This article came out yesterday on Western Farm Press's website. It amazes me how it makes the argument of why we need genetically modified labeling and just how far gone our food system really is. I don't see a reasonable argument anywhere in the article that we shouldn't have labeling so we can know whether our food is natural or not. The idea that we need to do these things to feed starving people would have some weight if we were actually feeding starving people, but the fact is we are not. As I have said before, we have plenty of food and the means to transport it all over the world, the only thing we need to feed hungry people is the will to do it.
The message I get from this article is exactly what I have been saying: We desperately need a food system that is more concerned with health and ecology than money. As long as money is the top priority, big-business will continue to manipulate our food supply at the expense of our heath, the health and well-being of farm animals, and the planet.
Here's the article:
Time to take on anti-biotech crowd over GMO labeling
by Harry Cline
The California anti-biotech/anti-genetically modified/anti-science crowd is at it again.
This time around they are calling themselves “advocates for truth in food labeling” and are gathering signatures to get another infamous California voter initiative on the 2012 California electoral ballot. If passed, it would mandate that GMO foods be labeled with some kind of warning.
Bring it on.
It is about time this GMO labeling issue be tackled head-on so the public can be told the truth. Truth is, everything we eat today has been genetically modified, using either conventional plant and animal breeding or biotech technology.
For example, a team of scientists at the University of California has identified no less than 14 so-called genetically modified feedstuffs that are fed to dairy cattle. These are just the biotech products. Of course conventionally genetically modified feedstuff is also fed to milk-producing dairy cows.
These include Roundup Ready corn, Bt grain and silage corn as well as distillers grain; Roundup Ready soybeans, Roundup Ready cottonseed, Bt cottonseed, Roundup Ready alfalfa, Roundup Ready canola, BST used to increase milk production, genetically-engineered Renet used in 90 percent of commercial cheese production, Roundup Ready sugar beets, glufosinate-resistant corn grain and silage, glufosinate-resistant cotton, glufosinate-resistant canola and imidazalione-tolerant corn.
Not all dairy cows are fed this complete list, but enough to dare say if you buy milk in California, it will have to be labeled GMO under the hopefully ill-fated initiative. I suspect organic milk has some of the same ingredients since the overwhelming majority of corn, cotton and soybeans are biotech crops. If not, it would most certainly be conventionally genetically modified.
Of course a lot of those feeds are also fed to poultry and beef cattle.
And we could go on and on, right into the heart of the organic/anti biotech movement - the notorious Organic Trade Association - where one of its board members is a vice president and general manager of Smuckers Natural Foods. Smuckers uses high fructose corn syrup and other GMO ingredients in various jams and jellies. There are other food producing companies represented on the OTA board that also sell biotech foods.
The absurdity of this anti-biotech movement becomes more apparent each day as people realize that the world needs increasingly more food to head off starvation by millions. The most logical way to meet this challenge is with scientific advancement, including biotechnology.
The cost of food continues to go up with the growing scarcity of products as the world competes for food. The public is growing more aware of this each day.
It is time agriculture and food processors take on this anti-biotech crowd straight out with the facts and put a stop to this mandatory GMO labeling nonsense. It is time consumers are told the truth and put this anti-biotech initiative in the same category as the ludicrous anti-circumcision ban initiative a bunch of amazingly arrogant whackos in San Francisco tried to get on a city election ballot. A superior court recently tossed the initiative off the ballot, even though enough signatures were collected to put it on a San Francisco city election ballot. Even the ACLU supported its removal from the ballot because it violated constitutional and religious freedoms.
The mandatory GMO labeling proposal is going nowhere in Washington. Maybe it is time to bury it in California. It would be expensive to defeat. However, the time is right to stop this nonsense where it all started, in California.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Super Bacteria? Fighting Resistance Could Be Trickier Than Thought
This hit a couple days ago. I want to draw attention to this sentence:
"Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows."
You don't say...
Super Bacteria? Fighting Resistance Could Be Trickier Than Thought
Catherine Pearson
A process thought to hamper antibiotic resistant bacteria, one of the world's most pressing public health problems, might actually make them stronger, according to a new Portuguese study that could signal a dramatic shift in our understanding of bacterial resistance.
Though much is still unknown about the exact mechanics involved, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics via chromosomal mutations and the incorporation of new genes, sometimes from other bacteria.
Researchers had believed that the acquisition of new genes conferring resistance has come at some cost to the bacteria, making it tougher for them to reproduce and survive.
But the authors of the new Portuguese study found that when already resistant bacterial cells obtain another antibiotic-resistance gene from a small piece of DNA called a plasmid -- a development that has been thought to have some cost to the host -- the cells sometimes divide faster than before.
