their moral code? FGM/C is one of the most widely sighted tradition that conflicts with the universal moral standard. When it comes to judging this practice, most people fall into one of the two categories. Either they are universalists who believe that this tradition needs to be eradicated because it's against the universal moral system or they are cultural relativists who accept the existence of multiple moral systems and accept this tradition as a valid ritual. The conflict between these two ideologies always occur when universalists encounter people whose practices are in their views unacceptable. Universalists for decades have been working hard to eradicate harmful traditional practices with little to no change (ex: Sudan and Somalia). For those who believe in universalism, try to understand why some societies reject universal laws... Laws that have been devised by a world body that includes members that often appear to have little in common with them.

The universalist approach got popular after WWII. The horrific consequences of WWII led to the adoption of a Universal Declaration of Human rights. This declaration notes that having one country/culture determine its own values, regardless of human life, can have horrendous results. This universalism approach led to the creation of the United Nations. Therefore, they are trying to say that-if we believe in multiple moral systems, we will be divided and fragmented and we wouldn't be able work together to obtain success in creating a better world. Cultural relativism’s approach was created as a means to counter colonialism. Universalism shares some ideologies with coloniasm, where there is an underlying notion that one set of standards/culture is superior to another.

The anthropological response to FGM/C is a widely cited example of cultural relativism. Some western anthropologists who believe in cultural relativism even went to the extent of equating FGM with Western practices such as breast augmentation and tattooing. This argument is invalid for several reasons: (1) FGM is predominantly practiced on children (2) The vast majority of these children are forced into this practice (it's against their will). Ingold, a professor of social anthropology, said that “anthropologists stress that there are as many standards of humanity as there are different ways of being human, and that there are no grounds – apart from sheer prejudice – for investing any one set of standards with universal authority”. A medical anthropologist, Melvin Konner, criticized cultural relativist ethnographers as soft on FGM/C. Konner claims that “cultural relativism has limits, and this [FGM/C] is one place where we ought to draw the line”. This argument between the cultural relativists and universalists reveals an old tension between the tolerance of different cultures and the activist intolerance of repressive or violent cultural traditions. So, where do we draw the line? How much is it possible to accept other cultural realities and traditions? Despite the fact that most anthropologists may consider the FGM/C practice to be unethical (considering that it is done to children), they still have not adopted a strong position and advocated against the practice. Most anthropologist are careful when they discuss the issue of FGM because they fear being labeled racist or cultural imperialist.
Relativists are noted to be too soft on the issue of FGM/C. Their detached observer approach asserts that people outside FGM/C cultures do not have a right to impose change and that is should be left to people within these societies to discuss and change on their own actions. This approach contrasts the Universalist approach, where FGM/C is clearly an act of violence against women. In the case of FGM/C, sometimes we should consider the fact that “morality transcends national boundaries and cultural beliefs”.

In my view, cultural relativism is not claiming that there is no right or wrong, or that we should get rid of ethical standards. Instead, cultural relativism is a way for us to account for and deal with various moral systems in the world. The success of any FGM/C educational program must be grounded in cultural relativism. When we understand that there are multiple moral systems, we are less likely to judge and we might even understand where they are coming from. We will not view them as inferior, diseased and savage; Instead, we will view them as our partners in this FGM/C eradication journey. We should provide them with education and leave it up to them to discuss and advocate. Most African mothers do not circumcising their daughters to torture them, in fact, most mothers say that they do that because they love their daughters and they want the best for them. Instead of condemning these mothers and treating them like criminals, we should understand where they are coming from, educate them, and open dialogue without ordering them to stop their deeply rooted traditional practice.

Arguments against FGM based on health risks and the negative medical consequences, in 1990, were being replaced with challenges to the practice on the basis of universal human rights. The mobilization of universal rights-based arguments (instead of the negative medical consequences) against FGM/C has resulted in a different sort of backlash, where Africans felt like this is a targeted ethnocentric racism. Therefore, the universalist human rights approach of eradicating FGM/C made the situation worse in some places. Some societies held on to the traditions even more than before to preserve their culture which has been under attack and viewed as inferior by these outsiders.

