By Mike Ludwig
Dozens of United States diplomatic cables released in the latest WikiLeaks dump on Wednesday reveal new details of the US effort to push foreign governments to approve genetically engineered (GE) crops and promote the worldwide interests of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont.
The cables further confirm previous Truthout reports on the diplomatic pressure the US has put on Spain and France, two countries with powerful anti-GE crop movements, to speed up their biotech approval process and quell anti-GE sentiment within the European Union (EU).
Several cables describe "biotechnology outreach programs" in countries across the globe, including African, Asian and South American countries where Western biotech agriculture had yet to gain a foothold. In some cables (such as this 2010 cable from Morocco) US diplomats ask the State Department for funds to send US biotech experts and trade industry representatives to target countries for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials.
Truthout recently reported on front groups supported by the US government, philanthropic foundations and companies like Monsanto that are working to introduce pro-biotechnology policy initiatives and GE crops in developing African countries, and several cables released this week confirm that American diplomats have promoted biotech agriculture to countries like Tunisia, South Africa and Mozambique.
View the Original article
Wednesday 31 August 2011
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Why Singing is Good for Your Health
Looking for a fun way to get and stay healthy?
Try singing on a regular basis.
But not any old singing will do. The kind of singing that will provide you with significant health benefits has to come from deep inside your chest, even from your abdomen.
View the Original article
Monday 29 August 2011
What Most Doctors Won't Tell You About Cholesterol
During my university years, I used to frustrate my parents by throwing away egg yolks and eating only the whites. No worries, I thought, as my parents just didn't know enough to realize that I was reducing my risk of heart disease by avoiding cholesterol. Looking back, I'm sure that my parents were wondering how I could so easily toss away precious egg yolks that they were able afford only a few times a year when they lived in Korea.
Today, I am grateful to have a better understanding of the relationship between cholesterol and health. How about you? Are you afraid of having high cholesterol? Are you throwing away egg yolks because you think they're bad for your health? Are you taking cholesterol-lowering medication or considering starting on one?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, I encourage you to consider the work of Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, author of The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. I consider Dr. Ravnskov to be the world's leading expert on the relationship between cholesterol and human health.
Here are some facts from his book:
Cholesterol is not a deadly poison, but a substance that you need to be healthy. High cholesterol itself does not cause heart disease.
People who have low blood cholesterol have the same rates of heart disease as people who have high blood cholesterol.
The cholesterol found in your blood comes from two sources: cholesterol in food that you eat and cholesterol that your liver makes from other nutrients.
The amount of cholesterol that your liver produces varies according to how much cholesterol you eat. If you eat a lot of cholesterol, your liver produces less. If you don't eat much cholesterol, your liver produces more. This is why a low cholesterol diet does not typically decrease a person's blood cholesterol by more than a few percent.
Drugs that solely lower your cholesterol do not decrease your risk of dying from heart disease, nor do they increase your lifespan. These drugs pose dangers to your health and may decrease your lifespan.
The newer cholesterol-lowering drugs - called statins - do reduce your risk of heart disease, but through mechanisms that are not related to lower blood cholesterol. And alarmingly, statins like lipitor mevacor, zocor, pravachol, and lescol are known to stimulate cancer in rodents.
What about HDL and LDL?
Well, here are some facts about LDL and HDL that the vast majority of my patients are surprised to learn:
LDL and HDL are not types of cholesterol.
LDL and HDL are lipoproteins that transport cholesterol through your blood circulatory system.
LDL stands for Low Density Lipoprotein, and HDL stands for High Density Lipoprotein.
LDL is often mistakenly thought of as being bad cholesterol because it carries cholesterol to your arteries.
HDL is often mistakenly referred to as good cholesterol because it carries cholesterol away from your arteries (to your liver).
LDL and HDL carry the same cholesterol.
Here are the main points to take away from the facts presented above:
Cholesterol that naturally occurs in animal foods is not harmful to your health. But it can become harmful to your health if it is damaged by exposure to high levels of heat and/or harsh processing techniques.
If you regularly consume damaged cholesterol and foods that are rich in free radicals, you likely have significant quantities of damaged cholesterol floating through your circulatory system.
And if you regularly have damaged cholesterol floating around in your blood, then a high LDL level correlates with a higher-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and a high HDL level correlates with a lower-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
In other words, if you have significant amounts of damaged cholesterol in your blood circulation, you don’t want a lot of LDL to be available to carry this cholesterol to your arteries, where the damaged cholesterol can contribute to atherosclerosis, and you want a lot of HDL available to shuttle damaged cholesterol away from your arteries.
So while it’s true that a high HDL/total cholesterol ratio can reflect a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease, what’s most important when it comes to cholesterol and your health is to avoid eating animal foods that have been cooked at high temperatures, since these foods are typically rich in damaged cholesterol.
Where Conventional Guidelines Come From
Sadly, conventional guidelines that promote lower cholesterol levels for a healthy heart are influenced in large part by pharmaceutical companies earning billions of dollars with their cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For example, in the summer of 2004, a panel of physicians lowered the “safe” level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to 100, and further recommended that people at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease aim to lower their LDL levels to 70.
This modification in medical standard of practice caused an estimated eight million Americans to become instant candidates for cholesterol-related drug therapy.
While this “news” was covered by major media outlets and news wires, only one newspaper, Newsday, reported that most of the physicians responsible for establishing the new recommendations had a conflict of interest. Almost all had received money – usually in the form of grants or honoraria – from at least ten drug companies. The National Cholesterol Educational Program, the source of the new medical treatment guidelines for cholesterol, failed to report these financial disclosures.
Guidelines for Healthy HDL, LDL, Total Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels
What follows are my personal guidelines on monitoring cholesterol, based on the research that I've done on this issue, and evaluating the blood test results and health of hundreds of people I have worked with over the past several years.
Ideally, it's best to have a blood cholesterol level of over 150 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). But if your blood cholesterol level is lower than this, so long as you are eating a nutrient-dense, plant-centered diet and not suffering from any health challenges, there is likely no cause for concern.
Low cholesterol over the long term may lead to depression, increased risk of stroke, and numerous problems related to hormonal imbalances. If you are not getting enough vitamin D from your diet, having low cholesterol may lead to vitamin D deficiency, as sunlight creates vitamin D in your body by acting on cholesterol found in your skin.
Ideally, your HDL/total cholesterol ratio should be above 25%. Generally, the higher this ratio, the better. If this ratio is 10-15 percent or lower, there increased risk of eventually experiencing a heart attack.
Ideally, it's best to have a triglyceride/HDL ratio of 2.0 or lower.
If your HDL/total cholesterol and triglyceride/HDL ratios are in the ranges listed above, and you are eating mainly undamaged cholesterol, having a total cholesterol of more than 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/L) most probably isn't a cause for worry. In fact, even people whose genetics cause them to have total cholesterol above 350 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) have been shown to have no elevated risk of heart disease as long as their ratios are fine and they stay away from eating damaged cholesterol.
Here's my take-home perspective on cholesterol and your health:
Rather than focus just on the numbers from your latest blood test, your health is best served by:
Ensuring regular intake of a wide variety of nutrient-dense plant foods (vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, and small amounts of nuts and seeds).
Ensuring regular intake of healthy fats, such as those found in avocados, olives, coconuts, organic eggs, and perhaps some cold water fish on occasion.
Minimizing intake of animal foods that have been highly processed and/or exposed to high cooking temperatures.
Striving to live a balanced life that includes adequate rest, physical activity, exposure to fresh air and sunlight (without getting burned), meaningful relationships, and a sense of purpose.
Please note: Some organizations cite various studies that indicate that low-fat and low-cholesterol diets are healthier than diets that include generous amounts of healthy fats and undamaged cholesterol. The problem with these studies, as I see it, is that they don't make a distinction between damaged vs. undamaged fat and cholesterol. And this is an extremely important distinction; there's a huge difference between eating lightly cooked organic eggs vs. a well done steak several times a week for many years.
Dr. Ravnskov
View the Original article
Today, I am grateful to have a better understanding of the relationship between cholesterol and health. How about you? Are you afraid of having high cholesterol? Are you throwing away egg yolks because you think they're bad for your health? Are you taking cholesterol-lowering medication or considering starting on one?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, I encourage you to consider the work of Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, author of The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. I consider Dr. Ravnskov to be the world's leading expert on the relationship between cholesterol and human health.
Here are some facts from his book:
Cholesterol is not a deadly poison, but a substance that you need to be healthy. High cholesterol itself does not cause heart disease.
People who have low blood cholesterol have the same rates of heart disease as people who have high blood cholesterol.
The cholesterol found in your blood comes from two sources: cholesterol in food that you eat and cholesterol that your liver makes from other nutrients.
The amount of cholesterol that your liver produces varies according to how much cholesterol you eat. If you eat a lot of cholesterol, your liver produces less. If you don't eat much cholesterol, your liver produces more. This is why a low cholesterol diet does not typically decrease a person's blood cholesterol by more than a few percent.
