Re.Evolved

Op-Ed: Going veg doesn't have to be a big deal

2012-03-07T13:29:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I was mostly served microwaved chicken nuggets and french fries for dinner. When we had a salad it would consist of iceberg lettuce smothered in ranch dressing. Needless to say, eating vegetables wasn't something that came naturally for me. But today, I find myself craving cabbage and peppers far more than a burger or brat. My transition from omnivore to vegetarian is something that I eased into and I'd like to share how it's something you can easily accomplish as well. Being vegetarian may not be ideal for everyone, but for a number of reasons I believe adopting a veggie based diet is a good idea and doesn't have to be a stressful process.

Baby steps toward a veggie diet

I didn't simply decide one day that I would never eat meat again. Instead I decided, "I'd like to eat less meat". Many people would like to do the same but find it difficult in a culture where eating meat in 2 out of 3 (if not 3 out of 3) meals a day is standard. Meat products are everywhere in restuarants, cafes, and other stores. They're also very cheap because of the production style in factory farms. So it's easy to eat meat in America, some would say a meat diet is easier than a veggie one in current social conditions. However, there are several ways to get started with a vegetarian diet:

Set realistic goals. You do not have to give up all meat right away. Instead of eating meat everyday, first limit it to every other day, then only once a week, then once every two weeks, until you are accustomed to meals without it at all.
Try chosing just one type of meat to eliminate at first. Get used to what it's like to avoid that kind of meat and how to substitute it. From there you can move on to another meat and another, until you are meat free.
Use meat substitutes. Although "fake meat" can perpetuate mental dependence on meat, it can at least help in the transition until you are more comfortable with meals that don't include the texture of flesh. Of course there are soy products to use but there are other alternative as well like Quorn, so you have several options.

Is a vegetarian diet really healthier than an omnivorous one?

I don't think we can say there aren't any up-sides to eating meat. Meat does offer nutritional value and a significant amount of calroies to sustain life. Many athletes choose meat over carbohydrates/vegetables because in their personal experience that diet acheives results for them. However, as I will highlight more in the next section, you can get the same kinds of nutrition that meat offers but without the negative side effects (high cholesteral, hypertension...animal cruelty). Many seeds, grains, and even fruits can offer you high-density fatty acids, proteins, and minerals that are excellent fuel sources.

How a vegetarian diet has affected me

Eliminating meat from my diet makes weight control much easier, has given me more energy, and helped me experience new foods.

Though I maintained a healthy weight while eating omnivorously, it became even easier when those extra calories and fat from meat were eliminated. What is difficult is finding vegetarian options at fast food restaurants or other cheap food vendors. By making "no meat" a rule, it automatically took away my ability to eat at those undesireable places and cuts out fatty processed foods. No matter what I decide to eat from there is usually already an improvement on the average American diet.

During exercise, I find that I have plenty of energy needed to execute vigorous workouts and recuperate from them better. Contrary to popular belief, proteins produce a very small amount of energy (ATP) needed during exercise. Therefore, to power my workouts I rely more upon high-density fats from seeds and oils (along with certain carbohydrates). And though protein is linked to repairing muscles, I have found that I bounce back from heavy workouts more quickly since eliminating animal protein. I believe part of this is due to my vegetarian diet lowering the rates of stress hormones. Cortisol is a stress hormone known to cause sleeping problems, even insomnia. But a diet containing more whole-foods/vegetarian based is linked to lowering this hormone in humans. Therefore, because I sleep better, I allow my body more restfull time to repair itself and have more energy to keep working out.

As I've already mentioned, my upbringing didn't allow for much adventurous eating. So another benefit of going veg is being open to trying a variety of new things. I didn't even know some types of foods existed like quinoa for example. Quinoa is a South American crop grown mostly for its seeds. It's also known as the "super food" because it contains almost everything a person needs to survive within it; this includes protein and fats that are higher-density and therefore better for you than the kinds found in animal flesh. I've also explored the huge realm of vegetables previously unknown to me including a variety of dark greens not normally found in a standard American salad (kale, beet greens. etc.).

Don't let them make you feel badly

When I started telling friends and family that I was trying to go vegetarian, I got a lot of heckling or strange looks. It's almost as if being vegetarian isn't American. After all, the meat and dairy industry is huge for American companies. But who cares what anyone else thinks? It probably says more about their own defensive personality than anything about you because why should they care what you're eating anyway? Yet, on the other hand, I and other vegetarians/vegans do care about what the meat-eaters are eating. So is that a double standard or does being veg have more validity? I know what I would answer (paying someone to torture and kill animals on your behalf is wrong), but that doesn't mean I am objectively right or that there aren't other important arguments to consider. So in the end, dietary choices are up to the individual and you should eat what you believe is right for your life. Try something new and see how it affects your energy, mood , and overall health. No pressure - just adventure.

War as Entertainment

2012-02-08T10:49:00.000-07:00

Football Sunday! I day when two opposing sides meet on the grid iron to battle their way to victory. Only one team can win in this all male sport where hitting the opponent as hard as you can is ideal. Each Sunday during the season, a record number of Americans line up in front of their television sets to see who will win the battle. They also tune in to hear statistics, size up the enemy, and even to witness behind the scenes drama. This hugely popular sport is obviously a microcosm for the American obsession with war. However, is it really obsession, or is it that Americans can no longer tell the difference between war and football?

The physical violence is not the only, or most important, connection between American football and war in general. Some of the more simple ones are: team colors, team captains, and team positions. Yet, some other overarching connections make the two appear to go hand in hand: both are multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar industries creating revenue for all types of manufacturers, both have spectators (news coverage), and both are presented with comercials. Military advertisements are even found throughout stadiums and during broadcasts of games. This close correlation affects the average veiwer in many ways.

War is not a publically moral thing to condone; football, however, does not have that same moral stigma. Therefore, the more that war can resemble a Sunday afternoon football game, the more negativity it sheds. So the news stations cut from footage of war, to the army "coaches" discussing strategy on the field, then cut to comercials, then cut to celebrities performing for troops or giving their opinions on the "game": sounds disturbingly like the Superbowl. I believe this is a specific strategy in keeping the American veiwer from being critical of what they're seeing.

As long as war is entertainment-like, less questions will be asked about it; this is because, normally, things of merely entertainment value have negligible consequences. The public enjoys the entertainment of graphic news coverage wether it's of a running back getting pummeled, or a huge explosion in a convoy of troops. That enjoyment hinges on our ability to detached from the situation and see what's on the screen as entertainment with little consequence. Now, troops getting injured is hardly perceived as different from the running back getting injured. In a busy lifestlye with dozens of beeping and flashing gadgets, and constant streams of movies, music, and sports, who has time to pay close attention to the details anyway? Distract and deploy.

So try turning off the TV. Re-evaluate and re-evolve.

Bullshit? A Rebuttal

2011-12-15T07:50:00.002-07:00

Though my last post was focused around genetically engineered seeds, I recently saw something that disturbed me to the point of wanting to refute and discuss this same topic again. The famous magicians Penn & Teller have a TV show called "Bullshit!". On the show they assert their opinion on different controversial matters. Often the show is informative and entertaining. However, their episode on genetically engineered (GE) foods was far below par.

The magicians support the use of GE seeds for one sole reason: it will end world hunger. They use starvation statistics from Africa to back up their point that many people in the world do not get enough to eat. Therefore, they (and many others) believe that if we can increase food production, there will be enough food to feed many, if not all, the hungry mouths around the world. That's where GE seeds come in. GE seeds are made to be able to grow in harsh conditions where soil normally couldn't support growth. GE seeds are also often made to withstand herbicides allowing them to grow freely without weeds and insects hindering them. Ideally, GE seeds have the potential to produce large amounts food.

The first flaw in this episode of "Bullshit!" is when the magicians imply that GE food is a new, up and coming technology. They juxtapose, what they call, "Green Peace assholes" protesting GE companies, with dying kids in Africa; implying that groups like Green Peace are hampering a new technology that could end starvation. Here is what's wrong with that picture: GE seeds are not new, they have been in use for the past two decades. Today, 80% of corn and corn products are from GE seeds as well as over 90% of soy, over 60% of tomatoes, and 70% of general processed foods from soda to soup. Therefore, if GE seed use can end world hunger and a overwhelming majority of our produce is already made GE... shouldn't there have been a dent in world hunger by now, at least a little? The truth is quite the contray. Starvation rates dropped dramtically BEFORE the use of GE seeds from 1970 to 1990. But now that food production has turned to GE seed use, starvation rates have stagnated [1].

A vital mistake the magicians make is assuming that companies who make and distribute GE food actually want to help starving people. They assume people are naturally kind-hearted and as long as there is enough food, no one will starve. That is historically incorrect. The fact is, there has been plenty of food even before GE seeds. But poor, starving people can't pay for corn, tomatoes, etc. Starving people would have to get it for free. Yet, distributing food freely and equaly is "socialism" and simply not profitable for companies. That is how you get half of Americans at obese weight levels while people starve to death in other countries.

The answer to starvation is not to make more and more food because that food is going to go to people who can pay for it and who, frankly, don't even need it anyway. For a male of average height to maintain a weight of over 300 pounds, he would have to eat up to 3,000 calories per day. Knowing that a man of that description (which also describes 30% of Americans) could survive on not even 2,000 calories, he could feed a child every single day on the amount of food he consumes just for himself. The hunger problem is not in amounts of food, it's in distribution of that food - it will go to the highest bidder everytime. GE seeds could be helpful, but only in the hands of people not out for profit.

Since we have just reviewed reasons why GE food is not the answer to ending world hunger, the question becomes, why bother using GE at all? There are documented negative effects of GE seeds including health risks to humans and degradation of soil for future crops. So, again, if it is not helping world hunger and is in fact harmful, what really is "bullshit" here?