Francisco Dionisio of the University of Lisbon, one of the study's authors, said the results, which focused on the bacterium E. coli, were unexpected.
"It is as if your PC with a mistake or bug in the operating system began to run faster after receiving a computer virus," Dionisio explained in an email to The Huffington Post.
"This happened 52 percent of the cases studied," he added. "And we expected zero percent!"
Other experts echoed Dionisio's surprise.
"It has always been an understanding that the acquisition of these resistant genes comes at some cost, so that the bacteria that have picked up these extra genes have extra baggage, so to speak," said Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for healthcare associated infection prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control. "That this might actually make them more fit and able to divide more quickly is a real change."
But the good news for resistant bacteria isn't good news for public health. The findings suggest that curbing antibiotic resistant bacteria -- already a top public health issue, according to the CDC -- may be even more difficult than previously thought. Dr. Jan Patterson, president elect of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, called the results "concerning." She added that the results could signal a shift in future research and control efforts.
"The finding brings up that just controlling antibiotic use alone is not going to take care of the problems of emergence and persistence of resistance," Patterson said. "We might have to start looking at other ways to fight bacteria, like inhibiting production of plasmids or inhibiting how bacteria divide."
To her knowledge, Patterson said little or no research has been done in that area. In the meantime, she pointed to methods like hand hygiene as a means of limiting the spread of resistant bacteria, particularly in hospitals, where the number of resistant strains is on the rise.
The CDC has identified improving in-patient antibiotic use as priority. It says that 50 percent of antimicrobial use in hospitals is "inappropriate," meaning antibiotics are used when they are not needed or they are administered the wrong dose. Increasing use of antibiotics increases the prevalence of resistant bacteria in hospitals, a recent CDC report stated.
Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows.
"The prophylactic and potentially careless use of antibiotics on such a large scale provides perfect breeding ground for drug-resistant strains," said Gunnar Kaufmann, assistant professor of chemical immunology at The Scripps Research Institute.
Such efforts to curb antibiotic use and increase things like hand washing in hospitals will have to suffice for now, the experts agreed, as the public waits for more research on exactly how antibiotic resistance works to be funded so that it has a better chance of being stopped.
"Medicine is a study in humility," Srinivasan of the CDC added. "We learn every day that something we thought was true is not correct. A study like this simply calls upon us to recognize the fact that we don't know everything we need to know yet. We need more investment in these problems."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
So the CDC says we don't know everything we need to know yet. Still, we genetically modify crops and pump livestock with chemicals all in the name of efficiency (which really boils down to the almighty dollar). I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is not that we don't have enough food or the means to transport it all over the world, the problem is that we don't have the desire to share it with folks without money. We don't want to do things the natural way they've been done forever because there's not as much profit in it.
We are literally killing each other to make a buck.
"Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows."
You don't say...
Super Bacteria? Fighting Resistance Could Be Trickier Than Thought
Catherine Pearson
A process thought to hamper antibiotic resistant bacteria, one of the world's most pressing public health problems, might actually make them stronger, according to a new Portuguese study that could signal a dramatic shift in our understanding of bacterial resistance.
Though much is still unknown about the exact mechanics involved, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics via chromosomal mutations and the incorporation of new genes, sometimes from other bacteria.
Researchers had believed that the acquisition of new genes conferring resistance has come at some cost to the bacteria, making it tougher for them to reproduce and survive.
But the authors of the new Portuguese study found that when already resistant bacterial cells obtain another antibiotic-resistance gene from a small piece of DNA called a plasmid -- a development that has been thought to have some cost to the host -- the cells sometimes divide faster than before.
Francisco Dionisio of the University of Lisbon, one of the study's authors, said the results, which focused on the bacterium E. coli, were unexpected.
"It is as if your PC with a mistake or bug in the operating system began to run faster after receiving a computer virus," Dionisio explained in an email to The Huffington Post.
"This happened 52 percent of the cases studied," he added. "And we expected zero percent!"
Other experts echoed Dionisio's surprise.
"It has always been an understanding that the acquisition of these resistant genes comes at some cost, so that the bacteria that have picked up these extra genes have extra baggage, so to speak," said Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for healthcare associated infection prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control. "That this might actually make them more fit and able to divide more quickly is a real change."
But the good news for resistant bacteria isn't good news for public health. The findings suggest that curbing antibiotic resistant bacteria -- already a top public health issue, according to the CDC -- may be even more difficult than previously thought. Dr. Jan Patterson, president elect of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, called the results "concerning." She added that the results could signal a shift in future research and control efforts.