Drugs that solely lower your cholesterol do not decrease your risk of dying from heart disease, nor do they increase your lifespan. These drugs pose dangers to your health and may decrease your lifespan.
The newer cholesterol-lowering drugs - called statins - do reduce your risk of heart disease, but through mechanisms that are not related to lower blood cholesterol. And alarmingly, statins like lipitor mevacor, zocor, pravachol, and lescol are known to stimulate cancer in rodents.
What about HDL and LDL?
Well, here are some facts about LDL and HDL that the vast majority of my patients are surprised to learn:
LDL and HDL are not types of cholesterol.
LDL and HDL are lipoproteins that transport cholesterol through your blood circulatory system.
LDL stands for Low Density Lipoprotein, and HDL stands for High Density Lipoprotein.
LDL is often mistakenly thought of as being bad cholesterol because it carries cholesterol to your arteries.
HDL is often mistakenly referred to as good cholesterol because it carries cholesterol away from your arteries (to your liver).
LDL and HDL carry the same cholesterol.
Here are the main points to take away from the facts presented above:
Cholesterol that naturally occurs in animal foods is not harmful to your health. But it can become harmful to your health if it is damaged by exposure to high levels of heat and/or harsh processing techniques.
If you regularly consume damaged cholesterol and foods that are rich in free radicals, you likely have significant quantities of damaged cholesterol floating through your circulatory system.
And if you regularly have damaged cholesterol floating around in your blood, then a high LDL level correlates with a higher-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and a high HDL level correlates with a lower-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
In other words, if you have significant amounts of damaged cholesterol in your blood circulation, you don’t want a lot of LDL to be available to carry this cholesterol to your arteries, where the damaged cholesterol can contribute to atherosclerosis, and you want a lot of HDL available to shuttle damaged cholesterol away from your arteries.
So while it’s true that a high HDL/total cholesterol ratio can reflect a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease, what’s most important when it comes to cholesterol and your health is to avoid eating animal foods that have been cooked at high temperatures, since these foods are typically rich in damaged cholesterol.
Where Conventional Guidelines Come From
Sadly, conventional guidelines that promote lower cholesterol levels for a healthy heart are influenced in large part by pharmaceutical companies earning billions of dollars with their cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For example, in the summer of 2004, a panel of physicians lowered the “safe” level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to 100, and further recommended that people at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease aim to lower their LDL levels to 70.
This modification in medical standard of practice caused an estimated eight million Americans to become instant candidates for cholesterol-related drug therapy.
While this “news” was covered by major media outlets and news wires, only one newspaper, Newsday, reported that most of the physicians responsible for establishing the new recommendations had a conflict of interest. Almost all had received money – usually in the form of grants or honoraria – from at least ten drug companies. The National Cholesterol Educational Program, the source of the new medical treatment guidelines for cholesterol, failed to report these financial disclosures.
Guidelines for Healthy HDL, LDL, Total Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels
What follows are my personal guidelines on monitoring cholesterol, based on the research that I've done on this issue, and evaluating the blood test results and health of hundreds of people I have worked with over the past several years.
Ideally, it's best to have a blood cholesterol level of over 150 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). But if your blood cholesterol level is lower than this, so long as you are eating a nutrient-dense, plant-centered diet and not suffering from any health challenges, there is likely no cause for concern.
Low cholesterol over the long term may lead to depression, increased risk of stroke, and numerous problems related to hormonal imbalances. If you are not getting enough vitamin D from your diet, having low cholesterol may lead to vitamin D deficiency, as sunlight creates vitamin D in your body by acting on cholesterol found in your skin.
Ideally, your HDL/total cholesterol ratio should be above 25%. Generally, the higher this ratio, the better. If this ratio is 10-15 percent or lower, there increased risk of eventually experiencing a heart attack.
Ideally, it's best to have a triglyceride/HDL ratio of 2.0 or lower.
If your HDL/total cholesterol and triglyceride/HDL ratios are in the ranges listed above, and you are eating mainly undamaged cholesterol, having a total cholesterol of more than 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/L) most probably isn't a cause for worry. In fact, even people whose genetics cause them to have total cholesterol above 350 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) have been shown to have no elevated risk of heart disease as long as their ratios are fine and they stay away from eating damaged cholesterol.
Here's my take-home perspective on cholesterol and your health:
Rather than focus just on the numbers from your latest blood test, your health is best served by:
Ensuring regular intake of a wide variety of nutrient-dense plant foods (vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, and small amounts of nuts and seeds).
Ensuring regular intake of healthy fats, such as those found in avocados, olives, coconuts, organic eggs, and perhaps some cold water fish on occasion.
Minimizing intake of animal foods that have been highly processed and/or exposed to high cooking temperatures.
Striving to live a balanced life that includes adequate rest, physical activity, exposure to fresh air and sunlight (without getting burned), meaningful relationships, and a sense of purpose.
Please note: Some organizations cite various studies that indicate that low-fat and low-cholesterol diets are healthier than diets that include generous amounts of healthy fats and undamaged cholesterol. The problem with these studies, as I see it, is that they don't make a distinction between damaged vs. undamaged fat and cholesterol. And this is an extremely important distinction; there's a huge difference between eating lightly cooked organic eggs vs. a well done steak several times a week for many years.
Dr. Ravnskov
View the Original article
Sunday 28 August 2011
Legalizing Marijuana Would Hinder the Multi-Billion Dollar Empire of Mexican Drug Cartels
By Jonathan Benson
The prohibition of marijuana in the US has led to an "underground" cannabis industry in Mexico run primarily by violent gangster cartels like the ones wreaking havoc at the southern borders of Texas, Arizona, and California.
These cartels reap anywhere from $1 to $20 billion a year illegally selling marijuana to Americans, but advocates of reform and legalization say the crime and terror associated with the illicit drug trade would largely end if marijuana was simply decriminalized.
Just a few weeks ago, Mexican soldiers burned a 300-acre field of marijuana some 200 miles south of San Diego, Calif., near Tijuana, Mex. Operated by drug cartels, the field contained a potential yield of around 120 tons of marijuana, which is worth about $160 million, according to reports. And back in October, soldiers performed another burning on 134 metric tons of vacuum-packed marijuana discovered in the same region.
The constant pursuit of cartels that grow and sell marijuana, as well as raids and burnings of marijuana fields, have led to massive cartel backlash. After the Tijuana raid and burning in October, for instance, cartels murdered 13 recovering drug addicts at a rehabilitation center.
View the Original article
The prohibition of marijuana in the US has led to an "underground" cannabis industry in Mexico run primarily by violent gangster cartels like the ones wreaking havoc at the southern borders of Texas, Arizona, and California.
These cartels reap anywhere from $1 to $20 billion a year illegally selling marijuana to Americans, but advocates of reform and legalization say the crime and terror associated with the illicit drug trade would largely end if marijuana was simply decriminalized.
Just a few weeks ago, Mexican soldiers burned a 300-acre field of marijuana some 200 miles south of San Diego, Calif., near Tijuana, Mex. Operated by drug cartels, the field contained a potential yield of around 120 tons of marijuana, which is worth about $160 million, according to reports. And back in October, soldiers performed another burning on 134 metric tons of vacuum-packed marijuana discovered in the same region.
The constant pursuit of cartels that grow and sell marijuana, as well as raids and burnings of marijuana fields, have led to massive cartel backlash. After the Tijuana raid and burning in October, for instance, cartels murdered 13 recovering drug addicts at a rehabilitation center.
View the Original article
Saturday 27 August 2011
Vitamins for Vegetarians
By Ask Umbra
Q. Dear Umbra,
Hi. I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian. I am worried that due to my diet I may be lacking in omega 3 fatty acids. I was wondering if you could recommend a vegetarian-friendly omega-3 vitamin and also a daily multivitamin. I also wanted to make sure that vitamins aren't bad for the environment before I start buying them. Any help or guidance you could give would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
nellatterb
I am flattered that you've come to me for guidance. However, Grist's highly trained legal department (which really only consists of this yellow legal pad I just found) would like me to remind you that your friendly neighborhood Umbra is neither a doctor nor a nutritionist, and to consult the proper degree-wielding personnel (look for the ones deep in debt with beaming extended family members).
Now that's out of the way! So you're trying to eat a well-rounded, meatless-but-egg-and-dairy-inclusive diet. I've heard lovely things about cod liver oil as a source of vitamin D and those elusive omega-3s, but as it involves, you know, a fishy's liver, it's out. Fortunately, certain plant and nut oils also contain this nutritional gem. To wit, it reportedly "lowers triglycerides, reduces the risk of death, heart attack, dangerous abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes in people with known cardiovascular disease, slows the buildup of atherosclerotic plaques ('hardening of the arteries'), and lowers blood pressure slightly." So sayeth the Mayo Clinic.