I came to a conclusion that FGM/C would not have been such a hot debate if it was done by adults on their own will. Therefore, regardless of my agreement with some of the cultural relativist philosophy, I would argue that FGM/C is clearly a violation of children’s human rights since most genitally mutilated girls were forced into it and got circumcised without their consent. In my eyes, forcing a three year old to get cut without anesthesia is a form of gender based abuse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out …. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would … be a very bad thing”. From Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural relativists are reluctant to “interfere with other cultures”, voice concern or take a stand. This is simply putting millions more innocent girls around the world at risk for death and reproductive system complications. Therefore, I must identify my own position in the debate as being a Universalist-> when it comes to children and leaning towards being a cultural relativist-> when it comes to adults who willingly decided to get circumcised. That is where I draw my line.

Unfortunately, not to undermine this big problem, but even if we eradicated FGM/C in all 28 African countries we will still have hundreds of thousands of children dieing each year from preventable infectious diseases. In countries were FGM/C is prevalent, the overall health risk of dieing from circumcision is lower than the risk of dieing from diarrhea, malaria or tuberculosis. Unfortunately, this is the African Reality today. We don't even know where to start.

How are you doing? "BANI"

Since I was a child, I’ve always wondered how my family got this unique last name, Bani. My great great grandfather was originally from Mali but somehow ended up in Sudan. Since then, many rumors about his mysterious name change from Abu-baker to Bani were circulating around my family. First, my father told me a story about the Bani River in Mali and how we originated from a small Fulani village near there. When Abu-baker came from Mali with his family to Sudan, they all adopted the last name Bani to stay connected to their place of origin.

Then, a few years later, my uncle told me a different story of our last name. He said that during the early 1900s, Abu-baker settled in Sudan after a pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. He knew only a few words in Arabic but there were two phrases that he mixed up “What’s your name?” and “How are you?” Whenever someone would ask “What’s your name?” he would reply “Bani”. The word bani means healthy in Arabic. Over time, people started calling him by that name and for over a century it’s been officially our last name.

My older brother, on the other hand, told me a similar story about Abu-baker’s name change. On his way back from the pilgrimage, Abu-baker got a chronic illness and had to settle in Sudan. People in the village nicknamed him Bani to contradict the fact that he was chronically ill. Till today the name change remains a mystery, but I’ll surely pass these stories down to the future Bani generation.

Abortion and Low-Income Women

Abortion, a controversial medical procedure, was once declared a criminal offense in the United States (During the mid 1800’s-early 1900’s). Women during that time were conflicted between their own individual decisions and societal norms. Therefore, many of them sought ways to break this law to cover up an initial transgression (fornication) by having illegal and unsafe abortions by untrained practitioners. The rise of abortion related morbidity and mortality made this issue a moral imperative for many people in the medical, legal, and religious field. The collective effort of these different stakeholders in society pressured policymakers to take up the cause. This effort led to the creation of one of the most controversial health policy laws in the history of the United States (Roe vs. Wade).

After the decrimalization of abortion, federal funding was used to cover poor women for abortion just as they were covered for any other medical care service. Three years later, in 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) proposed an amendment to ban the federal government’s funding (Medicaid) for abortion. This provision (effective in 1977), now known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies circumstances where abortion should be covered by Medicaid.

The current restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment does not provide coverage for abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities, or health exceptions apart from life-threatening conditions.

Over the past few years the Bush administration has become more conservative, supporting their limitations and bans on abortion procedures with moral and spiritual arguments. In his speech regarding the ban on partial-birth abortions in 2003, President George W. Bush stated, “For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (The White House Press, 2003) President Bush further supports the decision of his administration by asserting, “This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.”

