Impact of Westernization on Developing Countries, an Environmental Focus

Unfair Trade Policies

Agriculture is often the economic driving force in developing countries and agricultural trade pits wealthy countries against poor countries, with policies affecting not only the health of developing countries, but their economic stability as well. 

Harrison Amukoyi, a local farmer in western Kenya, raises one dairy cow and several crops on two acres of land perched on a hillside. To sell milk, Mr. Amukoyi and his neighbors must compete with wealthy industrialized countries that offload their (cheaper) 

Source

subsidized milk on local markets, depressing the profits for Kenyan farmers. This unfair conflict happens throughout the developing world, further propelling impoverished conditions (Diao, et al., 2003). According to International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), protectionism (an economic policy of restraining trade between states through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, designed to encourage fair competition) and subsidies received by industrialized nations cost developing countries approximately US $24 billion annually in lost agricultural business. China, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand and India suffer the largest losses due to agricultural policies in developed countries, ranging from US $1.1 billion in India to about US $2.3 billion in China (Diao, et al., 2003). Of particular consequence is the “multiplier effect,” which economists named for the flow of jobs being lost in agriculture, spilling over to other job sectors. Not only are farmers affected by agriculture policies, but the jobs of people who rely on the farms are as well. In the above figure, cotton is "white gold" for families of Burkina Faso and the only cash crop from which they make their living. Increased competition globally has caused declining prices while the cost of inputs are rising and yields are decreasing. In other countries, yields are increasing, causing a productivity gap. 

Source

Responsibility for agricultural policies in developing countries lies in the European Union (EU), the United States and high-income countries in Asia, with more than half of the blame for total displacement falling on EU countries. In 2001 the U.S. government spent $3.4 billion to subsidize cotton, harming not only the cotton producing farms in Africa but U.S. taxpayers as well. People who reside in the rural areas tend to spend a majority of their income on food. Agricultural security is prominent, with cheaper imports increasing the amount people pay for food due to privately collected taxes that benefit primarily large-scale producers in industrialized nations, further eliminating production potential for local farmers.  Relieving countries of the overproduction of agricultural goods lies in decreasing reliance on industrialization and implementing neutral trade policies. Greater focus is needed on health investments, education, agricultural research, road development and land reform, access to clean water, improved communications, non-farm enterprises, and farmers’ organizations, as well as other forms of social capital for those marginalized and vulnerable (Diao, et al., 2003). 

The Cost of Industrialization

There is nothing quite like taking a long, deep breath of air. It would likely be less enjoyable if the air being inhaled contained sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, or other emitted pollutants. Yet this is the case for people in developing countries, who are facing very real environmental health repercussions as industrialization threatens the quality of air and water, releasing pollutants and hazardous waste byproducts. 

Environmental standards and regulations are practically nonexistent in developing countries, making them cheap and available dumping sites for wealthier developed nations. 

Source

This means that developing countries face inordinately greater challenges from hazardous industry and technology pollution shipped and transferred from developed countries because of relaxed environmental legislation. Small townships and rural areas become burdened with serious air and water pollution problems because of the lack of knowledge and resources. 

In a case study of air pollution effects on the health of 480 primary school children in Cubatao, Brazil- where large quantities of mixed pollutants were released from 23 industries, (steel mill, chemical industries, cement factory, fertilizer plants, etc.)- 55.3% of the children had decreased pulmonary functioning (Shiru, 2011). Though factories are providing jobs, highly toxic emissions and accidental releases of toxicants into the atmosphere are resulting in serious health risks for people in developing countries due to inadequate safety procedures and planning, lack of skilled technicians to maintain the facilities and difficulty in obtaining parts (Shiru, 2011).


Not So Eco-friendly E-Waste

All over the world printers, scanners and cell phones are being discarded as common trash without regard for the hazardous metals and toxins they contain. Electronic waste, commonly referred to as e-waste, is the fastest growing stream of municipal solid waste (MSW), but how it is disposed of is a serious concern. It is estimated that 20-50 million tons of e-waste are generated annually worldwide, ranging from cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions, desktops, laptops, computer monitors, liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors, cell phones, keyboards, computer mice, printers and copiers. 

Due to a lack of environmental regulation and protection laws for workers, toxicants in e-waste cause air, dust, soil, and water contamination. Recycling activities allow gold, silver, copper, zinc, iron and tin to be recovered at a profit; however, the dismantling process can involve cutting, heating, burning and acid leaching which expose workers and residents in small town and village workshops to dangerous mixtures of pollutants and metals (Chen, et al., 2011). Electronic waste materials contain heavy metals, lead, mercury, cadmium and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which, when disposed of or recycled inappropriately or irresponsibly, can lead to severe health issues and developmental neurotoxicity.

Source

Children living in communities or villages in close proximity to e-waste dumping and processing sites are at particularly high risk of exposure, as they are at critical stages of neuronal growth. Recognized adverse effects include impaired cognitive function, behavioral disturbances, attention deficits, hyperactivity and conduct problems (as qtd. in Chen, et al., 2011). 

Many of the countries affected are within Asia. Taizhou, China has two e-waste sites containing high levels of PBDEs—a group of brominated flame-retardants used in electronic products to reduce flammability, and correlated with thyroid hormone disruption and memory impairment. Also, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been banned in product use since 1970, are known to affect neuropsychological functions in children, including cognition, visual-spatial function, memory, attention, and motor function (Chen et al., 2011). Pregnant women and nursing mothers are at higher risk if they grew up in recycling sites because their history of exposure is longer. Exposure to e-waste toxicants lasts a long time, therefore the cognitive and neurodevelopmental consequences are rarely temporary, particularly when a child is born and raised in or near an e-waste site. Wildlife is also affected by e-waste; in bodies of water methylmecury (MeHg) may occur in organic and inorganic forms and is the primary route of exposure in the general population. E-waste has emerged as a global environmental health issue and with few organizations tackling e-waste handling or using preventive measures to ensure it is discarded properly, much more research is needed. 


Toxic Stew in India

While most of us in the United States have access to clean drinking and bathing water, people in other parts of the world do not. In India, people are living with polluted water and soil due to all the industry that has come to the country from the developed world. The relaxed enforcement of pollution control has made it possible for these industries to dump their waste into the water supply rather than treating it first. 

Source

A prime example of what is getting dumped into the waterways is from the tannery industry. It is reported that in Hazaribagh, a city and municipality in the Indian state of Jharkhand, that tanneries dump an estimated 21,600 cubic meters of pollutants into the water system every day. In Hazaribagh alone, it is estimated that there are 150 tanneries ranging in size, employing anywhere from 8000 to 12,000 people (Human Rights Watch, 2012). Water pollutants comprise animal fats, hair and flesh, and contain hazardous chemicals such as sulfur, chromium, ammonium and other chemicals (Human Rights Watch, 2012). A study was done in 1997 that compared self-reported health problems in 112 households in Hazaribagh with those from 100 households in a neighboring community.

Source

The residents from Hazaribagh reported 31% more cases of skin diseases, 21% more cases of jaundice, 17% more cases of kidney-related disease, 15% more cases of diarrhea, and 10% more cases of fever than that of other neighborhoods (Human Rights Watch, 2012). The industrial pollution of Hazaribaghs's air, water and soil is causing illness among local residents and though there is public awareness, it hasn't led to any significant changes. 

Collaborative Efforts by PHE Group FourPlusOne: 

Danielle Ali-Cassim, Laurie Kerridge,  Patrick Tupper, Kayley Guay, Jessica Ngin.