"The finding brings up that just controlling antibiotic use alone is not going to take care of the problems of emergence and persistence of resistance," Patterson said. "We might have to start looking at other ways to fight bacteria, like inhibiting production of plasmids or inhibiting how bacteria divide."
To her knowledge, Patterson said little or no research has been done in that area. In the meantime, she pointed to methods like hand hygiene as a means of limiting the spread of resistant bacteria, particularly in hospitals, where the number of resistant strains is on the rise.
The CDC has identified improving in-patient antibiotic use as priority. It says that 50 percent of antimicrobial use in hospitals is "inappropriate," meaning antibiotics are used when they are not needed or they are administered the wrong dose. Increasing use of antibiotics increases the prevalence of resistant bacteria in hospitals, a recent CDC report stated.
Other broad areas of focus when it comes to preventing antibiotic resistance include limiting the use of antibiotics in farm animals, including pigs and cows.
"The prophylactic and potentially careless use of antibiotics on such a large scale provides perfect breeding ground for drug-resistant strains," said Gunnar Kaufmann, assistant professor of chemical immunology at The Scripps Research Institute.
Such efforts to curb antibiotic use and increase things like hand washing in hospitals will have to suffice for now, the experts agreed, as the public waits for more research on exactly how antibiotic resistance works to be funded so that it has a better chance of being stopped.
"Medicine is a study in humility," Srinivasan of the CDC added. "We learn every day that something we thought was true is not correct. A study like this simply calls upon us to recognize the fact that we don't know everything we need to know yet. We need more investment in these problems."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
So the CDC says we don't know everything we need to know yet. Still, we genetically modify crops and pump livestock with chemicals all in the name of efficiency (which really boils down to the almighty dollar). I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is not that we don't have enough food or the means to transport it all over the world, the problem is that we don't have the desire to share it with folks without money. We don't want to do things the natural way they've been done forever because there's not as much profit in it.
We are literally killing each other to make a buck.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Food Knowledge Is Health Power
While I don't agree 100%, I'll take knowledge where it comes and I believe most of this is spot on. The thing I am most intrigued by is that it is written by the owner of Dole, a company that brings to my mind canned and processed foods. I may have to look closer at the ingredients next time I'm in the supermarket...
Food Knowledge Is Health Power
David H. Murdock
Chairman and owner, Dole Food Company, Inc.
People are constantly asking me: What do I eat? What should they eat? What should they do to help avoid disease and live longer? In the past 30 years I have undertaken to learn all I could about proper nutrition. This is why I created and built the North Carolina Research Campus, bringing together the brightest scientific minds from eight universities, including Duke, UNC, NC State, among several others. Through the Dole Nutrition Institute, we aim to "feed the world with knowledge" with our books, award-winning newsletter and videos as they become available, social media and our new contemporary blog.
Because of this, my good friend Arianna asked me to revive the blog I started two years ago. Specifically: Would I discuss the healthy way I live and the information I have gathered in my 88 years about the importance of retaining a healthy life through diet, exercise and lifestyle? I agreed because my belief is that knowledge is power, and too many people feel powerless to know what they should eat for proper nutrition and thereby change their eating and exercise habits.
My own recipe for longevity includes considerable amounts of fruits and vegetables. An additional major responsibility for the maintenance of our bodies is regular exercise; at least 4 to 5 times a week. I do not take pills; do not have any need nor use for aspirin, and certainly do not use any supplements. Everything I need comes from my fish and vegetarian diet. I personally like to juice up several different kinds of fruits and vegetables -- bananas, pineapples, red bell peppers, apples, carrots, celery, broccoli, spinach, parsley, tomatoes and cucumbers, to name a few. Skins and peels of all fruit and vegetables -- including pieces of banana peels and citrus rinds -- because there is much more nutrition in any of these areas that are touched by the sun.
Basically, I personally eat a substantial breakfast each day consisting of varieties of: Unprocessed whole grains (like oatmeal), plenty of fruit and vegetables -- berries, banana, pineapple -- and topped with nuts (almonds, walnuts, pecans, any kinds of nuts). Frequently I have an egg white vegetable omelet. For lunch and dinner I like to have a fish like John Dory, Dover sole, salmon, black cod or sardines, all of which are rich in omega-3. These are accompanied by a salad and/or vegetable soup -- and often both. For snacking I like to have popcorn, of course without butter or salt.
I have not eaten this perfectly all my life. But the loss of my beloved wife, Gabrielle, to cancer 26 years ago, and the deaths of two of my sons in tragic accidents brought home to me the preciousness of life for all of us. I resolved to take better care of my own health -- and spend effort to help others live healthier, longer lives as well.