Soy's Problem

2011-12-09T12:13:00.024-07:00

In the United States, 75 million acres of land are dedicated to Soybean crop. Soy is a $40 billion business in America which is a number that's been increasing steadily every year [1]. With the rise of health conscious dieting, including awareness of the affects of processed food and factory farming, individuals are turning to soy for their protein and dairy supplement needs. Unfortunately, soy may not be as healthy or environmentally friendly as some believe because of a big business takeover of the American seed market.

Nelson Farms grows soybeans as well as wheat and sugar beets on their 8,000 acres [2]. The farm is ran by Roger Nelson and his two sons; they are being sued by the world's largest seed distributor Monsanto. The Nelsons bought Monsanto's Genetically Modified (GM) seeds in the 90s and due to a contractual agreement, must buy seeds from Monsanto every year. This is because in Monsanto's terms farmers are prohibited from saving their own seeds from their crop each year, forcing them to purchase new ones every growing season. Monsanto has accused the Nelson's of "seed saving"; the Nelson's deny the charges.

The problem with Monsanto's terms is not just that farmers must buy new seeds each year, but that Monsanto has eliminated nearly all of its competitors through ruthlessly squeezing smaller distributors. Monsanto has bought out several smaller companies and started many spin-offs from them as well, the little companies can't compete with such a giant and so have no other choice [3]. Another incentive Monsanto has used to corner the market is that their seeds are "Roundup Ready" (RR). Roundup is another product Monsanto manufactures and so they've modified their seeds to be compatible with this particular herbicide; it saves the farmers time and money, theoretically, as well as forces them to rely solely on Monsanto for their farming needs. 95% of all soy and 80% of all corn in the US are from Monsanto GM, RR seeds: a staggering figure.

What does this mean for you and me? It means two things: unjust prices and inferior nutrition.

With so many products being made from soybeans these days and Monsanto controlling 95% of those products, when Monsanto raises its prices virtually every single dinner table in America is affected. And they have raised their prices. Within the last decade, seed costs have doubled [4]. The seed market, and many items on your own personal grocery list, are directly affected by Monsanto's pricing decisions and by hardly anyone or anything else. That is the epitome of a monopoly.

You and your family's nutritional intake is also directly affected by Monsanto's decisions. Genetic modification twists seeds into great money making tools, but also, unfortunately, twists them into pale nutritional comparisons to their natural brothers and sisters. Plants grown from RR seeds have increased numbers of parasitic colonies at their bases and roots and have been found to suffer more from Sudden Death Syndrome than non-RR plants. Robert Kremer conducted this research and in his own words RR seeds, "[alter] the whole soil biology. We are seeing differences in bacteria in plant roots and changes in nutrient availability" [5]. One of Kremer's future studies is to find ways to combat the negative effects of RR seeds which would need to include supplementation of nutrients as foods made from RR seeds do not provide enough for your body.

In laboratories, rats and rabbits that were fed a diet of RR seeds suffered from: liver cell problems, pancreatic problems, unexplained changes in testicular cells, altered metabolism in organs, and offspring dying within a few weeks of birth. One farmer even claims that his animals instinctutally know to avoid foods made from GM seeds when they are given the choice.

How can you avoid non-GM soy? Unfortunately, there is no easy way. Products in grocery stores are not required to indicate whether or not they are genetically modified and, frankly, even if they did, 95% of your choices at the store would be GM foods anyway. Yet, if we could get a labeling system imposed, it may be a great step in the right direction. "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." -Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co. Requiring GM labels on food is something Monsanto is terrified of. As outlined by the Organic Consumers Association, a clear indication of the impact of warning labels was established in California in 1986 when voters passed a ballot initiative called Proposition 65, which required consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels. Rather than label their products sold in California (and all over the nation) as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether.

Soy may be a good source of vegetarian protein and have other positive health effects, but that's not necessarily true for the type of soy we're given in American products. Monsanto's grip on farming stifles our opportunity for fair nutrition. Slowly, our personal nutritional choices are being taken away. Encourage your state representatives to initiate a bill requiring GM foods to be labeled. Or if you'd rather stay out of the political arena, you can always seek out alternatives to soy products. Instead of soy milk you can purchase almond or rice milk. Instead of buying "fake meat" made from soy, you can buy meat substitutes made from mushrooms like Quorn. We can fight monopolizing big business, that cares less for our health and more for their profits, one refrigerator at a time.

Animalkind - A Short History of Animal Rights and Activism

2011-12-02T10:38:00.013-07:00

Animal rights and activism can be traced centuries into the past. Bear-baiting was first prohibited in England in 1835. Yet even further back than that, some of the first animal rights laws passed were in 1635 when it was made illegal to pull the wool off of sheep or tie plows to the tails of horses. Therefore, the collective social concern for the wellbeing of non-human animals is not a new concept. However, the modern age of animal activism can't be said to have began until the mid 1970s when philosopher Peter Singer published his book, Animal Liberations. Singer based many of his arguments on utilitarianism. In his book, Singer asserts that humans and non-humans alike do not have distinct natural rights but instead have equal consideration of interests. Animal Liberations sparked the interests of many scholars and to this day it stands as the canonical piece of animal rights literature. Since the mid 70s more and more groups and agencies have risen to aid animals against mistreatment.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was formed in 1980. This group advocates veganism; highlighting that eating meat is only one way in which animals are mistreated. They rally against fur/leather clothing, vivisection, circuses, and other animal abuses. PETA is known for collecting undercover evidence at various animal facilities and filing lawsuits when they find mistreatment. Currently, PETA has a lawsuit open against SeaWorld on behalf of the Orcas that are kept there. What is interesting about this case is how PETA asserts that the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, doesn't just apply to humans but to all species. PETA is sometimes called "radical" or even "crazy" for the extreme enthusiasm their members exude toward helping animals. Though everything can be taken too far, calling PETA "crazy" is not a constructive argument against their work and undermines the progress they've made in legitimately relieving animals of harmful situations.

Five years later marked the first annual Great American Meatout organized by Farm Animal Reform Movement. The year being 1985, many Americans didn't even know what a vegan diet was, hence the Meatout ads may have been the first exposure some families had to this idea. Now individuals could consider different options to factory farming which was growing greatly at the time (and still is).

Animal rights really came to the forefront in 1987 after a high school student in California refused to dissect a frog in her science class. She believed that ''animals are just as alive as we are". Though this seems like a small gesture from a child, it made headlines around the nation and spurred a four year lawsuit. The up and coming generation was beginning to view animals differently. They were also starting to question what is justifiable as means to an end in the pursuit of scientific enlightenment.

Here is a short list of animal rights landmarks that followed:

1989: Avon and Revlon stop testing their products on animals [1]; [2].

1993: General Motors stops using live animals in car crash testing. Over 19,000 animals had been killed in crash tests since 1981 [3]; [4].

1997: PETA releases a VIDEO showing animal abuses at Huntingdon Life Sciences. (WARNING: before you click on the link to the video, know that it is very disturbing and could upset some viewers. Then again, hiding from the truth empowers these things to continue.)

2001: Compassion Over Killing stages a documented rescue at a battery hen facility [5].

2002: McDonald's settles a lawsuit for mis-advertising their french fries as vegetarian. (The "natural ingredients" added to enhance flavor include beef extract) [6].

2006: Under the Animal Rights Terrorism Act, the "SHAC 7" are convicted for operating a website that reported on and expressed support for protests against Huntingdon (from the PETA video) and their associates; a blow to animal activism [7].

2007: Horse slaughtering is banned in the United States [8].

RECENT UPDATE- 2011: Horse slaughter ban has been lifted with PETA's support.

Another recent event in the world of animal rights happened this November (2011). The USDA has fined Ringling Bros. circus for mistreatment of animals. Ringling Bros. have agreed to pay $270,000 for violating the Animal Welfare Act on several occasions. In short, the elephants were being chained improperly, forced to work while sick, and abused with "bullhooks". The USDA can fine up to $10,000 per incident. Also, the circus moguls have agreed to instate new training protocol for individuals working with the animals. This is the largest fine in circus history [9].

Animal rights and activism are concepts stemming back through the centuries, but they are evolving concepts struggled with to this very day. From cosmetics, to farming, to fast food, many industries have been affected by new laws triggered by activism. Though there've been great steps forward in obtaining fair and ethical conditions for all animal species, there are still problems as well. Vivisection facilities still exist on many college campuses and the huge consumption of meat in the US has increased the harshness of living conditions for animals being raised for slaughter. To put into perspective of how much we rely on animal products, check out THIS LIST of products made from cows alone. The history of animal rights is expansive and even conjures questions about our own place on this planet and our moral role within the universe.

UPDATE 12.5.11
America's 5th largest egg farm caught for animal abuse by undercover video taken by Mercy for Animals. WATCH HERE.
UPDATE 12.2.11:
I came across this ARTICLE describing the second chimp in space and the malfunctioning equipment that made his journey devastating.

The Reagan Standard

2011-10-11T10:38:00.005-06:00

I started working on this post a while ago when the death of bin Laden was fresh news. It's something not on our minds so much now with Occupy Wall Street and what not, but it's never NOT relevent:

What is terrorism and how should the world deal with terrorists? The killing of Osama bin Laden has stirred these questions for some. As an American, I feel I have been given an inaccurate view of terrorism and terrorists. I've seen the celebrations on mainstream media of Americans over-joyed with the death of bin Laden. In fact, his killing has seemed to bring both liberals and conservatives together admitting that either way "he had to go". Yet, I believe something is missing. Though the death of bin Laden is not something to be sad about, I wonder why Americans aren't more angry at their government for operating with such hypocracy.

Terrorism is defined as: systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve ideological or political gain.

In the 1980's, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans were killed by bombings and shootings in, some would say, the worst acts of terrorism the world has seen. This was done is the name of ridding the world of Communism by the Ronald Reagan administration. Reagan stood to gain a lot from terrorizing the people of Nicaragua: namely, the overthrow of a non-allied ruler. Stomping out the Nicaraguan government and supporting the Contras ensured a new ruler who would bend to the will of the US government (sound familiar?). Reagan funded his "war" by illicit arms sales to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran (and in turn, to the Taliban). All the while, and to this day, Reagan was able to keep the guise of the good guy; he was spreading democracy and "the American way" to less fortunate people (again, sound familiar?).