View the Original article
Q. Dear Umbra,
Hi. I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian. I am worried that due to my diet I may be lacking in omega 3 fatty acids. I was wondering if you could recommend a vegetarian-friendly omega-3 vitamin and also a daily multivitamin. I also wanted to make sure that vitamins aren't bad for the environment before I start buying them. Any help or guidance you could give would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
nellatterb
New York, NY
I am flattered that you've come to me for guidance. However, Grist's highly trained legal department (which really only consists of this yellow legal pad I just found) would like me to remind you that your friendly neighborhood Umbra is neither a doctor nor a nutritionist, and to consult the proper degree-wielding personnel (look for the ones deep in debt with beaming extended family members).
Now that's out of the way! So you're trying to eat a well-rounded, meatless-but-egg-and-dairy-inclusive diet. I've heard lovely things about cod liver oil as a source of vitamin D and those elusive omega-3s, but as it involves, you know, a fishy's liver, it's out. Fortunately, certain plant and nut oils also contain this nutritional gem. To wit, it reportedly "lowers triglycerides, reduces the risk of death, heart attack, dangerous abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes in people with known cardiovascular disease, slows the buildup of atherosclerotic plaques ('hardening of the arteries'), and lowers blood pressure slightly." So sayeth the Mayo Clinic.
View the Original article
Friday 26 August 2011
Upcoming Northern California Millions Against Monsanto Events
As part of OCA's Millions Against MonsantoTruth-in-Labeling Campaign we are encouraging activists in our network to plantheir own campaign events with others in their area. This email is to informyou that there is an upcoming event near you, organized by grassroots organizerswho care about the GE-labeling issue as much as you do.
Food Activist Pamm Larry, who is spearheading the effort to get GMO Labeling onthe California Ballot in 2012 (labelGMOs.org), is speaking at a series ofinformational events in your area. The goal is to pass a voterinitiative on the November 2012 ballot that would require all foods containingGMOs to be labeled.
These meetings are for activists to come together to learn about theinitiative, how we suggest being activists in your community and organizinginto a new cohesive group. We will be asking for folks to think aboutcommittees they want to be on and assign a point person. Please come ready to "roll up your sleeves" and get to work onwhat we're
sure will be a historic ballot measure.
View the Original article
Food Activist Pamm Larry, who is spearheading the effort to get GMO Labeling onthe California Ballot in 2012 (labelGMOs.org), is speaking at a series ofinformational events in your area. The goal is to pass a voterinitiative on the November 2012 ballot that would require all foods containingGMOs to be labeled.
These meetings are for activists to come together to learn about theinitiative, how we suggest being activists in your community and organizinginto a new cohesive group. We will be asking for folks to think aboutcommittees they want to be on and assign a point person. Please come ready to "roll up your sleeves" and get to work onwhat we're
sure will be a historic ballot measure.
View the Original article
Thursday 25 August 2011
The Sustainable Seafood Myth
By Brendan Smith
Stroll by any Whole Foods seafood counter and you will see color-coded fish: Green for fully sustainable, yellow for partially sustainable, and red for fish threatened by overfishing or grown on polluting fish farms. Buy a "green" fish and you eat guilt free, confident that you are doing your part to save the ocean and its inhabitants.
Put down your fork -- Whole Foods is not telling you the whole story. The dirty little secret of their seafood rating system is that it ignores the largest and most imminent threat to our oceans: greenhouse-gas emissions. Even if every human on the planet miraculously decided to buy only seafood stamped with the Whole Foods seal of "sustainablity," marine species will still be doomed.
This is not a secret threat: Just last month, the International Program on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) -- a consortium of 27 of the top ocean experts in the world -- declared that effects of climate change, ocean acidification, and oxygen depletion have already triggered a "phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history."
View the Original article
Stroll by any Whole Foods seafood counter and you will see color-coded fish: Green for fully sustainable, yellow for partially sustainable, and red for fish threatened by overfishing or grown on polluting fish farms. Buy a "green" fish and you eat guilt free, confident that you are doing your part to save the ocean and its inhabitants.
Put down your fork -- Whole Foods is not telling you the whole story. The dirty little secret of their seafood rating system is that it ignores the largest and most imminent threat to our oceans: greenhouse-gas emissions. Even if every human on the planet miraculously decided to buy only seafood stamped with the Whole Foods seal of "sustainablity," marine species will still be doomed.
This is not a secret threat: Just last month, the International Program on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) -- a consortium of 27 of the top ocean experts in the world -- declared that effects of climate change, ocean acidification, and oxygen depletion have already triggered a "phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history."
View the Original article
Wednesday 24 August 2011
House Backs Debt Deal, but 95 'Conscience' Democrats Vote 'No'
By John Nichols
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reportedly told members of the House Democratic Caucus to vote their "individual consciences" when they were asked to approve the debt-ceiling deal cobbled together by the Obama White House and Congressional Republicans.
Consciences divided evenly, with ninety-five Democrats opposing the compromise agreement while ninety-five supported it in a Monday evening vote that saw the measure pass primarily on the basis of Republican backing -despite the fact that this was a deal promoted aggressively by a Democratic White House.
The final tally was 269 in favor, 161 opposed.
Republicans generally backed the deal, with 174 voting "yes" while sixty-six voted "no."
Democrats were far more closely divided, with widespread opposition to what Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, described as a violation of "core Democratic ideals."
While Pelosi cast her own viote in favor of the agreement, she did not "whip" her fellow Democrats to back the deal during a marathon caucus meeting Monday. The former speaker outlined the consequences of a default by the federal government if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling is not reached. But North Carolina Congressman G.K. Butterfield, who attended the caucus session said Pelosi avoided pressuring House Democrats to fall in line with the Democrats in the White House. "She told us to leave it to our individual consciences," Butterfield told reporters.
With the House vote done, the Senate will be vote Tuesday on the deal, which proposes radical cuts in federal programs-cuts that some fear will ultimately threaten Medicare and other Democratic "legacy" programs-in return for raising the nation's debt ceiling.
View the Original article
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reportedly told members of the House Democratic Caucus to vote their "individual consciences" when they were asked to approve the debt-ceiling deal cobbled together by the Obama White House and Congressional Republicans.
Consciences divided evenly, with ninety-five Democrats opposing the compromise agreement while ninety-five supported it in a Monday evening vote that saw the measure pass primarily on the basis of Republican backing -despite the fact that this was a deal promoted aggressively by a Democratic White House.
The final tally was 269 in favor, 161 opposed.
Republicans generally backed the deal, with 174 voting "yes" while sixty-six voted "no."
Democrats were far more closely divided, with widespread opposition to what Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, described as a violation of "core Democratic ideals."
While Pelosi cast her own viote in favor of the agreement, she did not "whip" her fellow Democrats to back the deal during a marathon caucus meeting Monday. The former speaker outlined the consequences of a default by the federal government if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling is not reached. But North Carolina Congressman G.K. Butterfield, who attended the caucus session said Pelosi avoided pressuring House Democrats to fall in line with the Democrats in the White House. "She told us to leave it to our individual consciences," Butterfield told reporters.
With the House vote done, the Senate will be vote Tuesday on the deal, which proposes radical cuts in federal programs-cuts that some fear will ultimately threaten Medicare and other Democratic "legacy" programs-in return for raising the nation's debt ceiling.
View the Original article
Tuesday 23 August 2011
California Prescription Pot Industry Looks to Self-Regulate for Orgainc Production
By Donna Jones
WATSONVILLE -- Want to buy organic carrots? No problem. Organic strawberries? Widely available. Organic honey? Try your local grocery store. But organic medicinal marijuana? Doesn't exist - at least not in any official sense.
Organic crops and products are certified by private agencies through the United States Department of Agriculture - a program developed after decades of advocacy by organic farmers and their allies. Pot - medicinal or otherwise - need not apply.
"What the USDA doesn't recognize as a legal crop we can't certify because we're certifying to their standards," said Jane Wade, development specialist at Santa Cruz-based California Certified Organic Farmers, the largest organic certification agency in the country. "That leaves medical marijuana out in the cold." It also leaves consumers interested in making sure they're not ingesting pesticides or other toxins along with their chosen pain reliever in a quandary.
Wade, who gets calls about organic marijuana certification "a few times a month," said people are frustrated by her response.
"They ask 'why can't you fix this,'" she said.
Wade said California Certified Organic Farmers worked for nearly three decades to get the USDA program in place. She suggested the medical marijuana community can take action as well.
"The path is already trodden," Wade said. "As long as they don't call it organic, there's no reason they can't adopt the rules already in place."
View the Original article
WATSONVILLE -- Want to buy organic carrots? No problem. Organic strawberries? Widely available. Organic honey? Try your local grocery store. But organic medicinal marijuana? Doesn't exist - at least not in any official sense.
Organic crops and products are certified by private agencies through the United States Department of Agriculture - a program developed after decades of advocacy by organic farmers and their allies. Pot - medicinal or otherwise - need not apply.
"What the USDA doesn't recognize as a legal crop we can't certify because we're certifying to their standards," said Jane Wade, development specialist at Santa Cruz-based California Certified Organic Farmers, the largest organic certification agency in the country. "That leaves medical marijuana out in the cold." It also leaves consumers interested in making sure they're not ingesting pesticides or other toxins along with their chosen pain reliever in a quandary.
