{"id":904,"date":"2015-05-31T08:15:51","date_gmt":"2015-05-31T12:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/natural-womanhood.local\/?p=904"},"modified":"2024-03-30T12:47:32","modified_gmt":"2024-03-30T17:47:32","slug":"resolucion-de-problemas-creacion-de-problemas-en-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/naturalwomanhood.org\/es\/problem-solving-problem-creating-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Una Am\u00e9rica que resuelve y crea problemas"},"content":{"rendered":"

Americans love to problem solve[i]<\/a>. The American genius in problem solving has led us into an era of comfort and ease of living. America has been ahead of the rest of the world from the time they created machines to farm much more efficiently than their European counterparts in the late 1800s to home appliances technology in the 1950’s up to the digital era today.\u00a0 Sometimes problem solving creates bigger problems, however.\u00a0 For example, an interesting paradox in problem solving applied to health policy can be seen in the treatment of eggs[ii]<\/a>. All with the goal of protecting the consumer, the American approach to egg production and handling is the polar opposite of that in Europe.<\/p>\n

In the United States, eggs must be washed before they\u2019re sold, whether they come from a small family farm or a huge industrial production. They must then, by law, be refrigerated, because of the risk of salmonella. However, it’s precisely because of the risk of salmonella that European countries and most other countries in the world forbid the washing of eggs.<\/p>\n

Europeans have reasons for their policy. Because washing an egg removes its layer of natural protection, the risk of salmonella is actually increased. A side benefit is that the cost of cooling the eggs is eliminated.<\/p>\n

In the US, eggs must be washed in part because of the way they\u2019re produced. Industrial chickens are so crowded that eggs are inevitably filthy. Instead, the legislation in Europe forces producers to keep the chickens\u2019 environment cleaner. It\u2019s more demanding for producers and raises those costs. This approach also reduces the lifespan of the eggs. You wouldn\u2019t eat a 40-day-old egg in Europe, unlike here. But fresher eggs, produced in a less industrial way are better.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s interesting about this story is the way of thinking. The U.S. food distribution industry had a problem: supplying eggs that look good, that can be produced at the lowest cost possible, in concentrated production settings, and that can last long enough to be transported long distance. So \u201cwash the damn eggs and get it over with.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Eggs<\/a>
Eggs in a French supermarket. Photo by Anna Migeon.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s a bit the same with thinking on contraceptives. Here is how we formulate the problem: having sex can lead to pregnancy. We want to prevent it cheaply and simply, on a large scale with as little demand upon humans as possible, and as effectively as possible.<\/p>\n

The scale and complexity of the problem at hand are huge. The solution has to work for millions of women: each with a similar yet unique hormonal balance. To make it harder, the full picture of hormones, their relationships to the brain, and how synthetic hormones affect the body is still fairly obscure.\u00a0 Yet, medical and pharmaceutical institutions, knowing the demand for preventing pregnancies, are happy to oblige and come up with a series of solutions that blast the risk of pregnancy.<\/p>\n

To ensure that it works for most women, contraceptives have to fight nature with mighty power. It\u2019s not unlike the way we throw heavy duty fertilizers and pesticides on our crops, inject our animals with hormones, fill our food with corn syrup and other additives to make them look and taste good longer. It\u2019s how we do things. It needs to work on a large scale and meet the demands of most people, with minimal visible collateral damage. As long as we focus on the short term and the effectiveness of the tool, it\u2019s all good.<\/p>\n

Risks and casualties with contraceptives are known, but their promoters justify them with the following logic:<\/p>\n