In December 2005, President George W. Bush signed a massive federal spending bill in which a “pro-life” provision was contained. The controversial Weldon Amendment (also known as the Women’s Health Care Denial Law), signed by President Bush, would allow virtually any healthcare institution (or entity) to deny to pay for, cover, provide, or even refer patients for abortions even when such actions are otherwise legally mandated (such as cases of rape or incest). While democrat’s control of the senate heightens the threat to restrictive Medicaid policies, years of debate and advocacy for the right to choose is already an empty promise for many women and girls in America. Instead of indicating how banning abortion may affect society, the government’s sole concern is that of the unborn child, a being who arguably has no rights because its life is dependent on the mother. Furthermore, it seems that the administration is relying too much on spiritual beliefs and religion rather than grounded concern in regards to their servitude to American society. This causes us to dismiss our ideals of the separation of the church and state.

Moreover, 2008 Republican presidential candidates have already signaled at their intention to work towards overturning Roe vs. Wade. Let us imagine that the government overturned Roe vs. Wade…Abortion would be outlawed in many states, and as a result of that the greatest financial burden will be on poor women who would not afford medical tourism or traveling to other states where abortion remains legal. In addition, overturning Roe would mean that we will have more unwanted children who would be brought into this life by young mothers, thus increasing the amount of federal funds (tax money) to help pay for public assistance, healthcare, and foster care.

Poor women, teenagers, women of color, and rural women will be the most who would suffer from this law. Annually, there are tens of thousands of low-income women and teenagers who against their will carry their pregnancy to term because they cannot afford to pay for an abortion. Many thousands more would be denied this constitutional right if these restrictions are not removed. The effort to overturn Roe (and the Hyde-Weldon Amendments) marginalizes and stigmatizes abortion care rather than recognizing that “sometimes” it is an essential component of women’s health. These laws bleakly target the voiceless low-income women by denying them reproductive care. ***Low-income women sometimes must use money appropriated for food, rent, or utilities to raise the necessary funds. ***In many cases, these poor women face an ever-spiraling cost that they are not able to afford. As a result, these poor women often are not able to complete their education, escape domestic violence, or climb out of poverty.

As a matter of social justice, American women (regardless of their economic or racial background) must have equality when it comes to accessing reproductive healthcare. The legal right to choose had been effective for more than thirty years, but barriers such as the Hyde Amendment must be removed in order for these low-income women practice their rights. Restricting Medicaid funding for abortion services caused an economic disparity since economically disadvantaged women will be less likely to afford the costs of terminating unwanted pregnancies. Barriers to accessing abortion services, such as the Hyde Amendment, fall disproportionately on low-income women who have limited resources with which to overcome these obstacles.

In a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, 20-35% of Medicaid eligible women who choose abortion end up carrying their pregnancies to term due to the lack of public funds. This lack of public funding also results in low-income women delaying their abortion so that they can raise funds. Postponing abortions raises the cost (of the procedure) and risks. The legal right to have an abortion does not much when women (who do not have insurance that covers abortion) are not guaranteed access or at least affordability. It is not clear how many low-income women are blocked from obtaining an abortion solely due to the Medicaid restrictions. However, what is clear is that the Medicaid restrictions causes abortion care to be more costly in terms of health and safety as the delay of women having the procedure is more dangerous.

Abortion will always be an emotionally charged and politically divisive issue. This divisiveness in perspectives and beliefs is the core problem that warrants attention in itself. This debate will never be resolved (given the demographics of the United States). One obvious path for the two sides to work together toward is supporting policies and programs that enhance women’s ability to avoid or postpone having a child by helping her do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies. Roe vs. Wade (for now) remains the law of the land, but its meaning for women in the future is still vague. For the future we have nothing to fear, but our fear of our own diversity.

"Bird Flu?" Let's Learn from our West Nile Virus Ractions!