Wade, who gets calls about organic marijuana certification "a few times a month," said people are frustrated by her response.
"They ask 'why can't you fix this,'" she said.
Wade said California Certified Organic Farmers worked for nearly three decades to get the USDA program in place. She suggested the medical marijuana community can take action as well.
"The path is already trodden," Wade said. "As long as they don't call it organic, there's no reason they can't adopt the rules already in place."
View the Original article
Monday 22 August 2011
Taxpayers Money Used by Indentured Politicians to Subsidize Ingredients Such as Corn Syrup in Junk Foods
By Dr. Mercola
In 2009, the U.S. federal government paid $12.3 billion to America's farmers. Even as farmers profit from increased demand, the government remains a major player in the food business.
The Atlantic has put together a list of the top nine products that the government most heavily subsidizes:
Corn
Wheat
Soybeans
Rice
Beer
Milk
Beef
Peanut Butter
Sunflower Oil
Corn, at the top of the list, raked in over $77 billion from the government between 1995 and 2010, and the subsidies have only been going up. There's a common belief that healthy food is inherently more expensive, and thus can only be for the wealthy. But in fact, healthy food could easily be more affordable for everyone, if not for agribusiness CEOs, their lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets.
Lawmakers whose campaigns are underwritten by agribusinesses use billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the commodities that are the key ingredients of unhealthy food -- corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. This manufactured price inequality helps junk food undersell nutritious food.
View the Original article
In 2009, the U.S. federal government paid $12.3 billion to America's farmers. Even as farmers profit from increased demand, the government remains a major player in the food business.
The Atlantic has put together a list of the top nine products that the government most heavily subsidizes:
Corn
Wheat
Soybeans
Rice
Beer
Milk
Beef
Peanut Butter
Sunflower Oil
Corn, at the top of the list, raked in over $77 billion from the government between 1995 and 2010, and the subsidies have only been going up. There's a common belief that healthy food is inherently more expensive, and thus can only be for the wealthy. But in fact, healthy food could easily be more affordable for everyone, if not for agribusiness CEOs, their lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets.
Lawmakers whose campaigns are underwritten by agribusinesses use billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the commodities that are the key ingredients of unhealthy food -- corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. This manufactured price inequality helps junk food undersell nutritious food.
View the Original article
Sunday 21 August 2011
Just How Bad Is the Artificial Sweetener Aspartame?
By Dr. Mercola
Americans drink more soda than anyone else on the planet -- well over 700 eight-ounce servings each year, on average, and an increasing amount of it is diet soda.
They might be more reluctant to do so if they knew about the safety questions still surrounding aspartame. A number of scientists responding expressed major concerns about aspartame's safety at the time of its approval, and even more indicated areas where they believed more research is needed on aspartame to resolve their concerns -- research on areas such as neurological functions, brain tumors, seizures, headaches, and adverse effects on children and pregnant women.
View the Original article
Americans drink more soda than anyone else on the planet -- well over 700 eight-ounce servings each year, on average, and an increasing amount of it is diet soda.
They might be more reluctant to do so if they knew about the safety questions still surrounding aspartame. A number of scientists responding expressed major concerns about aspartame's safety at the time of its approval, and even more indicated areas where they believed more research is needed on aspartame to resolve their concerns -- research on areas such as neurological functions, brain tumors, seizures, headaches, and adverse effects on children and pregnant women.
View the Original article
Saturday 20 August 2011
Organic Farmers Can Sue Conventional, GMO Farmers whose Pesticides 'Trespass' and Contaminate Their Fields
By Ethan A. Huff
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops -- and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them -- are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
View the Original article
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops -- and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them -- are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
View the Original article
Friday 19 August 2011
Imperial Psychosis: We Pour Trillions into Empire While Gutting Programs Americans Depend On
By Tom Engelhardt
By now, it seems as if everybody and his brother has joined the debt-ceiling imbroglio in Washington, perhaps the strangest homespun drama of our time. It's as if Washington's leading political players, aided and abetted by the media's love of the horserace, had eaten LSD-laced brownies, then gone on stage before an audience of millions to enact a psychotic spectacle of American decline.
And yet, among the dramatis personae we've been watching, there are clearly missing actors. They happen to be out of town, part of a traveling roadshow. When it comes to their production, however, there has, of late, been little publicity, few reviewers, and only the most modest media attention. Moreover, unlike the scenery-chewing divas in Washington, these actors have simply been going about their business as if nothing out of the ordinary were happening.
On July 25th, for instance, while John Boehner raced around the Capitol desperately pressing Republican House members for votes on a debt-ceiling bill that Harry Reid was calling dead-on-arrival in the Senate, America's new ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, took his oath of office in distant Kabul. According to the New York Times, he then gave a short speech "warning" that "Western powers needed to 'proceed carefully'" and emphasized that when it came to the war, there would "be no rush for the exits."
View the Original article
By now, it seems as if everybody and his brother has joined the debt-ceiling imbroglio in Washington, perhaps the strangest homespun drama of our time. It's as if Washington's leading political players, aided and abetted by the media's love of the horserace, had eaten LSD-laced brownies, then gone on stage before an audience of millions to enact a psychotic spectacle of American decline.
And yet, among the dramatis personae we've been watching, there are clearly missing actors. They happen to be out of town, part of a traveling roadshow. When it comes to their production, however, there has, of late, been little publicity, few reviewers, and only the most modest media attention. Moreover, unlike the scenery-chewing divas in Washington, these actors have simply been going about their business as if nothing out of the ordinary were happening.
On July 25th, for instance, while John Boehner raced around the Capitol desperately pressing Republican House members for votes on a debt-ceiling bill that Harry Reid was calling dead-on-arrival in the Senate, America's new ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, took his oath of office in distant Kabul. According to the New York Times, he then gave a short speech "warning" that "Western powers needed to 'proceed carefully'" and emphasized that when it came to the war, there would "be no rush for the exits."
View the Original article
Thursday 18 August 2011
US of Austerity: What $570 Billion Cuts Will Do to Our Water, Air, the Jobless, Children, the Elderly, and the Poor
By Andt Kroll
The debt ceiling deal hammered out by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders and passed in the House on Monday afternoon makes deep, painful, and lasting cuts throughout the federal government's budget. What's on the chopping block? The numbers tell the tale.
The Obama-GOP plan cuts $917 billion in government spending over the next decade. Nearly $570 billion of that would come from what's called "nondefense discretionary spending." That's budget-speak for the pile of money the government invests in the nation's safety and future-education and job training, air traffic control, health research, border security, physical infrastructure, environmental and consumer protection, child care, nutrition, law enforcement, and more.
The White House's plan would slash this type of spending nearly in half, from about 3.3 percent of America's GDP to as low as 1.7 percent, the lowest in nearly half a century, says Ethan Pollack, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Pollack's calculations suggest the cuts in Obama's plan are almost as deep as those in Rep. Paul Ryan's slash-and-burn budget, which shrunk non-defense discretionary spending down to just 1.5 percent of GDP. The president has claimed that the debt deal will allow America to continue making "job-creating investments in things like education and research." But on crucial public investment, Obama's and Ryan's plans are next-door neighbors. "There's no way to square this plan with the president's 'Winning the Future' agenda,"Pollack says. "That agenda ends."
View the Original article
The debt ceiling deal hammered out by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders and passed in the House on Monday afternoon makes deep, painful, and lasting cuts throughout the federal government's budget. What's on the chopping block? The numbers tell the tale.
The Obama-GOP plan cuts $917 billion in government spending over the next decade. Nearly $570 billion of that would come from what's called "nondefense discretionary spending." That's budget-speak for the pile of money the government invests in the nation's safety and future-education and job training, air traffic control, health research, border security, physical infrastructure, environmental and consumer protection, child care, nutrition, law enforcement, and more.
The White House's plan would slash this type of spending nearly in half, from about 3.3 percent of America's GDP to as low as 1.7 percent, the lowest in nearly half a century, says Ethan Pollack, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Pollack's calculations suggest the cuts in Obama's plan are almost as deep as those in Rep. Paul Ryan's slash-and-burn budget, which shrunk non-defense discretionary spending down to just 1.5 percent of GDP. The president has claimed that the debt deal will allow America to continue making "job-creating investments in things like education and research." But on crucial public investment, Obama's and Ryan's plans are next-door neighbors. "There's no way to square this plan with the president's 'Winning the Future' agenda,"Pollack says. "That agenda ends."
View the Original article
Wednesday 17 August 2011
Hazards of Monsanto's New SmartStax Genetically Engineered Corn
By Lucy Sharratt
This year, we are eating from the first harvest of Monsanto's eight-trait "SmartStax" genetically modified (GM) corn. Approved in 2009 and grown for the first time in North America last year, the new GM corn appears as processed food ingredients and feed for dairy and meat animals.