You may be asking yourself, if what Reagan did was so bad then why hasn't anyone spoken out or tried to do anything about it? The answer is: they did take notice and they did try to do something about it. In 1984 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled, in the case of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, that U.S. support for rebels fighting to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua violated both "customary international law" and a 1956 Nicaraguan-U.S. friendship treaty. The US was guilty of illegally placing mines in Nicaraguan harbors. The court also ruled that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras. ICJ demanded that the US pay reperations to the Nicaraguan people. However, the Reagan administration simply said it would ignore the ruling because the court has no power to enforce its decision. Seriously. They were seemingly correct and to this day the U.S. government has taken no responsibility for their acts of terrorism. The United Nations established ICJ after WWII to, basically, rule on morality and put a checks and balance system into place so large nations/armies cannot steamroll their way to political gain. The U.S., historically, accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis (or when it's convenient).

Who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? Apparently, we're afraid to view our own country's actions as terrorism and are willing to let history repeat itself over and over while small, impoverished groups take the blame. In the late '80s a top CIA official, Jonh Stockwell, testified that, at the time, over 6 million people had been killed by American acts of terrorism in covert operations... how many more have been killed since then under the false flag of democracy?

The Value of People's Worth

2011-03-02T10:11:00.001-07:00

Some of you may be familiar with the "Bidder 70" trial of Tim DeChristopher. In short, DeChristopher disrupted a federal auction of Utah lands that were being sold to oil and coal companies. He disrupted the auction by bidding on and purchasing some of this land so it would be protected from drilling and such. He of course did not actually have enough money but this was his direct action to try and protect what he believed in. His trial started on February 28th, 2011. At which time a group called Peaceful Uprising called for supporters to rally at his trial to make sure that everyone knew how much Utahns and other Americans supported DeChristopher's actions. A funny thing happened for me, however, I initially decided not to attend the rally because I had to work...

Having to work is the end all for many people. It drives when and how they do things. Here was an event I strongly wanted to attend, yet I had doubts because some corporate jag-off expected me to sit in a dark cubicle all day typing into a box. The absurdity is overwhelming. How did I get this way? When did my priorities become so backwards? But some might say that it's important to attend your job becuase you need to make money to support yourself. Well, that's true. If I don't work, I won't not survive; I must work for money which I exchange for food, clothing and shelter (and a bunch of other useless crap as well). How convenient for the corporate machine. I really have no option, I'll always need SOME kind of job... at least that is what we're raised to believe.

Value used to be in things like food and clothing; that makes sense, I need to eat and I need to stay warm. Then gold and silver was considered valuable and could be used for trade; makes less sense but at least this is a tangible item found in the earth. Paper bank notes were later invented so the bank or your employer didn't actually have to pay gold directly to you, they could basically "owe" you. Somehow that practice caught on resulting in modern day currency. Stranger yet is what we've arrived at most recently: imaginary value. You get the idea of value directly deposited into your account each pay period. Supposedly there is gold somewhere to back this up, but in reality there simply isn't. You have been conditioned to believe that an imaginary figure in an electronic account is valuable. Lucky no one goes in and screws up the system... I mean can you really prove how much "value" you have? Our current system can be compared to the Tulip Mania in Holland in the 17th century: people give worth to things merely based on a popular delusion.

When food and shelter was no longer enough to scare citizens into falling in line, other things were invented to make sure you kept coming back to work. Phones, makeup, the newest car, the freshest clothes, the list goes on with things that keep you delirious. How much do you pay for a haircut? Oh you can't cut your own hair? Says who? They've fooled us into policing ourselves: if your hair is ugly and unkempt your self-worth shrinks smaller and smaller, your peers will make sure of that. So yet again, just surviving isn't enough, work work work to save yourself from social ridicule. I'm a hypocrite in all sorts of ways, but here I can at least say I haven't had a "professional" cut my hair since I was a teenager; my hair is quite dull and I am proud to say I don't give a fuck. Now if I could just quit playing video games...

So this brings me right back around to the matter at hand. Something very physically real is happening in Utah and all over the nation; after the system crashes and my cubicle stands empty in decay, I'll have to rely once again on something tangible to save not only my iPod but my life. Yet, that very Utah land I'll have to rely upon is being pillaged and it will not be able to recover in my lifetime. This is something DeChristopher understood. Once again I wonder why I hesitated even a little bit when deciding whether or not to speak out for what I hold dearly.

Remember how the Tulip Mania ended-- you might want to believe that everything can last forever but it surely will not. Your bank account is imaginary. Your "value" is imaginary. It's not hard to strip you of something you never really had in the first place. The entire idea of an "economy" was made up by someone one day, prices are driven up and down by legal gambling on Wall Street; it's most definitely not "just the way of the world". They have forced this sytem upon you and make you believe you have no other choice. Re-think and re-evolve. I assure you there is an alternative to all of... this... everyday, going to work, having the job done on us.

"Your mind for a job, your mind for a TV, your mind for a hair dryer, your mind for consumption....

Devastating your natural shelters making you homeless on earth, chasing you into illusions fooling you, making you pretend you can run away from the ravishing of your spirit." JT

PS- I went to the rally.

Right the Wrong

2010-11-03T15:46:00.002-06:00

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
[DATE]

Dear President Obama:

As the President during such a crucial time in our nation’s history, it appears you understand the urgency for the acceptance of equality and social justice into our nation’s society. I believe that granting Executive Clemency to Leonard Peltier is the right step in the direction in proving that, “yes, we can.” If you do truly understand the need for change in our country, you will agree with me.

I believe Peltier was wrongfully convicted for the 1975 shooting deaths of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. U.S. prosecutors have repeatedly admitted that they did not and cannot prove Peltier's guilt and the appellate courts have cited numerous instances of investigative and prosecutorial misconduct in this case. As late as November 2003, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that "…Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and its prosecution of Leonard Peltier should be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed."

The courts claim they lack the power to right this wrong but, as President, you can.
In this case, I believe your concern should not only be for judicial honesty and decency, but for equal treatment for all citizens. From the time of Peltier's conviction until the mid-1990s, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the average length of imprisonment served for homicide in the United States ranged from 94 to 99.8 months. Even if you were to take Peltier's two consecutive life sentences into account at the higher end of this range, it is clear that Peltier should have been released a very long time ago. Personalized and politically motivated vengeance of this kind cannot be tolerated. The concepts of justice and good government require that you act to correct this wrong.

Leonard Peltier is over 60 years old and his health is deteriorating. He has suffered a stroke which left him partially blind in one eye. For many years, Peltier had a seriously debilitating jaw condition which left him unable to chew properly and caused constant pain and headaches. Today, Leonard Peltier continues to suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure, and a heart condition. He risks blindness, kidney failure, stroke, and certainly premature death given his diet, living conditions, and health care.

There are a people of this great nation that deserve to be heard. The continued imprisonment of Leonard Peltier is yet one more way in which they have been silenced. I am not asking you to give aide to this extremely impoverished minority, many of whom live in third-world conditions and have a much lower life expectancy rate than the rest of our nation: a nation they too have fought to defend. No, I am not asking you to go as far as to address these issues. Instead, I simply ask that you grant an innocent man his freedom which, in turn, will give so much hope to a decimated people.

Mr. President, do the right thing, grant Executive Clemency to Leonard Peltier right away. Thank you for giving fair consideration to Leonard Peltier.

Copy this and write or email The White House.

Want explinations? View Incident at Oglala. It is available through Netflix. If you don't know the story, please learn about it.

Assimilation - A Raw Deal

2010-08-17T19:50:00.003-06:00

When it comes to United States government policy and action regarding American Indians, the right hand never seems to know what the left hand does. While some members of congress and other officials appear to have good intentions, the policy on Native Americans is clearly one of pure cultural genocide. A good indian is no longer "a dead indian" but one who pays his or her taxes and votes in the presidential election.

American Indians were given allotments of land and their holdings privitized under the Dawes Act of 1887. In just 47 years that Act was reversed with the Indian Reorganization Act. Also known as The Indian New Deal, Indian Reorganization was designed to give specific rights to all Native people and return reservations to self-government which the Dawes Act had taken away. John Collier of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) created this bill to allow the tribal councils to take back control of their assets, allow them to employ legal council, require a majority vote before land transactions could take place, and allow the tribal council to negotiate with the Federal, State, and local government (like a sovereign nation). However, though Reorganization had many positive affects, it still seemed aimed at American Indian assimilation into white culture through censusing, censoring, and power struggles over assests.

Negatives within this bill become more apparent when looking at other stipulations of Indian Reorganization, like how each tribe only had a certain amount of time to register officially. They had to count their people and how much land they had and register it with the Federal government. If the tribe failed to register in time they were excluded from being recognized and, therefore, not eligiable for Federal aide. Also, the tribal councils could only create constitutions that were approved by the US governement. A good question to ask at this point is how exactly is that sovereignty? Does the US require Norway to give drafts of their constitution before accepting them as a country?

There are now 564 officially recognized tribes but, yet again, the United States decided there may be a quicker and more perminent way to assimilate the American Indian into main stream culture, hence completing their termination. Fittingly and surprisingly blunt, this policy was named "Indian Termination". The logic behind this was that American Indians would be better off if assimilated and did not have any dependencey on government aide (aide only awarded after most other land and resources were stripped away and their culture all but banned, making self sustainability extremely difficult). Therefore, they would no longer be sovereign, they would no longer be anything. The idea was to completely erase Native tribes all together by making them US citizen with all rights and privledges that went along with it. It was "in their best interest".