What happens internationally will affect us domestically, and our domestic public health policies will impact people globally.

These Microbial, Parasitical, and Viral predators abound, are presenting a profound threat to our health and the success of our traditionally implemented public health intervention programs. The last decade has been inflicted by several striking outbreaks of infectious diseases in Northern America, such as the West Nile Virus (WNV), SARS, and E.coli O157.

Due to globalization, In September, 1999 a new viral encephalitis outbreak appeared in the New York metropolitan area. This outbreak fostered several media campaigns as well as ineffective approaches to control the “state of emergency”. As of November 2006, over 14,000 people in the United States were infected with the WNV (some of these cases were considered severe involving meningitis or encephalitis) causing more than 900 documented deaths.

Background:
The West Nile virus, found both in tropical and temperate regions, is a virus of the family of Flaviviridae. This virus belongs to a large group of arthropod-borne viruses (nicknamed ARBO viruses) which include many viruses that in general cause encephalitis and other known diseases such as the dengue fever and the yellow fever.Epidemics, like wars, test the limits of freedom in our society. The massive pesticide case in New York City is a sobering reminder that the interest of the individual must on occasion be tempered by the best interest of the community as a whole (based on the government’s views).

Using Pesticides to Control Mosquito Populations:
In New York City, in 1999, when the public heard of the fatal WNV epidemic that is being spread by mosquitoes, they turned to the federal, state and local government for a quick solution. Most government officials were caught off guard and were unprepared to handle a “state of emergency”. Government officials did not develop a plan to effectively tackle an outbreak like this; Pesticide spraying provided a quick and easy fix to a very complicated and multifactorial problem. Thinking that they had to do something “quick”, most government officials put their fingers firmly on the pesticide trigger, deciding that it is the best solution. Unfortunately, they did not think about what would be a safer or more effective intervention that will control this epidemic. These officials now could say that they had done “something”, instead of being blamed for a lag in response.

Later on people started questioning whether the government’s response caused more harm than good. In September, 1999 the pesticide spray planes had taken to the air and the spray trucks to the streets and the city’s residents were being sprayed with Malathion, a controversial neurotoxic pesticide. A storm fell over the environmental and public health community as officials wondered whether this intervention (using a neurotoxic pesticide) was effective and reasonable. Environmental activists opposed this intervention. That same month in speaking to the public’s fear, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rejected the hazards of spraying saying, “There’s no point in not spraying, because there’s no harm in spraying. So even if we’re overdoing it, there’s no risk to anyone in overdoing it.” He added “the more dead mosquitoes…the better” [18]. This statement from the mayor undermines the forty years of research that indicated that this pesticide (Malathion in particular) is carcinogenic, causes genetical mutations, and neurological disorders. After this statement, public health officials knew that their goals should not only include educating the public about the WNV but also countering misleading information about the adverse effects of pesticide exposure and provide alternative solutions.

The pesticide that was chosen to be used in New York City’s mass spraying was an organophosphate. They are classified in the highest toxicity class of pesticides. Their mechanism is to inhibit the cholinesterase enzymes, which inactivates the nerve transmitter acetylcholine.

Transparency is important. In the United States’ democratic society, all legitimate stakeholders in New York City should have been properly informed about the WNV and the benefits and consequences of the option of using pesticides to control mosquitoes. The public should know the risks and benefits of the various alternative options, and have an input into discussions on issues that affect them, particularly those that affect their health and well-being (such as using neurotoxic pesticides). Initially, there was no dialogue with the stakeholders and the government officials made quick decisions. As the information became available to the public over the following years, it became clear that the WNV, although a serious infectious disease, was not as catastrophic as what it was portrayed to be. Cases reported to the CDC showed that most people who get infected with the WNV are asymptomatic. The vast majority of those who displayed symptoms were either elderly or people with a compromised immune or nervous systems. Moreover, the CDC then concluded that 80-90% of those bitten by an infected mosquito will be asymptomatic, about 20% may exhibit flu-like symptoms, and less than 1% will develop the more severe meningoencephalitis form of this disease. Approximately 10% of these severe cases are fatal (more commonly in the elderly). The irony is that the same people who are at high risk for contracting a severe case of WNV are the same people who are at high risk from pesticide poisoning (the elderly and people with compromised immune system).