Canada's approval of SmartStax corn exposed just how little Health Canada cares to investigate the potential risks of GM crops and foods - in the case of SmartStax, not at all. Now the process to approve SmartStax in Europe has identified many of the risk issues being ignored on both sides of the ocean. Confidential industry summaries of data as well as critiques by European experts show more studies must be done to determine any potential health and environmental risks.
No risk assessment in Canada
In July 2009, Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced they had received approval in Canada and the US to introduce their new eight-trait GM corn SmartStax (it combines technologies from both companies). However, Health Canada did not actually assess SmartStax for human health safety. Because the individual eight GM traits were previously approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators decided there was nothing new in combining the eight together. Health Canada assumed the corn was a harmless amalgam of GM traits and did not even issue any paperwork to rubberstamp its approval.
View the Original article
This year, we are eating from the first harvest of Monsanto's eight-trait "SmartStax" genetically modified (GM) corn. Approved in 2009 and grown for the first time in North America last year, the new GM corn appears as processed food ingredients and feed for dairy and meat animals.
Canada's approval of SmartStax corn exposed just how little Health Canada cares to investigate the potential risks of GM crops and foods - in the case of SmartStax, not at all. Now the process to approve SmartStax in Europe has identified many of the risk issues being ignored on both sides of the ocean. Confidential industry summaries of data as well as critiques by European experts show more studies must be done to determine any potential health and environmental risks.
No risk assessment in Canada
In July 2009, Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced they had received approval in Canada and the US to introduce their new eight-trait GM corn SmartStax (it combines technologies from both companies). However, Health Canada did not actually assess SmartStax for human health safety. Because the individual eight GM traits were previously approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators decided there was nothing new in combining the eight together. Health Canada assumed the corn was a harmless amalgam of GM traits and did not even issue any paperwork to rubberstamp its approval.
View the Original article
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Not Your Grandma's Strawberries
By Natalie Jones
In 1950, your parents, grandparents, or a perhaps a younger version of you could eat a handful of string beans -- about three-and-a-half ounces -- and get about 9 percent of the calcium you needed for the day. Almost 50 years later, in 1999, the amount of calcium in string beans dropped by 43 percent, leaving you with only 5 percent of your daily calcium. You could eat more string beans -- except you might not want to, because they wouldn't be as flavorful as in the past. So you could eat more of other vegetables, but it's likely other vegetables wouldon't have as much calcium or flavor as they used to, either. And it's not just calcium: Preliminary research shows that many vegetables have lost significant amounts of nutritional value.
Donald Davis, a scientist retired from the University of Texas at Austin, and his colleagues published a study in 2004 comparing U.S. Department of Agriculture data on vegetable nutrients from 1950 to data from 1999, and found notable decreases, particularly for key nutrients like calcium, iron, phosphorus, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid.
Davis believes that the primary reason for the decrease is selective breeding: As growers and researchers have spent the last 50 years trying to produce varieties of crops that yield more fruit, they've been ignoring the effects on nutrient content. Davis cites a few studies that compared high-yield varieties to non-high-yield varieties in the same soil and growing conditions, and found decreased nutrient content in the former.
"It's early evidence, but that's very powerful evidence because the soil is the same; the only difference is the genetics of the plant," Davis says.
The studies show that as fruits and vegetables get bigger and more plentiful, nutrients get diluted. Some high-yield varieties are "dwarf" plants, meaning the plants themselves are smaller. But plants draw in and store minerals in their stalks, and when it comes time to create a fruit or vegetable, the plants extract the minerals and transform them into beneficial nutrients in the fruit. A lack of storage space for nutrients in the stalk translates to a loss of nutrients in the fruits. (Because taste is so subjective, not much research has been done flavor loss in high-yield varieties. But some people anecdotally claim that flavors in high-yield varieties also seem diluted compared to heirlooms -- varieties that have been passed down, unaltered, through generations.)
View the Original article
In 1950, your parents, grandparents, or a perhaps a younger version of you could eat a handful of string beans -- about three-and-a-half ounces -- and get about 9 percent of the calcium you needed for the day. Almost 50 years later, in 1999, the amount of calcium in string beans dropped by 43 percent, leaving you with only 5 percent of your daily calcium. You could eat more string beans -- except you might not want to, because they wouldn't be as flavorful as in the past. So you could eat more of other vegetables, but it's likely other vegetables wouldon't have as much calcium or flavor as they used to, either. And it's not just calcium: Preliminary research shows that many vegetables have lost significant amounts of nutritional value.
Donald Davis, a scientist retired from the University of Texas at Austin, and his colleagues published a study in 2004 comparing U.S. Department of Agriculture data on vegetable nutrients from 1950 to data from 1999, and found notable decreases, particularly for key nutrients like calcium, iron, phosphorus, riboflavin, and ascorbic acid.
Davis believes that the primary reason for the decrease is selective breeding: As growers and researchers have spent the last 50 years trying to produce varieties of crops that yield more fruit, they've been ignoring the effects on nutrient content. Davis cites a few studies that compared high-yield varieties to non-high-yield varieties in the same soil and growing conditions, and found decreased nutrient content in the former.
"It's early evidence, but that's very powerful evidence because the soil is the same; the only difference is the genetics of the plant," Davis says.
The studies show that as fruits and vegetables get bigger and more plentiful, nutrients get diluted. Some high-yield varieties are "dwarf" plants, meaning the plants themselves are smaller. But plants draw in and store minerals in their stalks, and when it comes time to create a fruit or vegetable, the plants extract the minerals and transform them into beneficial nutrients in the fruit. A lack of storage space for nutrients in the stalk translates to a loss of nutrients in the fruits. (Because taste is so subjective, not much research has been done flavor loss in high-yield varieties. But some people anecdotally claim that flavors in high-yield varieties also seem diluted compared to heirlooms -- varieties that have been passed down, unaltered, through generations.)
View the Original article
Monday 15 August 2011
Commission Aims to Produce Clear Course of Action on Sustainable Food System
By Matt Styslinger
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)-a consortium of international research centers focused on sustainable agricultural development-has launched a new initiative focused on agriculture's contribution to food security in the context of climate change: the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. "The food system is really not sustainable," says Professor Sir John Beddington, U.K. Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Chair of the Commission. "What is happening is it's getting big subsidies of fossil fuels, it is over-exploiting water.
View the Original article
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)-a consortium of international research centers focused on sustainable agricultural development-has launched a new initiative focused on agriculture's contribution to food security in the context of climate change: the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. "The food system is really not sustainable," says Professor Sir John Beddington, U.K. Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Chair of the Commission. "What is happening is it's getting big subsidies of fossil fuels, it is over-exploiting water.
View the Original article
Sunday 14 August 2011
Denmark's Road Map for Fossil Fuel Independence by 2050
Last year, the Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy found that Denmark can remove fossil fuels entirely from its energy system-including transport-by 2050 without introducing nuclear energy or carbon capture and storage. In response, the Danish government immediately adopted the goal of becoming independent of fossil fuels by 2050. Removal of fossil fuels would bring Denmark in line with the EU policy goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95 percent by 2050. This report represents the first, comprehensive national analysis for achieving independence from fossil fuels. While the report's recommendations are specific to the current Danish situation, the approach used in the analyses is generic and can be of use to other nations. Perhaps the most striking finding of all is that the overall cost of achieving fossil fuel independence is only marginally more (on the order of 0.5 percent of GDP in 2050) than predicted total energy-related expenditure in a "business-as-usual" scenario. This near equivalence in cost is due primarily to expected increases in the price of fossil fuels.
The Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy reported in 2010 that Denmark could be independent of fossil fuels by 2050 with a concomitant greenhouse gas emission reduction on the order of 80 percent compared to 1990 emissions. The commission defined independence from fossil fuels as no use of fossil fuels for energy in Denmark. Import of energy based on fossil fuels was allowed but the total amount of renewable energy produced in Denmark must, as a yearly average, be at least equal to Danish energy demands. According to data from 2009, the most recent available, renewable energy sources supply 18 percent of gross energy production in Denmark, with biomass being, by far, the largest contributor.1 Approximately 3 percent of the gross energy supply comes from wind, while approximately 20 percent of the electricity is produced from wind power. Nevertheless, the commission concluded that it is realistic to assume that 100 percent of Denmark's energy needs in 2050 can be covered by electricity generated from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and wave. The commission's relatively optimistic assessment is based on an assumption of significant technological development with respect to both electric vehicles and "smart grids" (energy systems that can defer some degree of energy demand to periods when excess energy is produced).