Despite all the advanced medical knowledge and developments, Americans are more and more unhealthy every year. 66% of the population is either overweight or obese. Diabetes cases have tripled in the last 30 years. Heart attacks, stroke, various cancers and liver ailments have been linked to excess weight. We take pills to solve all the diseases we are creating. Major medical operations have become routine, much due to improper eating. All of this in turn sends health care costs through the roof. Yet by focusing on simply managing disease symptoms and care costs, we distract ourselves from the root of the problem, which is that we have historically been eating by our taste buds rather than our minds. We take better care of the maintenance of our cars than we take care of the maintenance of our bodies.
The purpose of this and future blogs will be to provide health recipes for a longer life. In my first blog, "A Recipe for Longevity," I recounted some of the healthiest fruit and vegetables (in my second blog I expanded on nuts).
My plant-based diet plus fish is to credit for my low blood pressure, high energy and robust immunity. Many of the people I work with that are half my age complain that they feel tired all the time. I tell them: Look at what you're eating, how much you are exercising and how much sleep you are getting.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
Food Knowledge Is Health Power
David H. Murdock
Chairman and owner, Dole Food Company, Inc.
People are constantly asking me: What do I eat? What should they eat? What should they do to help avoid disease and live longer? In the past 30 years I have undertaken to learn all I could about proper nutrition. This is why I created and built the North Carolina Research Campus, bringing together the brightest scientific minds from eight universities, including Duke, UNC, NC State, among several others. Through the Dole Nutrition Institute, we aim to "feed the world with knowledge" with our books, award-winning newsletter and videos as they become available, social media and our new contemporary blog.
Because of this, my good friend Arianna asked me to revive the blog I started two years ago. Specifically: Would I discuss the healthy way I live and the information I have gathered in my 88 years about the importance of retaining a healthy life through diet, exercise and lifestyle? I agreed because my belief is that knowledge is power, and too many people feel powerless to know what they should eat for proper nutrition and thereby change their eating and exercise habits.
My own recipe for longevity includes considerable amounts of fruits and vegetables. An additional major responsibility for the maintenance of our bodies is regular exercise; at least 4 to 5 times a week. I do not take pills; do not have any need nor use for aspirin, and certainly do not use any supplements. Everything I need comes from my fish and vegetarian diet. I personally like to juice up several different kinds of fruits and vegetables -- bananas, pineapples, red bell peppers, apples, carrots, celery, broccoli, spinach, parsley, tomatoes and cucumbers, to name a few. Skins and peels of all fruit and vegetables -- including pieces of banana peels and citrus rinds -- because there is much more nutrition in any of these areas that are touched by the sun.
Basically, I personally eat a substantial breakfast each day consisting of varieties of: Unprocessed whole grains (like oatmeal), plenty of fruit and vegetables -- berries, banana, pineapple -- and topped with nuts (almonds, walnuts, pecans, any kinds of nuts). Frequently I have an egg white vegetable omelet. For lunch and dinner I like to have a fish like John Dory, Dover sole, salmon, black cod or sardines, all of which are rich in omega-3. These are accompanied by a salad and/or vegetable soup -- and often both. For snacking I like to have popcorn, of course without butter or salt.
I have not eaten this perfectly all my life. But the loss of my beloved wife, Gabrielle, to cancer 26 years ago, and the deaths of two of my sons in tragic accidents brought home to me the preciousness of life for all of us. I resolved to take better care of my own health -- and spend effort to help others live healthier, longer lives as well.
Despite all the advanced medical knowledge and developments, Americans are more and more unhealthy every year. 66% of the population is either overweight or obese. Diabetes cases have tripled in the last 30 years. Heart attacks, stroke, various cancers and liver ailments have been linked to excess weight. We take pills to solve all the diseases we are creating. Major medical operations have become routine, much due to improper eating. All of this in turn sends health care costs through the roof. Yet by focusing on simply managing disease symptoms and care costs, we distract ourselves from the root of the problem, which is that we have historically been eating by our taste buds rather than our minds. We take better care of the maintenance of our cars than we take care of the maintenance of our bodies.
The purpose of this and future blogs will be to provide health recipes for a longer life. In my first blog, "A Recipe for Longevity," I recounted some of the healthiest fruit and vegetables (in my second blog I expanded on nuts).
My plant-based diet plus fish is to credit for my low blood pressure, high energy and robust immunity. Many of the people I work with that are half my age complain that they feel tired all the time. I tell them: Look at what you're eating, how much you are exercising and how much sleep you are getting.
[READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE]
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Books On Genetically Modified Foods
One of my most popular posts is Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods, which details the United Nations' three major concerns regarding GM foods.