Conclusion:
Pesticide spraying for the WNV has raised awareness among the public of the potential hazards of pesticides. Individuals across the country have become activists against their use (especially the more toxic forms). This became an opportunity for community members to educate themselves and other on pesticide use not only in mosquito management programs but also in other areas (for example, agriculture). In addition, many decision makers, such as public health and government officials, have rejected mass spraying, unilateral action for the public’s involvement, and the use of toxic pesticides. The use of pesticides was replaced with non-toxic alternatives and practices to control mosquitoes. These public health and government officials should be highly praised for not only protecting the public from the WNV and pesticide exposure, but also for causing a positive cultural change that rejects toxic pesticide use and embraces the safer integrated pest management program [29].

The Egyptians Knew All Along :) *wink*

A vision without a task is but a dream…
A task without vision is drudgery…
A vision with a task…
Is the hope of the world.

-Inscription on a church in Sussex
England, 1730

Agriculture plays a central role in our existence. It is the mother of cultural tradition and the foundation of our well-being. Modern farming techniques and pesticide use, driven purely by economic considerations, have driven the culture out of agriculture and replaced it with corrupt business deals- agriculture today is known as agribusiness. The consequences of this shift manifests in continuing ecological crises, a continuing rise in degenerative illnesses, and an impoverished community life. There are high hidden costs for modern farming, such as, the exploitation of the agricultural worker, the depletion of the soil caused by chemicals, and the reduction of vitality in the food source. These are being paid in increased taxes, which are used to contain only the more obvious environmental damage, and in increased medical services to care for all the poor-nutrition-related illnesses. The exportation of agribusiness products to the developing world is linked to the deterioration of a subsistence existence that most of the third world is consigned to. We need to fundamentally change our thinking about agriculture in order to conceive of viable solutions to adverse health effects in Egypt.

Centuries ago, Egyptians bestowed upon their country the title of “Um Al Donya”, which means the mother of the world. Today Egypt still carries this title breeding more offsprings than ever. Egypt was recently ranked the second-most populous country in Africa and the fifteenth most populous country in the world, with 78.8 million people. Egypt occupies a strategic site in Africa. It is a tetragon-shaped land bordering Sudan on the South and the Mediterranean Sea on the North, and bordering Libya on the West and the Red Sea on the East. Most of its inhabitants are crowded along the Nile River banks where the only arable agricultural land is found. It is a multidimensional and complex country just like the African continent.

Egypt’s economy depends mostly on agriculture, media and tourism, as well as money coming in from more than five million Egyptians working abroad. Egypt’s exponentially increasing population in conjunction with its limited arable land continues to put great stress on food production. This in turn causes a major stress on the economy. With the intensification of agricultural production to meet the ever increasing demand for food and to achieve some of the country’s food self-sufficiency targets, the incidence of agricultural pests and diseases increased. Unfortunately, there are some seasons where most of the harvest in Egypt is lost due to weeds, diseases and locust attacks. With pests and diseases being one of the major obstacles to higher agricultural production, the farmers turned to chemical pesticides imported from the developed world as a solution to this problem.

The adverse effects of pesticides on human life are several. For example, human pesticide-related poisoning could occur as a result of unguarded or excessive exposure to pesticides, through inhalation, ingestion or contact, such as after spillages or other accidents, while spraying, or after consuming heavily or untimely pesticide-treated crops or livestock products. Pesticides can also induce allergies and asthma-like symptoms and can affect body organs such as the liver, kidneys and the nervous system. Based on laboratory tests on experimental animals, pesticides can cause cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects and male sterility.