View the Original article
The Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy reported in 2010 that Denmark could be independent of fossil fuels by 2050 with a concomitant greenhouse gas emission reduction on the order of 80 percent compared to 1990 emissions. The commission defined independence from fossil fuels as no use of fossil fuels for energy in Denmark. Import of energy based on fossil fuels was allowed but the total amount of renewable energy produced in Denmark must, as a yearly average, be at least equal to Danish energy demands. According to data from 2009, the most recent available, renewable energy sources supply 18 percent of gross energy production in Denmark, with biomass being, by far, the largest contributor.1 Approximately 3 percent of the gross energy supply comes from wind, while approximately 20 percent of the electricity is produced from wind power. Nevertheless, the commission concluded that it is realistic to assume that 100 percent of Denmark's energy needs in 2050 can be covered by electricity generated from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and wave. The commission's relatively optimistic assessment is based on an assumption of significant technological development with respect to both electric vehicles and "smart grids" (energy systems that can defer some degree of energy demand to periods when excess energy is produced).
View the Original article
Saturday 13 August 2011
The Fires This Time: In Coverage of Extreme Weather, Media Downplay Climate Change
By Neil deMause
On April 14, a massive storm swept down out of the Rocky Mountains into the Midwest and South, spawning more than 150 tornadoes that killed 43 people across 16 states (Capital Weather Gang, 4/18/11). It was one of the largest weather catastrophes in United States history-but was soon upstaged by an even larger storm, the 2011 Super Outbreak that spread more than 300 tornadoes across 14 states from April 25 to 28 (including an all-time one-day record of 188 twisters on April 27), killing 339 people, including 41 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (CNN, 5/1/11).
It was an unprecedented string of severe weather: By mid-June, more than 1,000 tornadoes had killed 536 people (NOAA, 6/13/11), nearly as many deaths as in the entire preceding decade. And it was only natural to ask: Were we seeing the effects of climate change?
Most scientists would say yes, or at least "probably." The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, a global scientific body that has been a target of conservatives despite a record of soft-pedaling its findings to avoid controversy (Extra!, 7/8/07), warned on February 2, 2007, "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." (In science-speak, "very likely" refers to a certainty of greater than 90 percent, and is as near as you get to a definitive conclusion.) Other forecasts (e.g., Environment America, 9/8/10) have projected that wet regions will receive record rainfall thanks to increasing evaporation, while dry ones get record drought, as climate patterns shift to accommodate the new normal.
Yet despite these dire predictions, U.S. media were hesitant to investigate the links between climate change and this spring's extreme weather. Much coverage settled for the cheap irony of contrasting extreme phenomena, as when NBC's Saturday Today show meteorologist Bill Karins (6/11/11) quipped:
Feast or famine's been the rule this spring. The northern half of the country, we've dealt with the heavy rain, the record snow pack that's now melting in the northern Rockies. That's causing the flooding. The southern half of the country, you would love some of that rain.
View the Original article
On April 14, a massive storm swept down out of the Rocky Mountains into the Midwest and South, spawning more than 150 tornadoes that killed 43 people across 16 states (Capital Weather Gang, 4/18/11). It was one of the largest weather catastrophes in United States history-but was soon upstaged by an even larger storm, the 2011 Super Outbreak that spread more than 300 tornadoes across 14 states from April 25 to 28 (including an all-time one-day record of 188 twisters on April 27), killing 339 people, including 41 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (CNN, 5/1/11).
It was an unprecedented string of severe weather: By mid-June, more than 1,000 tornadoes had killed 536 people (NOAA, 6/13/11), nearly as many deaths as in the entire preceding decade. And it was only natural to ask: Were we seeing the effects of climate change?
Most scientists would say yes, or at least "probably." The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, a global scientific body that has been a target of conservatives despite a record of soft-pedaling its findings to avoid controversy (Extra!, 7/8/07), warned on February 2, 2007, "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." (In science-speak, "very likely" refers to a certainty of greater than 90 percent, and is as near as you get to a definitive conclusion.) Other forecasts (e.g., Environment America, 9/8/10) have projected that wet regions will receive record rainfall thanks to increasing evaporation, while dry ones get record drought, as climate patterns shift to accommodate the new normal.
Yet despite these dire predictions, U.S. media were hesitant to investigate the links between climate change and this spring's extreme weather. Much coverage settled for the cheap irony of contrasting extreme phenomena, as when NBC's Saturday Today show meteorologist Bill Karins (6/11/11) quipped:
Feast or famine's been the rule this spring. The northern half of the country, we've dealt with the heavy rain, the record snow pack that's now melting in the northern Rockies. That's causing the flooding. The southern half of the country, you would love some of that rain.
View the Original article
Friday 12 August 2011
Whole Paycheck and Organic Food Deserts: The Challenge
After decades of grassroots public education, battles to safeguard standards, and hard work, organic food and farming has become the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture. Organics have surged in popularity to become a $30 billion dollar industry in the United States, representing approximately four percent of total grocery store sales and 12% of fresh fruit and vegetable sales, growing at the rate of 10-20% a year, in comparison to a growth rate of 2-3% a year for so-called "conventional" (i.e. chemical and genetically engineered) food. According to a recent poll by National Public Radio the majority (58%) of Americans now prefer organic food.
View the Original article
View the Original article
Thursday 11 August 2011
Subscription Produce Business Booming in Alaska
By Lisa Demer
When Sarah and River Bean cleared old timber to start their farm near Palmer more than two decades ago, one of their first chores was recruiting customers for the coming harvest. It was a way to build a base of buyers and make their love of farming a viable business.
Their customers, in turn, got fresh vegetables all summer long.
Turns out the Beans were on the leading edge of what's now a hot trend in Alaska. In a state once known for dreary produce aisles and few fruit options, customers from Adak to Anchorage are turning to a growing number of farm-to-table delivery services. Some are spending hundreds of dollars a year in exchange for boxes packed with local or organic produce.
In Anchorage, maybe you've seen a Full Circle truck pull into your neighborhood. Or stacks of Glacier Valley boxes at businesses around town waiting for customers to pick them up. Or people lined up in a downtown neighborhood every Wednesday afternoon for just-picked produce from the Bean family's Arctic Organics farm.
Business is growing fast in Alaska, say subscription produce operators, who charge anywhere from $35 to more than double that for a weekly box of fruits and veggies.
View the Original article
When Sarah and River Bean cleared old timber to start their farm near Palmer more than two decades ago, one of their first chores was recruiting customers for the coming harvest. It was a way to build a base of buyers and make their love of farming a viable business.
Their customers, in turn, got fresh vegetables all summer long.
Turns out the Beans were on the leading edge of what's now a hot trend in Alaska. In a state once known for dreary produce aisles and few fruit options, customers from Adak to Anchorage are turning to a growing number of farm-to-table delivery services. Some are spending hundreds of dollars a year in exchange for boxes packed with local or organic produce.
In Anchorage, maybe you've seen a Full Circle truck pull into your neighborhood. Or stacks of Glacier Valley boxes at businesses around town waiting for customers to pick them up. Or people lined up in a downtown neighborhood every Wednesday afternoon for just-picked produce from the Bean family's Arctic Organics farm.
Business is growing fast in Alaska, say subscription produce operators, who charge anywhere from $35 to more than double that for a weekly box of fruits and veggies.
View the Original article
Wednesday 10 August 2011
Breaking Point: Obama and the Death of the Democratic Party
By Jane Hamsher
According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security in exchange for GOP support for tax hikes. Lori Montgomery in the Post:
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action. As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
And Jay Carney's carefully chosen weasel-words today do not contradict this:
"There is no news here - the President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."
Nobody ever says they want to "cut" Social Security or Medicare. They want to "save" it. Just ask Pete Peterson, he wants to "save" it. Likewise AARP. They don't want reduced benefits for senior citizens, they want to "preserve" it for future generations. If they have an enormous customer base they can market private "add-on" accounts and other retirement products to when Social Security goes bye-bye, I guess that's just a happy coincidence.
View the Original article
According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security in exchange for GOP support for tax hikes. Lori Montgomery in the Post:
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action. As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
And Jay Carney's carefully chosen weasel-words today do not contradict this:
"There is no news here - the President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."
Nobody ever says they want to "cut" Social Security or Medicare. They want to "save" it. Just ask Pete Peterson, he wants to "save" it. Likewise AARP. They don't want reduced benefits for senior citizens, they want to "preserve" it for future generations. If they have an enormous customer base they can market private "add-on" accounts and other retirement products to when Social Security goes bye-bye, I guess that's just a happy coincidence.
View the Original article
Tuesday 9 August 2011
Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?
By Tom Philpott
It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.
In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.
Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.
Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA's regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me.
View the Original article
It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.
In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.
Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.
Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA's regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me.
View the Original article
Monday 8 August 2011
Secondhand Smoke Tied To Mental Health Problems In Kids: Study
By Catherine Pearson
Estimates suggest that anywhere between 4.8 and 5.5 million children in the U.S. live in households where they are exposed to secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk for multiple health problems. Now, new research suggests that secondhand smoke exposure can increase the odds of developing certain mental and behavioral disorders by 50 percent.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health looked at the data generated by a 2007 national health survey, analyzing the responses of the parents of guardians of more than 55,000 children ages 11 and younger from throughout the U.S. They found that children who were exposed to secondhand smoke were twice as likely to develop so-called neurobehavioral disorders -- including learning disabilities, ADD or ADHD, and conduct or behavior disorders -- than were children who lived in smoke-free homes.