Putting this policy into effect proved difficult and ultimately it was a failure. The Menominee of Wisconsin were one tribe the government pushed into termination in 1954. The Menominee were considered great candidates for termination because their lumber industry could support their people. But after several years of preparing for termination and $8.5 million in aide, the Menominee reservation (now Menominee County) still could not overcome the damage already done to its community. Menominee County was the poorest and least populated of any Wisconsin county and so it lacked the much needed tax base to provide even basic necessities. Several issues plagued the lumber mill there and ultimately the government knew it must put a halt to this process. Only one other tribe, the Klamath of Oregon, had attempted to be terminated before the government stopped all further terminations. The Menominee finally regained their status as a nation in 1973.

The effects of termination were painfully clear by the time the Menominee retained their tribal status. By 1972 they had a 75% high school drop out rate. This was caused by the closing of tribal schools which forced kids to attend public white schools where they were severely discriminated against, not to mention a curriculum that emphasized a modern, individualistic society: counter to the community and social structure the kids grew to understand. Health care was also an issue because the Menominee no longer qualified for Indian Health Services (which is similar to medicare) after their recognition as a tribe was taken away. Their local hospitals and clinics were closed and left them without means to secure privitized health care. So when tuberculosis struck the community 25% of the population was affected and were unable to receieve treatment.

Ultimately, the failure of the Indian Termination Policy was for the best. Many American Indians were against it in the first place because it meant the completetion of social genocide. No hearings were ever held to voice opinions and concerns on the matter and only a very small handfull of tribal leaders ever advocated for termination (and that was before the trial and error period proved the idea to be detrimental). The fact that no hearings were held for the communities that were to be affected is very telling. The US stance has always appeared to be one of arrogance. The idea that if "they could just keep regular jobs and be given modern luxuries" will not solve the problem. White America cannot expect to force an entire group of people to understand and advocate a 9-5, tax paying culture when it is a great break from their own preferred manner of social structure. Let's remember, Native American children were forced away from their homes and placed in boarding schools where they were forbidden to speak their own language (among other restrictions) all the way through the 1960's. The voice of an entire people has/is marginalized and silenced. It's also clear that the United States would rather hastily try to "deal" with the "Indian situation" rather than recognize the nations properly and as human beings that have a right to retain their culture.

For more information on Native American relationships with the US government, check out Vine Deloria Jr.'s book Custer Died For Your Sins.

"'Progress' [as the term is understood and taught within white culture] is the absolute destruction of the real world in favor of a technology that creates a comfortable way of life for a few fortunately situated people." -VDJ

Dear Subway

2010-07-19T09:59:00.002-06:00

Please read this letter and consider using it yourself. Simply copy it (I don't mind) and add your own contact info at the end. Here are different places you can submit it:

        Customer Care Team
       Subway Franchise
       325 Bic Drive
        Milford, CT 06461-3059

To Customer Services and Sales Management at Subway,

From personal experience frequenting Subway stores in several states including Wisconsin, Michigan, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado, it has become apparent that the use of plastic bags by the Subway franchise may pose a concern to the environment. The official Subway website claims that 2,800 sandwiches are sold every 60 seconds in just the United States alone (not including the 90 other countries where Subway does business). That means hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of plastic bags are being distributed every 60 seconds by Subway employees. A plastic bag is given to each customer regardless if they are "dining-in" or "taking-out". Furthermore, when a customer stays at subway to eat their sandwich, they are not given the option to recycle their plastic bags afterwards because only a regular garbage bin is available to customers. Therefore, many of those plastic bags are used for merely a few minutes and then thrown directly into the waste bin destined for a landfill or the ocean.

Plastic poses a threat to the environment because it does not biodegrade easily and quite often it ends up in our water systems through careless transportation practices. Plastic is known to absorb toxic chemicals such as PCBs. When the plastic has broken into smaller parts, marine life often consumes the pieces along with the toxic chemicals. Even when the plastic does not reach the ocean it still poses a threat; thousands of birds are killed yearly from entanglement and complications from the consumption of plastics.

One way to curb the threat of plastic to the environment is to cut down on our plastic use overall. It is my experience that Subway restaurants distribute a large quantity of plastic bags to customers who are not given the option to recycle. Therefore, Subway could be a huge help in the reduction of plastic consumption if the franchise were to either stop offering plastic bags to dine-in customers or, at the very least, make plastic recylcing available to those dining-in. This could even work to Subway's advantage, producing an advertising campaign targeted at those concerned about "green living".

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jayna G.
insert your address here

In the meantime, all of you reading this should consider requesting not to receive a plastic bag when you go to Subway (whether you're staying there to eat or not). And hey, might as well do the same thing at other stores as well like gas stations and the grocery store! Subway is just one place that over uses plastic.

Organic Doesn't Matter? -- Getting Re-Connected with Your Food

2010-07-13T10:16:00.001-06:00

mumszine.wordpress.com

"Organic", "natural", what do these words bring to mind for you? Some might think of good nutrition and fitness. Some, however, may think "hippy, new age, passing fad garbage." It's the latter mind set this article is set out to educate and to clarify what "organic" actually means. You may have heard on many occasions that no food product is different from another: chicken is chicken, lettuce is lettuce, peanut butter is peanut butter, and so on. This is not accurate as you will learn further in this article. Just because you cannot see each chemical that's in your food doesn't mean there isn't a plethora added, and just because you can't see how the food is grown doesn't mean you can assume it's been harvested/prepared safely. We have disconnected from our food. It used to be that you handled your own crops and slaughtered your own chickens; now most of our food might as well have been magically created ready to go in its container. Because of this, individuals have become apathetic towards what they put in their body. Detaching one's self from one's food leads to poor dietary choices.

Let's start with a simple example. It's safe to assume that most individuals reading this have used maple syrup on pancakes, waffles, etc. Syrup is syrup right? Wrong. Do you even know what you are consuming? Here are the ingredients in the popular Aunt Jemima brand of maple syrup (1):

Corn Syrup
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Water
Cellulose Gum
Caramel Color
Salt
Sodium Benzoate
Sorbic Acid
Artificial and Natural Flavors
Sodium Hexametaphosphate

You'll notice that out of all those ingredients including preservatives and artificials made from crude oil, that one key ingredient is missing... MAPLE SYRUP! If you are eating brands like Aunt Jemima or Eggo, you're not consuming a single drop of actual maple syrup. Some children grow up with only these brands so consider how they've never tasted real maple syrup in their entire lives. If you compare that to USDA "organic" brands like Maple Valley you'll see how different the list is. In fact, there isn't a list of ingredients at all. There is no need to print a list because the contents are exactly what it says on the bottle: pure maple syrup from an actual living tree. Now, clearly there is a huge difference here between something claiming to be organic and one that isn't... does it really make no difference to your body? Consuming real, tree-tapped syrup is no better than eating huge amounts of corn syrup and artificial flavors and preservatives that have been proven carcinogenic (like sodium benzoate)?

Maple syrup ingredients are merely one example of how some organic foods really do differ from their artificial counterparts. I say "some" organic foods because that term should now be clarified. "Organic" is defined as: something that does not contain antibiotics, hormones, genetic engineering, or artificial flavor and color. No artificials? What does artificial technically mean? Artificials are things not directly taken from a plant, animal, mineral, or have gone through a synthetic process which changes their chemical make up. So here are the three levels of certification and their descriptions that the USDA rates food on (2):

100% Organic - can only contain proven organic ingredients (using the definition of "organic" listed above). *Allowed to display USDA certification logo.
Organic - Contains 95% organic ingredients. *Allowed to display the certification logo.
Made with Organic Ingredients - Contains 70% organic ingredients. *Not allowed to display the USDA logo.

It should be noted that it is not illegal for brands to use the words "organic" or "natural" on their packaging but those will not be able to display the USDA logo and cannot pass themselves off as having any certification. Therefore, it is true that not all items saying "organic" may be so, but is this reason to discredit all items that are natural and organic? There will always be companies motivated by profit that will try and deceive you, but to discount the benefits of eating organically simply because of these bad-apples is absurd. Regulating all of this is difficult with such a huge global food industry, but looking for certifications is not a bad way to start your search for more pure food.

Another aspect to organic food is how your meat is treated before it becomes your meat. To be "organic", chickens, cows, pigs, etc. cannot be given any hormones or antibiotics. The more poorly an animal is treated (forced into tight spaces, surrounded by feces and other dying animals), the more likely it will get sick, hence the huge amount of antibiotics they're often given (the FDA routinely detects traces of the antibiotics in grocery store meat). Therefore, to be organic, the animals must be strong and healthy enough to survive without those things. This forces the owners to treat their animals better and in turn the meat is healthier for you. In the end, eating meat that is certified free-range, grass-fed, or cage-free gives you a better chance of not consuming hormones and other chemicals. It may even give you some assurance that the pig you're eating didn't develop health disorders connected to "factory depression" or other emotional turmoil (3).

As stated above not all food that claims "all natural" or "organic" may be legit and even organic certification can't tell you everything about the items you're buying. That's why the best way to know what your food's made of is to actually see where it comes from. Research your local farms and local food production factories. Go visit them. If the farm or factory is legitimate in their claim of organic products, they'll have no problem with giving you a tour. You can then realize the exact cycle by which your food is raised, processed, and shipped before it ultimately ends up inside your body. Getting re-connected with your food by seeing what it actually takes to reach your table is a sure way to help you start caring about how it affects your life.

Organic vs. "regular" food has become a political issue like so many other things (global warming) that instead should stay in the socio-scientific sphere. It's quite amazing that artificial food full of chemicals is now considered to be the "regular" food for our culture. In my experience, the "regular" food-eaters who use terms like "new ager" to put down the organic culture, are often people who don't even know how to read a nutrition label. Therefore, it is the opinion of this article that using ad hominem attacks to marginalize people who promote organic living stems from the defensiveness of those who would rather not put the time and effort into eating healthily. The food industry, including fast food restaurants, would like you to believe that food is just food and they've made it very easy for you to access their products at anytime and in abundance. However, re-examine what you're consuming daily and maybe you'll realize that not all food is created equal.