As to pesticide residues and environmental contamination, only recently has the full extent of such environmental damage become clear. Some pesticides persist longer than others or break down to even more toxic components, extending the time span in which they could contaminate agricultural crops, surface and underground water, and aquatic bodies. Pesticides affect not only the location of their application but also ecosystems far removed, due to their mobility in the air and water. One especially serious problem is the concentration of residues in the breast milk of mothers and the consequent transfer of these toxics to infants who are typically more prone to health problems than adults.

In Egypt, more than 120,000 subjects participate in the annual application of pesticides in cotton fields. These pesticides include severely restricted or never registered pesticides. Most of the applicators are either temporarily (seasonally) or permanently hired by the government (Ministry of Agriculture). Most of these pesticides are donated from the global elites as a form of health aid to a region where it has been long established that they suffer from a lack of protective equipment, unsafe application and storage practices, and inadequate training of pesticide applicators, which in turn increases their hazards.

Egyptian farmers who turned to chemical pesticides are getting exposed on a daily basis not knowing the adverse effects of these pesticides. These chemicals are absorbed into their bodies through their food, drinks, air, and in some cases through the skin. In Egypt, over a million children between the ages of 7 and 12 are annually involved with cotton pest managements. Children are exceptionally vulnerable to poisoning from pesticide exposure. Pregnant mothers who work in sprayed fields can expose their fetus inutero to these harmful chemicals. Moreover, when they deliver the baby they continue to expose the infant with high concentrations of pesticides while breastfeeding (though breast milk).

Pesticides, as a public health intervention, are applied to crops so that they are able to grow healthier, because pests are no longer able to feed off of them, or lay their eggs on them. Despite pesticide’s relative success in controlling crop diseases and containing disease transmitting pests when applied at the proper time and in the proper quantities, many chemical pesticides adversely affect human welfare and the environment, and in the long-run, loose effectiveness due to the build-up of pest resistance. In fact, a complete long-term cost/benefit analysis of pesticide use would reduce the perceived profitability of pesticides.

Totally controlling pests using chemicals is close to impossible. There is always the problem of pests that develop resistance against the chemical pesticides intended to control them. More complicated resistance phenomena are also likely to occur, whereby pest species develop the ability to survive exposure to related chemicals, or what is more serious problem, the resistance to pesticides with different modes of action. This is only one example of many in regards to the failure of using “un-natural” approaches to nature. The intention might have been controlling pests, but with pests developing resistance this leads to greater pest outbreaks, that need new more potent chemicals to control. More disease will spread because the pests carrying them are immune to the pesticides used. In addition, there is the problem of totally destroying the pest targeted, because in nature this pest was also the predator of another smaller specie, with the total destruction of the primary pest, the secondary specie propagates out of control becoming the new pest specie.

As the negative and dangerous impacts of pesticides on human life (and on the environment) have become better known in recent decades, scientists developed more natural, cost-effective, and less ecosystem-disruptive and harmful methods to control pests without heavily relying on chemical pesticides. For example, the integrated pest management (IPM) program is a pest management strategy combining several benign pest control techniques such as the use of natural predators, biological pesticides and adapted cultural practices, including breeding plants for pest and disease resistance, with a diminished and less frequent utilization of chemical pesticides.


It is ironic that these scientists and global elite programs would participate in brining “pest control” solutions to Egypt of all places. Egypt is known to be the “cradle of civilization” and agriculture is the foundation of their civilization. Global elitists think that they are inventing new approaches to this problem; they think they are civilizing these communities, not knowing that their ancient traditions and techniques in farming have been around way longer than their scientific interventions. Ancient Egyptian techniques already worked out to avoid these pest problems and provided for what is essential in the natural process of food production. Ultimately, these agribusiness corporations create a problem and they offer the “solution” for it at a hefty price.