I am happy to see that there is such interest in the subject -- climate change has the potential of being the biggest issue mankind has ever dealt with and how we feed ourselves is intrinsically linked.
Since the interest is there, I am posting some books on the subject for those who might wish to dig a little deeper:
I am happy to see that there is such interest in the subject -- climate change has the potential of being the biggest issue mankind has ever dealt with and how we feed ourselves is intrinsically linked.
Since the interest is there, I am posting some books on the subject for those who might wish to dig a little deeper:
Saturday, July 9, 2011
It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something
Our garden is about two months behind last year, which was a horrible growing season. Yesterday I was able to hang the laundry outside for the first time this year -- that's about two months behind the norm. It's not just the Puget Sound. While in Nebraska, every time I commented on how beautiful it was (it really is) I was told how wet and cold it had been and generations of folks would say, "It's never this green this time of year".
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
Monday, May 9, 2011
Lester Brown, Plan B 4.0
I read Lester Brown's book, Plan B 3.0 about two years ago (as I mentioned in Backstory Part III). It's a difficult book to get through because you have to plow through a lot of doom and gloom (about two thirds of the book) before getting to any sign of hope. Brown does offer solutions to the problems, but the book is a lot of explaining exactly the what, where, why, and how of all of these global issues.
While I wholly recommend the new book, I found this video series on You Tube that is a pretty good primer. It was recorded at the University of Chicago on November 17, 2009. This is the sort of thing that should be viral and yet part one only has 112 views, part five has less than 50 views.
If you haven't read the book or are not familiar with Lester Brown's work, I encourage you to take the time to look at this series:
While I wholly recommend the new book, I found this video series on You Tube that is a pretty good primer. It was recorded at the University of Chicago on November 17, 2009. This is the sort of thing that should be viral and yet part one only has 112 views, part five has less than 50 views.
If you haven't read the book or are not familiar with Lester Brown's work, I encourage you to take the time to look at this series:
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption
A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.
The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.
According to the Institute for Responsible Technology:
"The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials 'constitute 83 percent of the commercialized GMOs' that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world."
Further, the biotechnology firm Monsanto is only an FDA approval away from its latest monstrosity -- soybeans that have been genetically modified to produce omega-3 fats. That FDA approval is expected this year.
Monsanto plans to include GM soybean oil in every product it can -- baked goods, baking mixes, breakfast cereals, cheeses, frozen dairy desserts, pasta, gravies and sauces, fruit juices, snack foods, candy, soups, and more.
According to Forbes:
"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.' Readers ... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."
Scientists have also introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows in a process that they say will cause the cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. They believe that this could provide an alternative to formula milk for babies.
Critics of GM technology questioned the safety of milk from genetically modified animals, and also its potential effect on the cattle's health.
According to the Telegraph:
"The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows ... [T]he researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme."
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Political Labels
I just read something asking about the "constitutional right" of a federal government to impose national healthcare. I know this is a huge debate and everyone is all up in arms on one side or the other.
That's the design. Obama ran for President on a platform promising healthcare so the opposition attacked it. Never mind all of the balls that were dropped in the pursuit of what ended up being a fairly meager healthcare deal. Whatever -- that's how the system works now: one side finds a hot topic to exploit, the other cries to the other side ("save the kitties" - "what about dog rights?!" -- how do you think the rich people got the people who support a man who ran money changers from the Temple on their side? It goes both ways -- what liberal doesn't want "The Man" out of his business?).
Political labels only mean one thing at this point: "I don't have time to think for myself, therefore I vote the Party Line".
Genius! Party voters have proven the need for an electoral system. I think Bill Engvall has something for you...
Back to my original thought, where does The Constitution of The United States of America grant the government to impose healthcare? I don't think it does and I'm not even going to look over The Constitution a couple more times to try and find it because I don't think it matters. Why? Because 12 years before The Constitution was ratified, and 15 years before the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights were ratified, 56 leaders of the 13 colonies signed a document that said this:
That's the design. Obama ran for President on a platform promising healthcare so the opposition attacked it. Never mind all of the balls that were dropped in the pursuit of what ended up being a fairly meager healthcare deal. Whatever -- that's how the system works now: one side finds a hot topic to exploit, the other cries to the other side ("save the kitties" - "what about dog rights?!" -- how do you think the rich people got the people who support a man who ran money changers from the Temple on their side? It goes both ways -- what liberal doesn't want "The Man" out of his business?).
Political labels only mean one thing at this point: "I don't have time to think for myself, therefore I vote the Party Line".
Genius! Party voters have proven the need for an electoral system. I think Bill Engvall has something for you...