Beer vs. Soda

2010-07-06T07:16:00.002-06:00

Both alcohol and soft drinks affect your liver. Alcohol's most pointed-out negative effect is it's link to liver disease. Also, beer is linked to reckless behavoir when consumed in large amounts. However, is alcohol consumption worse than drinking soda? Soft drinks are, as you will see further in this article, proven to cause far more adverse effects than alcoholic beverages; this makes one wonder why it is legal for all ages of people to drink soda while there are campaigns against the consumption of alcohol altogether. Though nothing is good to consume in excess, we may have our regulations backwards when it comes to the beverages we choose to endorse. Beer has some of the same negative effects that soda does, but it has been linked to positive health benefits as well, whereas pop is just simply... well... bad for you. So why are Americans hooked on it?

The United States is ranked 13th in the world for beer consumption with about 21 gallons per person per year (1). However, the US is ranked 1st in soda consumption with each individual drinking over 50 gallons per year: almost double the amount as the 2nd ranked country (2). Clearly, the fact that beer is illegal to drink under the age of 21 affects the amount consumed nationally. Because no age restriction is enforced for soft drinks, millions of dollars are spent every year on soda advertising. The TV spots, internet ads, billboards and sponsorships are everywhere constantly. Athletes, concerts, and festivals are routinely sponsored by the likes of Mt. Dew and Pepsi for example. On the other hand, alcohol advertising is one of the most highly regulated forms of marketing. Beer companies must be extremely careful about when and where their ads are seen. The push for soft drinks and the demonization of alcohol is pondersome though becuase soda isn't much better for you than beer.

Drinking just one daily 12oz. can of soda (160 calories) is linked to gaining about 16 pounds annually. A human liver cannot handle the 30 teaspoons of sugar that an average soda contains so it does the only thing it can do - turn the sugar into stored fat. In addition, most soft drinks contain phosphoric acid which interferes with the body's ability to process calcium and so leads to osteoporosis. Phosphoric acid is also linked to digestive interference that blocks the absorbtion of nutrients. Vitamin D deficiency, for example, is a huge problem in the US (3); this can be linked with not getting enough sun exposure, but couple the amount of time children spend inside watching TV and the amount of phosphoric acid they consume, blocking the utilization of vitamins, and you have a scary combination.

You may be thinking "yeah but that is for regular pop, I drink diet." Well, you may be surprised at how much worse diet soda can actually be than regular; it's even linked to MORE weight gain than with regular soft drinks. When you drink something sweet your body prepares for caloric intake, but with diet sodas there aren't any calories to process. This urges your body to seek food even if you weren't hungry before drinking the diet drink. In 2008, researchers at Purdue University tested this theory on rats and found that the ones on a diet of artificial sweeteners, like saccharin found in diet soda, gained more weight than the rats eating real sugars. Also, artificial sweeteners like aspartame are linked to over 92 health side effects including tumors, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and emotional disorders. To read more about the dangerous chemicals in both diet and regual soft drinks, read an article previously posted on this blog entitled Preservatives - getting more than you bargained for.

Whereas the list of negative health effects for soda seems to go on forever, beer actually can offer something positive. A study reported by Archives of Internal Medicine found that women who had two alcoholic drinks a day were less likely to gain weight (4) . This is important when considering how being overweight, especially in the abdomen, puts an individual at higher risk of diabetes and heart disease. The study found that the women who gained the most weight were those who drank no alcohol at all. One theory is that the women who gained the most weight did so because they chose soft drinks over the alcohol.

Let's compare soda and beer a little more closely now. Though beer has empty calories just as soft drinks do, the calories in beer are mostly from complex carbohydrates whereas soda is filled with simple carbs. Therefore, the emptiness of the calories is greater in soft drinks and those simple carbs are more likely to lead to diabetes. Also, the CO2 levels in beer are much lower than in soda, making soda consumption more likely to lead to brittle bones and teeth. In another study, beer is linked to lower colesteral levels for those who have one drink a day as well.

So what's with the overload of soft drink advertising we see? Clearly soft drinks can be dangerous to drink. Yet, soda advertisers bombard all forms of media with images of their product and especially target children. Remember the Coca-Cola ad that uses the polar bears? This is a clear effort to make their soft drink appear family-like and fun. Kids love the sugary taste and are high consumers of the beverage. Targetting children is a sure way to make them consumers for life. At the same time, beer is demonized when shown to children. Beer continues to be an occasional type drink, as it probably should be, but soda is an everyday lifestyle choice for most individuals. A soft drink with your combo meal is the standard.

Deaths related to alcohol are more quick and easily spotted than the deaths from soda consumption; like a drunk driver killing a family or a man dying of liver disease. That is why many individuals have a hard time realizing the dangers of soft drinks while simple-mindedly spotting the dangers in beer. However, this article is trying to suggest that soda not only kills more people, albeit more slowly, but also reduces your quality of life. It is not this article's intention to convince more people to drink more beer (the health risks in drinking it are obvious and true), but to reduce their consumption of soda and even consider using beer as a substitute once in a while, in moderation. Your decision to drink soda over beer is not completely your own. Law has regulated our choices quite carefully and we are fooled into thinking it's for our own good. Re-consider how your beverage choices are affecting your life in the long-term. It's not even about living longer but living happier; and if you feel happy and healthy then living longer will be a pleasure. Take care of yourself and this one chance at life you have can be amazing.

Broadcasting the Globe Over

2010-06-22T09:13:00.041-06:00

The world cup 2010 has started and fans are heavily glued to their television sets. It's amazing how a game in South Africa can be seen in Australia, Russia, and the United States simultaneously. Technology has launched us into an age of endless information and entertainment. Most of us are even overloaded with it from the radio to our computers and everywhere in-between. Even the far reaches of the Earth have signals coming in for television. People in the most remote areas can now view Switzerland scoring a goal against Spain. Yet, there are some individuals who do not have access to such information; but are they missing out? What does it mean to have access to information at all times and is it a good thing? Should more people be given the same opportunities for viewing entertainment and information as we have? These questions become more important as technology keeps expanding and globalization grips the people of the Earth - especially when a global market is being controlled by a small group of people with homogenous ideas.

There is hardly a country on Earth that is television free. The majority of the world saw the invention and rise of TV between 1930 and 1960. Some on the other hand didn't experience the TV invasion even until the 1990's including many parts of Africa and lower Asia. Click HERE for details. To this day, however, the most viewers of television are located in the US, Canada, Japan, and certain European countries. Check out THIS MAP to see what countries are lowest on that list. The United States by far has the most television use with 99% of households having at least one TV; over 50% have 3 per household. This shows us that mass information and entertainment has A) slowly spread to now cover the globe and B) become more engrained within our culture for longer than in other developing countries. Many US citizens can't imagine their lives without television.

Some believe that more and more people should have access to television. In certain ways this may be true. If individuals have access to TV they have access to local and world news. If their country is under distress they may not even know unless they saw it on TV or heard it on the radio; once they receive this news they can decide at that point if action is needed. Also, as I mentioned above, individuals with TVs get to be part of the entertainment they love like the World Cup. A film called The Great Match shows us how three different families in isolated parts of the world long to see the World Cup (2002) take place and they go to great lengths to make this happen. After viewing the film it may cause US citizens to appreciate the easy access they have to such entertainment. However, the film also has a sub-text highlighting the negative effects of globally broadcasted information.

The main issue to examine with globalized information is who is doing the broadcasting and what opinions are they trying to assert? Of all the information getting passed around the world, most of it can be traced back to one of just a handful of sources. General Electric, for example, owns many media outlets including NBC, Universal Studios, and several smaller stations including the History Channel. A major concern in knowing that GE owns so much of television is that they also own energy and healthcare corporations. One could assume that General Electric would like their privatized GE Healthcare to remain (very) profitable. What better way to get their message out than through the many media outlets they own? That is precisely what they do. Many other companies do the same thing like Disney or Time Warner who not only owns CNN and AOL but also contributed the maximum donation amount allowed for the second inauguration of George W. Bush (3). Another media powerhouse owns a company which makes Army helicopters; it's in their best interest to make sure the Army has a reason to use those helicopters. One can now see how politics and even war is perpetuated by the media when it's convenient for them.

Global news is hardly a wide-range of media from around the world, it's quite the opposite. Worldwide information is controlled by a very small group of corporations and it is their own opinions and interests we're being fed in a global information market, a market that is not competitive but monopolized. To learn more about this issue and see which companies are on top of it all (and making upwards of $20 billion a year) click HERE. Gradually, the world is being fed the same images, same news, and same ideas. Where there once was a rural family interested in local arts, foods, sports, and politics, now is a family who listens to hip-hop, eats at KFC, watches the World Cup, and is angry about the conflict in the Middle East. Sound familiar? Globalization = Homogenization. What happens when a gene pool, for example, consists of a limited or homogenized background? It becomes weak and develops health related problems. This translates well to the dangers in cultural homogenization: without variety in thoughts and activities, the society becomes weak from lack of competing ideas and modes of living.

The World Bank and the United States government are two entities that have pushed hard for deregulation and the opening of world markets. They've done a fabulous job of putting pro-globalization information on television, in movies, and even in the classroom. However, their arguments are quite transparent. Check out THIS BLOG that claims it will present both pros and cons of globalization, but in reality it is all-out propaganda in favor of global markets. Its arguments against the opposition are nothing but ad hominem lashings. This is not a popular or credible blog, but it helps illustrate how average citizens perpetuate misinformation. The writer states that globalization increases competition, but this is not accurate. As discussed above, we know that most world business (especially in information broadcasting) can be traced back to just a handful of corporations. This is why we need to be critical of who we get our information from. The same people pushing globalization for profit are the same people telling the writer of that blog how it will make "everyone get rich".

Even if globalizing information and entertainment can spread knowledge around the world, what if it's not the kind of knowledge people want? Many individuals rate the prosperity of countries in terms of their monetary wealth. Is the US considered the best, most prosperous country in the world because 99% of us can afford television sets? I'd suggest, however, that this is only one type of prosperity. The concept of globalization fails when it assumes that all happiness and wealth is based on money and, unfortunately, this concept is now spreading across the Earth. Your physical health, your friends, and your own crafts should be considered when rating prosperity and not just how much you slave away in a cubicle to afford a box that emits pictures; pictures that tell you how to feel about the world and the people in it. After all, is it actually telling you about the world, or simply what the broadcasting companies want you to think about the world? Re-consider the images you see on television and if the spread of mass information is a good thing, it may change your entire view of our "global culture".