The modern world could benefit from taking a look into the past and acknowledging the agricultural contributions of ancient Egyptian civilization. This is the very civilization which brought us the foundations of our current understanding of agricultural technology and it is often by examining the roots of something that one can find a solution to the current problems. Some of the innovations that Egyptian agriculture pioneered include cultivation and irrigation technology. Ancient Egypt was the epicenter of agricultural technology, technology that produced efficient and beneficiary systems for food production and maximized public health and wellbeing. Their main focus and goal was to sustain their local community. Due to the Neoliberalism movements, agriculture’s motives in modern Egypt are so much different in the sense that it is concerned with the quantity of production, not the quality. It is all about profiting, not necessarily sustaining lives. Furthermore, much of the agricultural technologies used in Egypt today actually end up harming and threatening lives rather than sustaining them. The shifts in motives are vast. It shifted from having a nature based relationship with the seasons’ cycles to feed people and sustain public health, to exploiting resources and people in order for a small minority (whether it be corrupt governments, or on a larger scale global elites) to prosper economically. This explanation is illustrated in the transformation of the word agriculture, which is a culture of producing food for sustainability, to the now commonly used term, agribusiness. Growing food is no longer a community health issue; it is just that- a business. Living in a world where the prosperous minority is spreading capitalism, all we are going to see is more money being made by reducing the quality in order to maximize quantity to maximize profits. That is what it boils down to- profits.

Ancient Egyptian agriculture was made up of centuries of human innovation, practice, and time tested approaches to working with the innate cycles of nature. The wisdom gained over time among the collective population used techniques such as relying on natural predation rather than chemicals to manage pest control and create symbiotic relationships among plant and animal life. For years civilizations were founded and maintained on this indigenous wisdom and communities were able to provide for themselves and ensure the health and well being of their people.

The solution to this problem is to go back to the era before modern farming and chemicals, and use the ancient Egyptian farming techniques. The Egyptian farmer can therefore create a system where these pests are not eradicated by pesticides, instead, keep them at a manageable level by a complex system of checks and balances. This approach is a holistic approach that seeks to work with the webs of interactions between the myriad of organisms that constitute the farm, On the contrary to more “modern” farming practices which often use these pesticides to kill both harmful and beneficial life forms indiscriminately.

Let us examine this problem globally…In this time of globalization and capitalist interest, outside interests prey upon the simple yet wise traditions of indigenous people of Egypt. Through scientific advancements in chemical pest control and genetic modifications, major corporations have developed their own systems of agribusiness which bypass the natural cycles of agriculture and create a controlled environment with controlled substances. A very foreign concept to any farmer who knows that farming is about risk and being at the mercy of nature to provide food for its consumer’s. Farming has always been about the fostering of a relationship between man and nature. However, agribusiness attempts to take nature out of the equation. After all, when capital gain is of main concern, the risk of losing crops or having unknown variables is too risky for investors to deal with.

Government must look to the future rather than just looking to short term capital gain. It is also the responsibility of global elite governments to restrict the export of such products, if they themselves already know of their danger and have determined them to be unsafe for their people. They must carry this over to all people and keep them from harming the global community. This is what public health is about … the health of the public, not the capital gain of the private sector! Unfortunately this type of solution is not an easy fix nor is it necessarily feasible within the capitalist paradigm. In order to pursue the sustainability of human health, a larger shift in perspective must take place, a shift in values. As long as people in power put business before health, the solution will never be realized.

In conclusion, there should be an establishment and enforcement of policies to control the use of pesticides in Egypt. There should be a cross-sectional research to be able to asses how much of the traditional agricultural techniques are still used and encourage farmers to use them. The utilization of bio-safe techniques like the ones used in ancient Egypt will help control pests and avoid pest resistance problems. Establishing community based interventions that strengthen old farming traditions and train new farmers. In addition, educating the farmers on issues concerning the adverse effects of pesticide use will be important.