Back to my original thought, where does The Constitution of The United States of America grant the government to impose healthcare? I don't think it does and I'm not even going to look over The Constitution a couple more times to try and find it because I don't think it matters. Why? Because 12 years before The Constitution was ratified, and 15 years before the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights were ratified, 56 leaders of the 13 colonies signed a document that said this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
"Healthcare" was not in the lexicon of the late 18th century, but it seems to me that some important men were willing to risk treason (i.e. hanged, drawn and quartered) for the idea that we all have "an unalienable" right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". This meant that it was intrinsic and did not require anything more than it's own self-evidence.
Today we have all kinds of access to life against any number of medical conditions, liberty from debilitating disease, and the pursuit of Happiness beyond anything those 56 men could have imagined.
Not only that, but governments are subject to the governed.
But if the governed do not want everyone to have The Right of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" unless they have the ability to pay for it, then what?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Sustainable Farming Can Feed the World?
Great article by Mark Bittman in the New York Times:
The oldest and most common dig against organic agriculture is that it cannot feed the world’s citizens; this, however, is a supposition, not a fact. And industrial agriculture isn’t working perfectly, either: the global food price index is at a record high, and our agricultural system is wreaking havoc with the health not only of humans but of the earth. There are around a billion undernourished people; we can also thank the current system for the billion who are overweight or obese.
Yet there is good news: increasing numbers of scientists, policy panels and experts (not hippies!) are suggesting that agricultural practices pretty close to organic — perhaps best called “sustainable” — can feed more poor people sooner, begin to repair the damage caused by industrial production and, in the long term, become the norm.
On Tuesday, Olivier de Schutter, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the Right to Food, presented a report entitled “Agro-ecology and the Right to Food.” (Agro-ecology, he said in a telephone interview last Friday, has “lots” in common with both “sustainable” and “organic.”) Chief among de Schutter’s recommendations is this: “Agriculture should be fundamentally redirected towards modes of production that are more environmentally sustainable and socially just.”
Agro-ecology, he said, immediately helps “small farmers who must be able to farm in ways that are less expensive and more productive. But it benefits all of us, because it decelerates global warming and ecological destruction.” Further, by decentralizing production, floods in Southeast Asia, for example, might not mean huge shortfalls in the world’s rice crop; smaller scale farming makes the system less susceptible to climate shocks. (Calling it a system is a convention; it’s actually quite anarchic, what with all these starving and overweight people canceling each other out.)
Industrial (or “conventional”) agriculture requires a great deal of resources, including disproportionate amounts of water and the fossil fuel that’s needed to make chemical fertilizer, mechanize working the land and its crops, running irrigation sources, heat buildings and crop dryers and, of course, transportation. This means it needs more in the way of resources than the earth can replenish. (Fun/depressing fact: It takes the earth 18 months to replenish the amount of resources we use each year. Looked at another way, we’d need 1.5 earths to be sustainable at our current rate of consumption.)
Agro-ecology and related methods are going to require resources too, but they’re more in the form of labor, both intellectual — much research remains to be done — and physical: the world will need more farmers, and quite possibly less mechanization. Many adherents rule out nothing, including in their recommendations even GMOs and chemical fertilizers where justifiable. Meanwhile, those working towards improving conventional agriculture are borrowing more from organic methods. (Many of these hybrid systems were discussed convincingly in Andrew Revkin’s DotEarth blog last week.)
Currently, however, it’s difficult to see progress in a country where, for example, nearly 90 percent of the corn crop is used for either ethanol (40 percent) or animal feed (50 percent). And most of the diehard adherents of industrial agriculture — sadly, this usually includes Congress, which largely ignores these issues — act as if we’ll somehow “fix” global warming and the resulting climate change. (The small percentage of climate-change deniers are still arguing with Copernicus.) Their assumption is that by increasing supply, we’ll eventually figure out how to feed everyone on earth, even though we don’t do that now, our population is going to be nine billion by 2050, and more supply of the wrong things — oil, corn, beef — only worsens things. Many seem to naively believe that we won’t run out of the resources we need to keep this system going.
There is more than a bit of silver-bullet thinking here. Yet anyone who opens his or her eyes sees a natural world so threatened by industrial agriculture that it’s tempting to drop off the grid and raise a few chickens.
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE
The oldest and most common dig against organic agriculture is that it cannot feed the world’s citizens; this, however, is a supposition, not a fact. And industrial agriculture isn’t working perfectly, either: the global food price index is at a record high, and our agricultural system is wreaking havoc with the health not only of humans but of the earth. There are around a billion undernourished people; we can also thank the current system for the billion who are overweight or obese.