Garbage Land: Disposing Our Trash and Our Values

2010-06-15T20:47:00.010-06:00

An ocean gyre is a system of rotating currents. There are five major ocean gyres on the Earth: one in the Indian Ocean, two (north and south) in the Pacific Ocean, and two (north and south) in the Atlantic Ocean. The gyres are caused by wind patterns and planetary vorticity. Basically, they are water vortexes which sweep garbage and other debri into their centers. This leads us to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. At the center of the North Pacific Gyre is a collection of garbage the size of Texas, maybe bigger (the exact size is unknown because it continues to grow). It is dense and conatins approximately 3.5 million tons of trash (1). We have an entire state-sized, or even country-sized mass in the ocean that is directly caused by consumer products. For most of you reading this, the garbage patch is a distant issue having little to do with your everyday lives: out of sight, out of mind. But the truth is that each and every one of us can do a part in controlling this situation before it becomes even more devastating. Maybe, as we learn more about the garbage patch, it can teach us something about ourselves in return as well. The giant mass of floating trash is a microcosm (maybe not so micro) of our macro, cheap consumer goods, problem.

10% of all our trash ends up in the ocean but most of that 10% is plastic. In the area of the North Pacific Garbage Patch there are over ten pounds of plastic for every one pound of plankton (2). Other sources even have the numbers estimated at 13 to 1 (3). Pop bottles, for example, make up a huge amount of the debri in the Great Garbage Patch; one reason for this may be that this kind of plastic is very light and easily carried away in the wind or swiftly float along on the surface of rivers to the ocean. As highlighted in an earlier post on this blog, plastic, especially nurdles, not only don't biodegrade but also absorb toxic chemicals. Therefore, the garbage patch plastic poses quite a threat to marine life that inevitably consume it and a therefore threatens us all the way up the food chain. Over a million seabirds are estimated to have died because of trash in the ocean. Here is a list of just some of the ways in which garbage can harm sea life:

Trash entangles fins and flippers leading to suffocation
Causes cuts which get infected
When eaten the garbage blocks digestive tracks
Creates a false sense of being full without providing nutrition after it's eaten which leads to starvation
Spreads toxins like PCB's that were absorbed by the plastic

You may be wondering, why is the largest garbage patch located in the North Pacific Gyre if all gyres sweep debris together? Because two main garbage producing countries are on either side of the North Pacific Gyre: Japan and the United States. The US is number one for how much municiple waste is produced which is around 720 pounds per person per year. Japan is much lower on the list but still produces a significant 400 pounds per person per year. In link (3) above you can scroll down and see, however, that the United States contributes more to the garbage patch than Japan (which has it's own semi-gyre). This may explain why the gyre in the Atlantic, taking on America's East Coast waste, does not have the same problem because the currents have greater ranges and do not consentrate the garbage so heavily.

The way many of us understand garbage disposal is that a truck picks up our trash and drives it to the dump where it is burried. Sometimes it works out this way. However, a significant portion of trash never makes it to the dump or is blown/carried away from the dump by wind and animals. The garbage enters rivers, lakes, and streams and moves from place to place in that system, ending all the way in the ocean. In seaside cities the trip to the ocean is much more direct. Also, not all waste is taken to a local dump. Cities and States make agreements between each other to take on trash from different areas. Some of your trash is transported hundreds of miles away which creates even more opportunities for the it to be displaced and enter the water system.

The Great Garbage Patch is physical evidence of the type of culture we've created. A disposable culture. Try to think of how many things you use each day that are thrown away within just a few hours of use (or even in just five minutes of use): sandwich baggies, paper towels, candy wrappers, to-go cups of coffee, pop bottles, and the container your quick-lunch-break-food came in. Think of how absurd the idea of a paper towel actually is, you have rags to clean with which you then wash just like clothes. Would you buy paper clothing to wear once and throw away? You create over 700 pounds of trash every year; that's about the weight of a very large cow or steer. Yet, would it be that difficult to cut back on your waste? It is easy to throw out your plastic bags and bottles after use, but try washing them out and using them repeatedly. Or sit down to have a meal in a restaurant rather than getting to-go or carry-out containers. If you usually have left overs after dining out, consider bringing your own re-usable container to take the food home. Corporations have made things very convenient for everyone: throw it away, get on with your day. But this is at a great cost to the environment, animals, and eventually to you. Re-think your decision to throw things out so easily, putting a little effort into daily life can yield great returns for you and the world.

Check out this video about plastic in the ocean:

Beefing Up Your Meat and Dairy

2010-06-04T08:21:00.004-06:00

Cows have a huge role to play in the food industry. Beef and milk are in high demand and sometimes the cows cannot produce enough naturally. That is why many are loaded with antibiotics and hormones; it allows cows to be fattened up to unnatural proportions and milked at unnatural rates. Yet, it is not only the cows who suffer. In 1989, the sale of United States beef was banned from all European nations. The European Economic Community (EEC) instated this ban because they feared the risk to humans that hormonal beef imposed. Milk also contains these hormones but has several other dangers associated with it as well, creating much controversy. Some would argue that we need this type of production to feed all the hungry mouths in a growing population. But consider how this production is uniquely American. Then consider how more Americans are obese than any other nationality in the world. The point being that hormonal beef and milk production is supposedly in the name of feeding the masses, but the health risks aren't worth it when you realize how Americans are already over-eating anyway. Yet again, the food industry is being "beefed up" for purely monetary reasons.

Sex hormones commonly given to US cows are dangerous because many believe they are carcinogenic. It is very similar to what some women experience with taking birth control. It has been proven that the raised estrogen levels from birth control contribute to increased risks of breast cancer. Roy Hertz of the National Cancer Institute warns that people who consume estrogenic (sex hormone infused) meat also have higher risks of cancer. Hertz also believes that no levels of hormonal implants or injections are safe. In light of this research, in January 2010 Samuel Epstein of the Cancer Prevention Coalition filed a petition with the FDA to put a ban on hormonal meat altogether (1).

Currently, The USDA requires that the residual levels of hormones in beef be less than 1% of levels normally found in children. However, this is completely unenforceable. The USDA does not test residue levels and even if they did the hormones that were introduced into a cow's system would be very hard to differentiate from the natural hormones. Therefore, this system is, apparently, on the honor system. Some farmers/ranchers take the time to follow appropriate health standards and use small hormonal implants in their cows; others will inject the hormones directly into the muscle that you'll eventually eat (2). Either way, the production of beef is quite unregulated, though some individuals may follow better safety procedures than others.

Milk is another questionable area of the food industry. If you think that a cow is milked, the milk pasteurized, and that simple liquid is given to you to drink, you're wrong. Here is a list of what is commonly found in your milk AFTER pasteurization:

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone - This is used to increase the amount of milk a cow can produce. It is directly linked to breast and colon cancer.

Antibiotics - Dairy cows are often in unhealthy and stressed states so a huge amount of antibiotics are used to keep the cows alive while being over-worked. 85 different kinds of antibiotics are used on cow farms but only 4 get tested for by the regulating committee. The FDA estimates that at least half of all milk is laden with pharmaceuticals, and that estimate is most likely a low one.

Blood - Because cows are milked more often than their bodies were designed for, their udders get inflamed and even have sores on them - which break open. The udders commonly bleed directly into the milk. The USDA knows of this problem but only tries to keep the amount of blood cells found in your milk to 1.5 million per milliliter. That's a lot of blood cells!

Pus - Along with the blood often comes pus from infected udders. The national average for the amount of pus found in your milk is 322 million cell-counts per 8-ounce glass. The USDA's "safe" level is only 200 million cell-counts per LITER. Therefore, every state in the US (except Hawaii) produces milk with pus levels way over the limit. Pus is a problem the USDA is aware of, yet the milk is sold to you either way. This is very unhealthy for you and is directly linked to Crohn's Disease.

In light of this information about beef and milk, what can you do to ensure your (and the cow's) safety while consuming these products? One thing you can do is buy more local beef from small farms which do not use hormone implants/injections. Here is an example of a farm that advocates natural, grass-fed cows for your beef: it's called Bar 10 Beef. As far as cow's milk goes, you can try to find local farms that do not use hormones and antibiotics, but you are better off not drinking it at all. Goat, rice, almond, or even hemp milk are quite suitable replacements. If you think drinking goat milk will taste bad or is strange, think about how strange it actually is to drink milk from an animal (cows) whose milk molecules are 10 times larger than the normal milk humans are born to drink. Goat milk is much similar to human milk and more easily digested. Here is an example of a local Utah farm that sells hormone free goat milk and encourages visitors to come see how the animals are treated: it's called Drake's Family Farms. You will notice one of their goals is to teach "respectable and responsible animal agriculture."

Writing about this subject seems to provoke either a strong positive response, or a very strong negative response. While looking through articles of a similar subject, you may notice that response comments are angry; individuals writing these comments claim how wonderful farmers are and how farms pamper the "cute animals". But ask yourself, is this wishful thinking? How many dairy farms have you visited and would you even recognize a problem if there was one? This issue appears to hit a nerve in Americans. After all, who doesn't have fond memories of slogans like "Milk, Does the Body Good" and "Beef, It's What's For Dinner"? If a person were to point out the harm in soda, most people would simply agree (then continue consuming it anyway). But when discussing milk and beef, people react as if you have just insulted their entire way of life and the core principles they believe in... why is that?

Milk especially is consumed rapidly in America and resonates more in our culture than anywhere else. This is not by coincidence. A huge industry has pushed for milk advertising and has engrained within our society the idea that milk is the end all, good for you, strong-bone-making drink that America is built upon. As you can see to the right, they pay large amounts of money to get sexy celebrities to endorse their product. Re-examining this subject and noting the facts will illuminate the real reason behind why we drink so much milk and eat so much beef. Hopefully people can break free of the false conceptions and realize that the joke's on us.