"We estimate that 274,000 cases of the most common neurobehavioral disorders could have been prevented with smoke-free homes," said Hillel Alpert, ScM, a senior research associate at Harvard and one of the study's authors.
Alpert added that the study, which was published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, did not find that secondhand smoke directly caused any of these mental health issues. However, he argued that the "strong evidence of association" between secondhand smoke exposure and the incidence of certain disorders might underline a causal relationship that could be discovered with future longterm investigations.
Indeed, a growing body of research is focused on the link between secondhand smoke and mental health problems.
View the Original article
Estimates suggest that anywhere between 4.8 and 5.5 million children in the U.S. live in households where they are exposed to secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk for multiple health problems. Now, new research suggests that secondhand smoke exposure can increase the odds of developing certain mental and behavioral disorders by 50 percent.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health looked at the data generated by a 2007 national health survey, analyzing the responses of the parents of guardians of more than 55,000 children ages 11 and younger from throughout the U.S. They found that children who were exposed to secondhand smoke were twice as likely to develop so-called neurobehavioral disorders -- including learning disabilities, ADD or ADHD, and conduct or behavior disorders -- than were children who lived in smoke-free homes.
"We estimate that 274,000 cases of the most common neurobehavioral disorders could have been prevented with smoke-free homes," said Hillel Alpert, ScM, a senior research associate at Harvard and one of the study's authors.
Alpert added that the study, which was published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, did not find that secondhand smoke directly caused any of these mental health issues. However, he argued that the "strong evidence of association" between secondhand smoke exposure and the incidence of certain disorders might underline a causal relationship that could be discovered with future longterm investigations.
Indeed, a growing body of research is focused on the link between secondhand smoke and mental health problems.
View the Original article
Sunday 7 August 2011
Australia: Good Start, but Only the Beginning of Decarbonising the Economy
By Jo Chandler
Turning around emissions growth this decade and then cutting greenhouse pollution by 80 per cent by 2050 - the target announced by the Gillard government yesterday - would put Australia on the trajectory the world needs to take to avoid the catastrophic consequences of four degrees warming this century, leading climate scientists said yesterday.
But they warned that the next few years would be critical and that the planet's systems were poised on the brink of a man-made climate shock equivalent to the most devastating shifts nature had ever delivered on human civilization.
''As a scientific community we have said we have to look at the end game, which is to decarbonise economies - especially industrialized ones - by mid-century,'' ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen, said. Advertisement: Story continues below
''That allows some space for the developing world to bring its people out of poverty. So the 80 per cent target by 2050 is sending a strong signal in that direction,'' Professor Steffen said.
He was hopeful the momentum of such a target and the new technologies and confidence it would nurture would ultimately enable even bigger cuts. ''The first change is to just slow the growth of emissions,'' he said. ''The long-term aspiration target is great and very consistent with what the science is saying we have to do. But to have a chance of reaching that, we actually have to bend the curve this decade.''
View the Original article
Turning around emissions growth this decade and then cutting greenhouse pollution by 80 per cent by 2050 - the target announced by the Gillard government yesterday - would put Australia on the trajectory the world needs to take to avoid the catastrophic consequences of four degrees warming this century, leading climate scientists said yesterday.
But they warned that the next few years would be critical and that the planet's systems were poised on the brink of a man-made climate shock equivalent to the most devastating shifts nature had ever delivered on human civilization.
''As a scientific community we have said we have to look at the end game, which is to decarbonise economies - especially industrialized ones - by mid-century,'' ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen, said. Advertisement: Story continues below
''That allows some space for the developing world to bring its people out of poverty. So the 80 per cent target by 2050 is sending a strong signal in that direction,'' Professor Steffen said.
He was hopeful the momentum of such a target and the new technologies and confidence it would nurture would ultimately enable even bigger cuts. ''The first change is to just slow the growth of emissions,'' he said. ''The long-term aspiration target is great and very consistent with what the science is saying we have to do. But to have a chance of reaching that, we actually have to bend the curve this decade.''
View the Original article
Engineering An Environmental Disaster
America's supermarkets are awash in genetically modified foods. Over the past decade, biotech companies like Monsanto have dominated dinner tables with crops like corn, soybeans and canola modified to survive lethal doses of herbicides, resulting in increased herbicide use, a surge in herbicide-resistant weeds, and the contamination of organic and conventional crops. According to the Center for Food Safety, more than half of all processed food in U.S. grocery stores-items like cereals, corn dogs and cookies-contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.
"This technology is a one-trick pony," says George Kimbrell, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety. "They don't help us feed the world, they don't fight climate change, and they don't help us better the environment. They just increase pesticides and herbicides. That's what they do." (Listen to an interview with George Kimbrell.)
Currently, 85 percent of GE crops are designed to resist herbicides. Companies like Syngenta, Bayer and Dow have all created their own herbicide tolerant seeds, modified to withstand the company's corresponding herbicide treatment. But it's Monsanto, the world leader in GE seed production, that has benefited the most from biotechnology by packaging its Roundup Ready line of GE seeds with its Roundup herbicide. Monsanto, whose roots began in creating toxic chemical concoctions like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT, is now the world's leading producer of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. (See Monsanto's chemical history timeline.)
But what's good for Monsanto's business isn't so great for people or the environment. That's why in 2007, Earthjustice, together with the Center for Food Safety, challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets on the market, arguing that the agency failed to adequately assess both its environmental and economic impacts.
View the Original article
"This technology is a one-trick pony," says George Kimbrell, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety. "They don't help us feed the world, they don't fight climate change, and they don't help us better the environment. They just increase pesticides and herbicides. That's what they do." (Listen to an interview with George Kimbrell.)
Currently, 85 percent of GE crops are designed to resist herbicides. Companies like Syngenta, Bayer and Dow have all created their own herbicide tolerant seeds, modified to withstand the company's corresponding herbicide treatment. But it's Monsanto, the world leader in GE seed production, that has benefited the most from biotechnology by packaging its Roundup Ready line of GE seeds with its Roundup herbicide. Monsanto, whose roots began in creating toxic chemical concoctions like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT, is now the world's leading producer of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. (See Monsanto's chemical history timeline.)
But what's good for Monsanto's business isn't so great for people or the environment. That's why in 2007, Earthjustice, together with the Center for Food Safety, challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets on the market, arguing that the agency failed to adequately assess both its environmental and economic impacts.
View the Original article
Saturday 6 August 2011
The Worlds Largest Human Experiment: GMOs, Roundup, and the Monsanto Monstrosity
By Madison Ruppert
Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.
In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.
The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic jargon:
Except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
Under all of these definitions, including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.
Some might say, "So what? It doesn't matter since genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong with doing it without informed consent?"
View the Original article
Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.
In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.
The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic jargon:
Except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
Under all of these definitions, including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.
Some might say, "So what? It doesn't matter since genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong with doing it without informed consent?"
View the Original article
Friday 5 August 2011
Woman Faces Jail Time for Planting Organic Vegetable Garden
By Brad Tuttle
A Michigan woman is being charged with a misdemeanor offense and is facing up to 93 days in jail. Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden-in her own yard. Her front yard, that is.
Like many consumers today, Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Mich., appreciates the taste and healthfulness of organic vegetables, but isn't much of a fan of how much going organic costs at the store. So, like many health-minded consumers, she planted a vegetable garden on her property.
But Bass chose to take the unusual step of installing neatly arranged raised beds of vegetables in her front, rather than back, yard. Bass explained her unorthodox garden location (and showed off how neat and organized it is, for those curious) to a local TV station:
"We thought it'd be really cool to do it so the neighbors could see. The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help," she said.
Front yard or back, it's her property, and she's allowed to do with it what she pleases, right? Wrong, say the local authorities, citing local codes that require front yards to have only "suitable" live plant material. City planners say that vegetables, for some reason, don't qualify for the standard, even though they are certainly alive, and certainly are planted. To some, this sort of code enforcement makes the restrictions against drying clothes on a clothesline seem reasonable.
View the Original article
A Michigan woman is being charged with a misdemeanor offense and is facing up to 93 days in jail. Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden-in her own yard. Her front yard, that is.
Like many consumers today, Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Mich., appreciates the taste and healthfulness of organic vegetables, but isn't much of a fan of how much going organic costs at the store. So, like many health-minded consumers, she planted a vegetable garden on her property.
But Bass chose to take the unusual step of installing neatly arranged raised beds of vegetables in her front, rather than back, yard. Bass explained her unorthodox garden location (and showed off how neat and organized it is, for those curious) to a local TV station:
"We thought it'd be really cool to do it so the neighbors could see. The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help," she said.
Front yard or back, it's her property, and she's allowed to do with it what she pleases, right? Wrong, say the local authorities, citing local codes that require front yards to have only "suitable" live plant material. City planners say that vegetables, for some reason, don't qualify for the standard, even though they are certainly alive, and certainly are planted. To some, this sort of code enforcement makes the restrictions against drying clothes on a clothesline seem reasonable.