Yet there is good news: increasing numbers of scientists, policy panels and experts (not hippies!) are suggesting that agricultural practices pretty close to organic — perhaps best called “sustainable” — can feed more poor people sooner, begin to repair the damage caused by industrial production and, in the long term, become the norm.
On Tuesday, Olivier de Schutter, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the Right to Food, presented a report entitled “Agro-ecology and the Right to Food.” (Agro-ecology, he said in a telephone interview last Friday, has “lots” in common with both “sustainable” and “organic.”) Chief among de Schutter’s recommendations is this: “Agriculture should be fundamentally redirected towards modes of production that are more environmentally sustainable and socially just.”
Agro-ecology, he said, immediately helps “small farmers who must be able to farm in ways that are less expensive and more productive. But it benefits all of us, because it decelerates global warming and ecological destruction.” Further, by decentralizing production, floods in Southeast Asia, for example, might not mean huge shortfalls in the world’s rice crop; smaller scale farming makes the system less susceptible to climate shocks. (Calling it a system is a convention; it’s actually quite anarchic, what with all these starving and overweight people canceling each other out.)
Industrial (or “conventional”) agriculture requires a great deal of resources, including disproportionate amounts of water and the fossil fuel that’s needed to make chemical fertilizer, mechanize working the land and its crops, running irrigation sources, heat buildings and crop dryers and, of course, transportation. This means it needs more in the way of resources than the earth can replenish. (Fun/depressing fact: It takes the earth 18 months to replenish the amount of resources we use each year. Looked at another way, we’d need 1.5 earths to be sustainable at our current rate of consumption.)
Agro-ecology and related methods are going to require resources too, but they’re more in the form of labor, both intellectual — much research remains to be done — and physical: the world will need more farmers, and quite possibly less mechanization. Many adherents rule out nothing, including in their recommendations even GMOs and chemical fertilizers where justifiable. Meanwhile, those working towards improving conventional agriculture are borrowing more from organic methods. (Many of these hybrid systems were discussed convincingly in Andrew Revkin’s DotEarth blog last week.)
Currently, however, it’s difficult to see progress in a country where, for example, nearly 90 percent of the corn crop is used for either ethanol (40 percent) or animal feed (50 percent). And most of the diehard adherents of industrial agriculture — sadly, this usually includes Congress, which largely ignores these issues — act as if we’ll somehow “fix” global warming and the resulting climate change. (The small percentage of climate-change deniers are still arguing with Copernicus.) Their assumption is that by increasing supply, we’ll eventually figure out how to feed everyone on earth, even though we don’t do that now, our population is going to be nine billion by 2050, and more supply of the wrong things — oil, corn, beef — only worsens things. Many seem to naively believe that we won’t run out of the resources we need to keep this system going.
There is more than a bit of silver-bullet thinking here. Yet anyone who opens his or her eyes sees a natural world so threatened by industrial agriculture that it’s tempting to drop off the grid and raise a few chickens.
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE
Book Report: Food Rules
I just found out this week that Michael Pollan put out a book in 2009, Food Rules. The other day at the library I borrowed a copy. It's a pretty easy read -- 140 pages covering 64 rules or guidelines for eating healthy as described in Pollan's earlier book, In Defense of Food.
In fact, I came away from the book feeling that it was a great refresher for In Defense of Food. On the other hand, for anyone who hasn't read In Defense of Food, Food Rules is a great primer. Pollan even breaks the book up into three categories from the previous book, "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much." Pollan says up front that the book is intended to be a simple guide not weighed down by the science and debate covered in earlier books. Still, his introduction includes a lot of compelling information and every now and then a rule explanation will dip a little into the science behind it.
As I said, it's an easy read. I understand Pollan is working on an expanded version of the book. I will most likely acquire a personal copy as it would be nice to be able to pick it up from time to time to pick apart bad habits that may creep back in. Actually, the book lends itself to a "Tip-a-Day" calendar type format.
If he can come up with 365 Food Rules, I'd buy it.
In fact, I came away from the book feeling that it was a great refresher for In Defense of Food. On the other hand, for anyone who hasn't read In Defense of Food, Food Rules is a great primer. Pollan even breaks the book up into three categories from the previous book, "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much." Pollan says up front that the book is intended to be a simple guide not weighed down by the science and debate covered in earlier books. Still, his introduction includes a lot of compelling information and every now and then a rule explanation will dip a little into the science behind it.
As I said, it's an easy read. I understand Pollan is working on an expanded version of the book. I will most likely acquire a personal copy as it would be nice to be able to pick it up from time to time to pick apart bad habits that may creep back in. Actually, the book lends itself to a "Tip-a-Day" calendar type format.