Pesticides and the Big Business Behind Your Produce

2010-05-25T09:51:00.007-06:00

For many years, farmers have struggled against insects, rats, and other vermin who eat their crops. The larger the infestation of bugs and animals the smaller the harvest will be for the farmer. This is why pesticides were created and are now manufactured in large quantities. Though feeding people is a huge responsibility and an important need to fill, at what cost to our physical health do these farmers make their revenue? In 2007, bagged lettuce alone (which has its own health risks aside from the pesticides used on it) netted about $1.6 billion in sales. If these farmers and their distributors, like Dole, were to cut back on their use of pesticides and therefore lose a portion of their crops, they'd still make much more money than you and me. The use of pesticides for larger, convenient profits is unacceptable and damaging to the people and animals who endure exposure to them. Hand in hand with this pesticide use is new genetically engineered crops that supposedly cut back on the need for conventional pesticides. Though this is not a new subject of debate, it appears that the public at large is still apathetic in regard to the chemicals they routinely consume with their food. It is this article's objective to help motivate people into no longer accepting big business, pesticide infused, genetically altered produce.

Organochloride and organophosphates are the basis for many pesticides; they are also the basis in making nerve gas. Today, organophosphate is favored over the chloride form because it degrades faster. When it is sprayed on crops, much of it drifts into nearby neighborhoods and settles on anything outside including hanging laundry and lawn furniture. However, the main source of pesticides found in the human body is from direct digestion with food. In a 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, a study shows that eating only organically grown foods provides a "dramatic and immediate" protection from two types of organophosphates that are linked to harmful neurological effects. These two types, malathion and chlorpyrifos, are banned from home use. Yet, they are commonly used on crops and routinely detected on grocery food items says the USDA Pesticide Data Program.

Pesticide poisoning is a large problem. Thousands of workers die every year and a million more experience severe health effects from pesticides including nerve damage. Most of these individuals endure large amounts of pesticide exposure. A new study, however, has found evidence that even minimal pesticide ingestion is linked to learning disabilities and ADHD in children. For more specifics about how the tests were conducted and more on their specific conclusions, click HERE. Therefore, how is spraying pesticides on crops legal, you may be thinking to yourself? The Environmental Protection Agency tries to work with states to make sure pesticides do not pose "unreasonable risks". But what kind of health risk is reasonable? The EPA prefers to license only pesticides that appear to pose no toxic threat to humans. However, especially when you consider the lobbying that pesticide companies do in congress, the "reasonable" risks may be scarier than you think.

Another heavy influence on farming safety regulations are the biotechnology companies. Genetically engineered (GE) seeds are now available that contain "self pesticides". Life science corporations claim that these "frankenfoods" are meant to end world hunger and improve public health. In reality, however, the genetic engineers clearly express through their business practices and lobbying that they intend the GE seeds to dominate the world market and to create a monopoly on food production (1). One agricultural biotech company called Monsanto has spent $8,831,120.00 on lobbying in one year alone (2008). Its lobbying efforts are intended to promote the worldwide use of its GE seeds and herbicides. Yet, this company also has had several lawsuits and much controversy surrounding it, including fines for misleading the public about its product's environmental impacts. The company has also been sued and has settled multiple times for damaging the health of its employees and residents neighboring their factories. Still, Monsanto's genetically altered products are commonly used. You have probably ingested several of their products yourself; 90% of all United States GE seeds used for farming come from this company.

If spray on chemicals and genetic alteration is dangerous to the environment and human health, what alternatives do we have for controlling pest contact with our crops? There are very simple ways, in fact, to ward of animals and insects. Many organic types of repellents involve simple things like mint oil, baking soda, and all natural dishwashing soap. View a list of household items you can use on your own gardens to control pests HERE. Even garlic or tomatoe leaves help to keep some animals and insects away from plants. The problem is that natural solutions would take more time and money for corporate farms to use; they'd rather do it cheaply to ensure themselves more revenue.

Like nearly all corporations, the main goal of large, factory farms is to make as much profit as possible. They may claim to want to help "end world hunger" with their pesticide-laced foods, but smaller family farms could do just as well at feeding their communities if they were not being pushed out of the market by lobbyists of big farming and biotech companies. Money is the motive for these corporations, not public health. They under-cut local farmers in an effort to sell more food and your desire to buy quantity over quality ensures that their plan does not fail. Big business food has become so prevelent in all communities than many individuals no longer know where their food comes from at all. Montana? Mexico? France? China? Though, even with locally grown foods it may be hard to tell how it was all raised and harvested, you have a better chance at being able to visit the farm for yourself. Many family farmers encourage this so you can understand what you're putting into your body.

Local Utah farms, like Copper Moose Farms for example, have very different goals than corporate farms. The community's awareness of healthy and safe farming practices is important to them and their products should be given more consideration at the grocery store. Your state most likely has a website available to see how many local farms are in your region, check out this one for Utah. There are many options for locally grown, pesticide-free produce. Instead of reaching for that cheap name brand item, or the generic, imported produce at the store, seek out your locally farmed foods; re-determining your choices at the grocery store has a profound effect on you and the environment. Who knows, maybe as people buy more local foods, quality items will be favored over simply saving a few bucks.

Filling the Space

2010-05-13T10:47:00.013-06:00

"Monoculture" refers to planting only one type of crop over a very large area of land. This method can often lead to the quicker spread of disease becuase if all of the crop is the same, a single pathogen can affect the entire harvest. In what way, however, does this apply as an appropraite metaphor for our societal norms, where an entire "field" contains one type of human? One answer points us to the culture of consumerism. In America (and certain other parts of the world as well), we are bombarded daily with ads for products we usually don't even need: hats, toys, gum, cosmetics, celebrity work out equipment, ShamWow, etc. We have become part of the consumer monoculture without even realizing it and this type of culture isn't without negative impacts.

A very poignant example of the growing consumer monoculture is Black Friday. The Friday after Thanksgiving is set aside as the biggest sale day of the year and thousands of people flood stores to get first pick of the items. You would think that goods crucial to survival like food or blankets would cause such a passionate fight for material possessions, but most often the things being fought over on Black Friday are Barbie Dolls, video games, footballs, or Hot Wheels. It would certainly be agreed that none of these items are crucial for survival, but people literally die for them nevertheless. A walmart worker was trampled to death in New York City. Also, two shoppers in a California Toys R Us were shot and killed during a dispute over an item. Even when people don't actually die there are still often severe casualites, to view just how crazy Black Friday can get check this jaw-dropping list of disasters HERE. Yet, these deaths and injuries have not prompted any consideration by Black Friday advertisers, who apparently believe the profit potential for this day is worth the physical violence.

Black Friday is quite an extreme example of the consumer monoculture; yet, you may be surprised at how accustommed to consumerism we all have become in our daily lives. In 1960, just 50 years ago, the median annual income was $6,180. Recalculating for inflation, today that would be approximately $42,000. However, $42,000 is not our current average income, it's actually over $52,000 (as of 2008). Therefore, regardless of inflation, people were apparently able to live on less in 1960. Whether people were more frugal in the past or there were simply less things available to buy, these figures are telling of how much we've come to spend our money on the consumption of goods.

Rev. Billy from The Church of Life After Shopping said it best when he proclaimed that "the corporations want us to have experiences only through their products." The Life After Shopping crew is dedicated to preaching about the value of buying locally and warning about the dangers of large corporations - the main force behind our embrace of mass consumerism. Especially during Christmas time, members of The Church of Life After Shopping visit centers of corporate commerce and encourage customers to reconsider if they really need what they are there to buy. The group often visits Walmart and Starbucks, for example. Rev. Billy also speaks to communities and churches to better educate individuals on consumerism and the role it plays in our lives.

In one of his lectures, Rev. Billy may tell you that it's not only on Black Friday or through infomercials that we have been trained to be consumers. Have you ever seen an advertisement for a bigger, newer television for sale and thought to yourself, "well my tv is a few years old and I can afford that new one," so you go out and buy it? But was it really about time to get a new tv; was the old one not working? Or what about kitchen equipment; you had an old fashoined kind of juicer, but why not get an electric one with all those fancy parts and eliminate having to use your own elbow grease, right? But is putting a few minutes into twisting an orange really all that much of a hastle? Corprate-sponsored media would tell you that it is, and that's why you have to buy more things to keep making your life more and more... well... lazy.

An aspect of consumerism that is important to understand is that corporations play on the fears of Americans. Life without possessions, for the average American, is scary and lonely. Though we have the Earth, our friends, family, and our own bodies, we have become conditioned to fill the empty space. On top of the Earth we fill the space with buildings. Then, the space inside the buildings must be filled. There is something to fill the space everywhere in an office or home: the eight piece dining set on the table, the books on the bookshelf, the coats on the coat rack, and a bucket for the trash; trash that once was a valued possession but now is burried beneath the ground only to be replaced with an updated version of itself. That is one reason that Rev. Billy named his church what he did: to show people that there is in fact "Life After Shopping", or as others may think of it, "life beyond shopping".

What does all this matter? One importance in examining the consumer monoculture has a lot to do with the great garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean (article on this subject coming soon). When you buy an item it often is to replace something else (like getting a new couch) or is only used for a short time (like getting a to-go cup of coffee). Therefore, much garbage is produced when purchasing an item. Consumerism contributes greatly to this type of pollution. On a different note, however, what life can be led happily when solely based on materialism? It's not this article's point to ward everyone away from any and all spending, but to get people to consider how far we've fallen into letting our possesions own us. Re-evaluate what's worth being trampled over; it could lead to more productive and enriched living.

Also, please note that Black Friday coincides with International Buy Nothing Day. Can you really go a whole day without buying anything?

If you're interested in knowing more about The Church of Life After shopping, AKA The Church of Stop Shopping, check out the documentary called What Would Jesus Buy?

Reduce!