View the Original article
Thursday 4 August 2011
15 Food Companies That Serve You 'Wood'
By Miriam Reimer
NEW YORK -- Are you getting what you pay for on your plate?
The recent class-action lawsuit brought against Taco Bell raised questions about the quality of food many Americans eat each day.
Chief among those concerns is the use of cellulose (read: wood pulp), an extender whose use in a roster of food products, from crackers and ice creams to puddings and baked goods, is now being exposed. What you're actually paying for -- and consuming -- may be surprising.
Cellulose is virgin wood pulp that has been processed and manufactured to different lengths for functionality, though use of it and its variant forms (cellulose gum, powdered cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, etc.) is deemed safe for human consumption, according to the FDA, which regulates most food industry products. The government agency sets no limit on the amount of cellulose that can be used in food products meant for human consumption. The USDA, which regulates meats, has set a limit of 3.5% on the use of cellulose, since fiber in meat products cannot be recognized nutritionally.
"As commodity prices continue to rally and the cost of imported materials impacts earnings, we expect to see increasing use of surrogate products within food items. Cellulose is certainly in higher demand and we expect this to continue," Michael A. Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at YCMNet Advisors, told TheStreet.
Manufacturers use cellulose in food as an extender, providing structure and reducing breakage, said Dan Inman, director of research and development at J. Rettenmaier USA, a company that supplies "organic" cellulose fibers for use in a variety of processed foods and meats meant for human and pet consumption, as well as for plastics, cleaning detergents, welding electrodes, pet litter, automotive brake pads, glue and reinforcing compounds, construction materials, roof coating, asphalt and even emulsion paints, among many other products.
View the Original article
NEW YORK -- Are you getting what you pay for on your plate?
The recent class-action lawsuit brought against Taco Bell raised questions about the quality of food many Americans eat each day.
Chief among those concerns is the use of cellulose (read: wood pulp), an extender whose use in a roster of food products, from crackers and ice creams to puddings and baked goods, is now being exposed. What you're actually paying for -- and consuming -- may be surprising.
Cellulose is virgin wood pulp that has been processed and manufactured to different lengths for functionality, though use of it and its variant forms (cellulose gum, powdered cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, etc.) is deemed safe for human consumption, according to the FDA, which regulates most food industry products. The government agency sets no limit on the amount of cellulose that can be used in food products meant for human consumption. The USDA, which regulates meats, has set a limit of 3.5% on the use of cellulose, since fiber in meat products cannot be recognized nutritionally.
"As commodity prices continue to rally and the cost of imported materials impacts earnings, we expect to see increasing use of surrogate products within food items. Cellulose is certainly in higher demand and we expect this to continue," Michael A. Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at YCMNet Advisors, told TheStreet.
Manufacturers use cellulose in food as an extender, providing structure and reducing breakage, said Dan Inman, director of research and development at J. Rettenmaier USA, a company that supplies "organic" cellulose fibers for use in a variety of processed foods and meats meant for human and pet consumption, as well as for plastics, cleaning detergents, welding electrodes, pet litter, automotive brake pads, glue and reinforcing compounds, construction materials, roof coating, asphalt and even emulsion paints, among many other products.
View the Original article
Wednesday 3 August 2011
Hacking the Wisconsin Recalls: Why We Must Have Hand-Counted Paper Ballots and Citizen Exit Polls
By Grant W. Petty and Sheila Parks
It goes without saying that the outcomes of the nine Senate recall elections scheduled in Wisconsin will be of intense interest to most of the UW-Madison community. Forecasting the outcome of elections weeks in advance is always a risky business; nevertheless, we offer the following bold prediction:
In at least some cases, the candidate receiving the lesser of the actual votes cast -- perhaps, in fact, the candidate you passionately opposed -- will be declared the official victor.
Chances are, you either think we are nuts or you are already upset with the dismal state of elections in Wisconsin, if not the country. Either way, we hope this article will change your view of both (a) the security of the elections and (b) the ability of ordinary citizens like you to improve that security.
Here's a second prediction which gets to the heart of the real problem:
No one -- not the Government Accountability Board, not the media, not any elected official, and most certainly not you -- has the slightest hope of ever disproving our first prediction in light of current election procedures and practices.
View the Original article
It goes without saying that the outcomes of the nine Senate recall elections scheduled in Wisconsin will be of intense interest to most of the UW-Madison community. Forecasting the outcome of elections weeks in advance is always a risky business; nevertheless, we offer the following bold prediction:
In at least some cases, the candidate receiving the lesser of the actual votes cast -- perhaps, in fact, the candidate you passionately opposed -- will be declared the official victor.
Chances are, you either think we are nuts or you are already upset with the dismal state of elections in Wisconsin, if not the country. Either way, we hope this article will change your view of both (a) the security of the elections and (b) the ability of ordinary citizens like you to improve that security.
Here's a second prediction which gets to the heart of the real problem:
No one -- not the Government Accountability Board, not the media, not any elected official, and most certainly not you -- has the slightest hope of ever disproving our first prediction in light of current election procedures and practices.
View the Original article
Tuesday 2 August 2011
Monsanto's GMO Crops Killing off Monarch Butterflies
By Andrew Pollack
As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred - at least as a farmer would view it - by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans.
Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.
And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects - "the Bambi of the insect world," as an entomologist once put it.
Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.
"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone."
View the Original article
As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred - at least as a farmer would view it - by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans.
Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.
And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects - "the Bambi of the insect world," as an entomologist once put it.
Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.
"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone."
View the Original article
Monday 1 August 2011
The Power - and Limits - of Social Movements
By Robert Jensen
In mainstream politics in the United States, everyone agrees on one thing: We're number one. We're special. We're America. We're on top, where we deserve to be.
In dissident politics in the United States, we have long argued that this quest for economic and military dominance can't be squared with basic moral and political principles. We're on top, but it's unjust and unsustainable.
Whether or not the United States has ever had a legitimate claim to that top spot -- or whether there should be spots on top for any nation(s) -- the days of uncontested dominance are over: Our economy is in permanent decline and our military power continues to fade. We are still the wealthiest society in history, but we are no longer the dynamic heart of the global economy. Our military is still able to destroy at will, but the wars of the past decade have demonstrated the limits of that barbarism.
How should the U.S. public react to this shift? One approach would be to acknowledge that predatory corporate capitalism based on greed and First World imperialism based on violence have produced obscene levels of inequality, both within societies and between societies, that are inconsistent with those basic moral and political principles. Our task is to reshape systems and institutions before it's too late.
That kind of critical self-reflection also leads to the conclusion that our society not only fails on the criterion of social justice but also is ecologically unsustainable. We are a profligate, consumption-mad society, in a world in which unsustainable living arrangements are the norm in the developed world and spreading quickly in the developing world. We can't predict the time frame for collapse if we continue on this trajectory, but we can be reasonably certain that without major changes in our relationship to the larger living world the ecosphere will at some point (likely within decades) be unable to support large-scale human life as we know it.
These crises, if honestly acknowledged and squarely faced, would test our capacity to analyze and adapt -- there's no guarantee that enough time remains to prevent catastrophe. Without such honesty, there is no hope of a decent future.
So, the bad news is that we're in trouble.
The worse news is that the mainstream political culture cannot face this reality.
View the Original article
In mainstream politics in the United States, everyone agrees on one thing: We're number one. We're special. We're America. We're on top, where we deserve to be.
In dissident politics in the United States, we have long argued that this quest for economic and military dominance can't be squared with basic moral and political principles. We're on top, but it's unjust and unsustainable.
Whether or not the United States has ever had a legitimate claim to that top spot -- or whether there should be spots on top for any nation(s) -- the days of uncontested dominance are over: Our economy is in permanent decline and our military power continues to fade. We are still the wealthiest society in history, but we are no longer the dynamic heart of the global economy. Our military is still able to destroy at will, but the wars of the past decade have demonstrated the limits of that barbarism.
How should the U.S. public react to this shift? One approach would be to acknowledge that predatory corporate capitalism based on greed and First World imperialism based on violence have produced obscene levels of inequality, both within societies and between societies, that are inconsistent with those basic moral and political principles. Our task is to reshape systems and institutions before it's too late.
That kind of critical self-reflection also leads to the conclusion that our society not only fails on the criterion of social justice but also is ecologically unsustainable. We are a profligate, consumption-mad society, in a world in which unsustainable living arrangements are the norm in the developed world and spreading quickly in the developing world. We can't predict the time frame for collapse if we continue on this trajectory, but we can be reasonably certain that without major changes in our relationship to the larger living world the ecosphere will at some point (likely within decades) be unable to support large-scale human life as we know it.
These crises, if honestly acknowledged and squarely faced, would test our capacity to analyze and adapt -- there's no guarantee that enough time remains to prevent catastrophe. Without such honesty, there is no hope of a decent future.
So, the bad news is that we're in trouble.
The worse news is that the mainstream political culture cannot face this reality.
View the Original article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)