If he can come up with 365 Food Rules, I'd buy it.
Monday, February 7, 2011
GMOs In Kenya
Whenever I walk through Costco I wonder, "What is the issue with feeding the world exactly?"
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
What Really Kills Us?
Let's start by saying: I am not a gun nut. I'm not really a big fan. I kind of feel the same way about guns as I do about computers -- a necessary evil. So I learn what I need to know about both to be able use them when the need arises. When it comes to guns, I like to hunt; I prefer to bow hunt. I like to protect my family; I'd prefer diplomacy. I enjoy being a free American; I'd hate to be defenseless if someone decided we needed to be rounded up.
I bring this up because there are a lot of well-meaning people who don't like guns. I understand, I'm not a big fan myself. When these well-intentioned folk stand up and say we need to get rid of the guns, though, I have to ask why?
Beyond all the rhetoric there are some fascinating statistics. I know, I know... statistics are a cold place to go when talking about things like death, but bear with me a few moments because I promise, it warrants consideration.
The first thing I would point out is motor vehicles versus firearms. Wikipedia has some charts on both that show that motor vehicles kill about 2-3 times as many people as guns. If you look at Wikipedia's page on gun violence in the U.S. it gets more complicated. Regardless, no matter how you crunch the numbers, more people die on the road than by a gun. I don't hear a lot of people calling for tighter automobile control. It's a lot easier to get a driver's license than a gun or a carry permit.
Okay, I'm just trying to point out that we don't think twice about putting any 16-year-old kid on the road with a couple of tons of metal capable of moving at 100 miles per hour, but there is a great debate about guns which appear to be less of an issue when it comes to death and injury.
Just sayin'...
The real issue comes from the CDC, which says the top ten causes of death are:
* Heart disease: 616,067
* Cancer: 562,875
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
* Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
* Diabetes: 71,382
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
* Septicemia: 34,828
Each individual entry here kills more people than guns. Heart disease and cancer kill somewhere around one hundred times the total gun-related deaths in the U.S. How about we keep the guns for now and start asking some judges what the U.S. Constitution says about fast food, factory farms, and the USDA and FDA's right to poison it's population?
Granted, it gets even more complex as you look at it. If you read the entire report by the CDC, it becomes very clear that these are not simple statistics. In the end, though, guns kill very few people compared to health issues that we have the ability to change.
So here's my question: is it really the guns we need to focus on at this moment in history? I understand that it's a hot topic and that each and every life is worth saving. Still, if we buy the rhetoric and focus on guns over any number of issues that are actually killing more Americans every day, aren't we saying that the 100+ people that die from health issues are less important than each gun-related death?
I bring this up because there are a lot of well-meaning people who don't like guns. I understand, I'm not a big fan myself. When these well-intentioned folk stand up and say we need to get rid of the guns, though, I have to ask why?
Beyond all the rhetoric there are some fascinating statistics. I know, I know... statistics are a cold place to go when talking about things like death, but bear with me a few moments because I promise, it warrants consideration.
The first thing I would point out is motor vehicles versus firearms. Wikipedia has some charts on both that show that motor vehicles kill about 2-3 times as many people as guns. If you look at Wikipedia's page on gun violence in the U.S. it gets more complicated. Regardless, no matter how you crunch the numbers, more people die on the road than by a gun. I don't hear a lot of people calling for tighter automobile control. It's a lot easier to get a driver's license than a gun or a carry permit.
Okay, I'm just trying to point out that we don't think twice about putting any 16-year-old kid on the road with a couple of tons of metal capable of moving at 100 miles per hour, but there is a great debate about guns which appear to be less of an issue when it comes to death and injury.
Just sayin'...
The real issue comes from the CDC, which says the top ten causes of death are:
* Heart disease: 616,067
* Cancer: 562,875
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
* Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
* Diabetes: 71,382
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
* Septicemia: 34,828
Each individual entry here kills more people than guns. Heart disease and cancer kill somewhere around one hundred times the total gun-related deaths in the U.S. How about we keep the guns for now and start asking some judges what the U.S. Constitution says about fast food, factory farms, and the USDA and FDA's right to poison it's population?
Granted, it gets even more complex as you look at it. If you read the entire report by the CDC, it becomes very clear that these are not simple statistics. In the end, though, guns kill very few people compared to health issues that we have the ability to change.
So here's my question: is it really the guns we need to focus on at this moment in history? I understand that it's a hot topic and that each and every life is worth saving. Still, if we buy the rhetoric and focus on guns over any number of issues that are actually killing more Americans every day, aren't we saying that the 100+ people that die from health issues are less important than each gun-related death?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)