2010-05-05T13:00:00.009-06:00

The United States uses more oil per day than any other country in the world. In fact, the US uses triple the amount than the second highest user, China. That is approximately 20 million barrels per day compared to China's 7 million per day. Also, the US uses the most nuclear energy in the world by almost double. Wind and water power usage puts America at third and fourth place respectively. Although, in the United States, oil and nuclear power are obviously favored, energy consumption of all types is extremely high. Switching the numbers for the amount of energy used from oil to wind, for example, may ease the burden on the environment, but reducing overall consumption of energy is a simpler way to ensure continued sustainability with our current resources; not to mention cleaner and healthier living for everyone.

At our current rate, energy consumption between 2006 and 2030 is expected to continue to increase by 44% (1). As most people know, oil is not a renewable energy source and wind/solar/hydro energy doesn't output as highly. That means many more nuclear power plants are likely to be built and 40 more would have to be built over the next 30 years to simply keep up with this current rate. Nuclear power will be a major key in future energy production because of the limited supply of oil which we are tearing through at a ferocious rate, while also reducing CO2 emissions that are the destructive force behind energy from oil (2). Though oil fuel's negative affects are, by now, quite evident, nuclear power isn't without it's own, even more dangerous drawbacks.

One negative effect of nuclear energy is the waste. Radioactive uranium 235 has a half life of 704 million years so it's waste storage must be in an extremely secure and monitored facility; but there is no way to completely safegaurd from the waste's effects. For example, in a South Carolina waste processing facility, their two main buildings are so contaminated that there is no way they can ever be decommissioned. Leaks and spills of radioactivity happen there all the time. In one such spill the contamination rose higher than their instruments could measure and with several casualties. If anything were to happen to the electricity or man power behind keeping the waste secure, the radioactvity would be devastating to all surrounding life (see chapter 10 of The World Without Us).

Besides the radiation, uranium itself is a toxic metal and you do not need to handle it to be affected. Studies have found that people living near government facilities, weapons testing grounds (current or in the past), or uranium processing plants easily inhale and ingest uranium dust that causes reproductive defects and failure of the kidney, brain, lungs, and heart. Do not think that this doesn't affect you where you live. Did you know that there is a nuclear reactor on the University of Utah campus? There's also one in Point Beach and Kewaunee, Wisconsin. They are all over and, as described above, more and more will be built in the future. Your region is not safe from a nuclear build site (3).

Moving on, wind energy is a much better alternative to using oil or nuclear power because it doesn't create emissions or hazardous waste. However, it is not without negative impacts. Wind can be unreliable and not produce the same amount of energy as other methods and so many turbines have to be built to get the same amount of power. The more turbines that are built the more they displace wildlife: overall disrupting the ecosystem. This is also the case with dams for hydroelectricity. Likewise, panels for solar power, though having less of an impact when used on a small scale because they can be placed on already existing buildings, displace animals when large areas are levelled and many hundred panels are installed. Overall, the draw backs to cleaner produced power like wind/hydro/solar are far less damaging and better alternatives than oil and nuclear energy. Yet, if we use energy at such a critically increasing rate, the amount of turbines, dams, and panels that would need to be erected is quite a feat and not welcome in our already shrinking wild lands.

So what can you do? If all forms of energy production have side effects how can we reduce the impact on the Earth? The answer is to use your own energy. The sun and water give life to plants and animals which humans eat to get energy. You can then use that energy to chop wood and build a fire. With that fire you can heat your home, cook your food, see in the dark, then use the wood ashes to fertilize your garden. This is maybe a quaint example but it holds true as an idealistic model. Obviously, however, not everyone has a fireplace or the space to cook food over a fire, but there are other ways to chip into energy reduction as well.

Reducing consumption of energy in your home isn't as hard as it seems. Unplug electronics that aren't being used, insulate your home and wear warm clothing instead of turning up the heat, or you could wash your clothes by hand once in a while to not have to turn on the washer/dryer. Also, try picking one day out of the month that you only use candles at home instead turning the lights on: it's not as inconvenient as you think. You can view a government website detailing energy usage in the home and how to reduce it HERE. Of course using some oil/nuclear/wind/etc energy isn't completely bad and that is not what this article is meant to convey. However, we are not only using "some", we are using so much all at once that our habitat will not be able to sustain it, so considering some reduction is a reasonable and ultimately life saving request.

Bottom line, in an age when consumption of energy, especially oil, is rising and it is clear that other methods of energy production need to be utilized, why haven't more steps been taken in the right direction? Maybe it has something to do with how the top 4 out of 5 most profitable companies in the world are oil companies; including Shell, Exxon, BP, and Chevron (the one non-oil company, if you're curious, is Walmart). Even though nuclear power is second most used in the US, it still only accounts for about 20% of our energy making oil a huge American dependency (and an expensive one). Fuels made from things as simple as corn can be very efficient, but research and actual production of them is quite stifled. In the end, we can try to reduce our own energy consumption which helps greatly, but it's clear that something larger is controlling the energy industry and exploiting it to the max.

Let's re-explore our own options in the reduction of energy consumption, but let's also hold accountable the companies who control the puppet strings of the energy consumer market.

Perils of Plastic

2010-04-25T08:01:00.005-06:00

Every year on April 22nd we celebrate Earth Day. Recently, many celebrated this day by updating their facebook statuses with feigned expressions of concern for Mother Earth. But this is just one day of the year when ecosystem issues are important all the time and deserve far more attention than a simple "Happy Earth Day" written in ubiquity. For example, everyday, millions of tiny pieces of plastic called nurdles wash up on the beaches of the world, yet hardly a soul seems to recognize this phenomenon.

More than 250 billion pounds of nurdles are made each year which are then melted down and molded to create things like plastic bottles, bags, toys, etc. Making these pellets is the easiest way to ship raw plastic and so tons must be produced around the clock. They are most often transported by ocean tankers which can hold about a billion pellets at once, but will have lost MANY into the water by the time they reach their destination because nurdles are so small and slip through cracks easily.

On some beaches, a person can walk right over a few nurdles and think they are merely bits of organic beach matter, but on others you can pick up nurdles by the handful. They represent more than 10% of all ocean debris and 98% of beach debris. What also should be noted is that oceans are not the only bodies of water to be affected. Nurdles often get washed down drains from factories and into lakes, rivers, and public water systems.

Nurdles are known to be very absorbent, like sponges. When left in water they often absorb chemicles like PCBs and other POPs and accumulate levels that are 100 times as concentrated as in the surrounding water. The true danger, however, lies in when animals then eat these pellets. A nurdle is easily mistaken for a smaller organism or even a tiny egg. More and more ocean animals turn up with nurdles in their stomachs. In the photo below, you can see nurdles inside a jellyfish. In some areas of the world's oceans, plastic outnumbers plankton by six to one (1). Nurdles pose an enormous threat to aquatic life but the threat doesn't stop there.

When small creatures ingest the nurdles, larger animals then eat those creatures and the chain continues all the way up to humans. People often eat fish which either still have nurdles in their stomachs (hard to tell after the fish is already filleted at the grocery store), or still retain remnants of all the toxic POPs the nurdles had absorbed. The remains of nurdles are everywhere; in much of our food, our drinking water, in our hair and on our skin. These compounds and their toxic tag-alongs do not biodegrade. After thousands of years they may break down into smaller pieces, sink to become part of sea floor sediment, or become absorbed into the food chain and, in turn, absorbed into us (2). There is no reversing the damage already done, we can only make a stand now to try and keep it from becoming worse.

Initiatives are being taken by organizations like Heal the Bay to try and regulate the plastic industry because, as The Ocean Protection Council has found, voluntary solutions do not work. Bill AB 258, signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, is designed to monitor and regulate the release of pre-production pellets (nurdles) into the marine environment. This was a great step forward to try and stop nurdle pollution at the factory. However, there are things we can individually do to help in the struggle against nurdle polution.

The demand for cheap and convenient plastic is high all over the world; from the CEO who wants to make his or her products for cheap, to the average household where disposing of an empty soap bottle is easier than getting it refilled. That is why billions and billions of nurdles are made every year. One thing each individual can do to help this situation is reduce their consumption of plastics. As far as the refilling of soap bottles is concerned, certain brands like Dr. Bronner's offer refilling routinely; you can ask your local grocer for options. Also, try using non-disposable razors, glass or metal water bottles, pens that are mostly metal and don't have plastic tubes, wood or metal bowls and cups, picture frames that do not use plastic, or toys for your children with a limited number of pastic parts. There are even organizations dedicated to helping people find alternatives to plastic, like this awesome online store called Life Without Plastic.

If you are interested in reading more about nurdles, Alan Weisman dedicates a whole chapter of his book The World Without Us to the subject. I would highly recommend picking up this book because the entire thing is mind blowing when it comes to discussing our relationship with the Earth. You can also read the specific chapter about nurdles online HERE.

Pollution caused by plastic production is already evident: especially in our oceans. It will only get worse, however, if nurdle generation continues at its current rate. These plastics and the toxins they absorb will be around long after we're gone. Hopefully it will not be because of them that we are no longer around. Let's re-examine the cost our environment and our own bodies are paying for the convenience of plastic items.

Preservatives - getting more than you bargained for.

2010-04-20T16:13:00.033-06:00

If a company can make billions of dollars in sales every year, then why can't they use quality ingredients? The answer is fairly obvious. More and more, consumers are given less and less food quality while companies continue to get richer and richer. Most profits for companies like Kellogg's, Coca-Cola, and McDonald's are in the several billion dollar range (click on the company names to view profit reports). Cheap ingredients equal higher revenue for the food industries, but at what cost to you and me?

Adding benzene to food or beverages is illegal. Benzene is found in Styrofoam, detergents, and rubbers. Some natural sources of benzene are gas emissions, forest fires, and even volcanoes. When it's manufactured it is most often made from petroleum. No wonder you shouldn't digest it, it's a dangerous carcinogen. Yet many of us take in hazardous amounts of benzene daily.

I'm not just talking about smokers (who consume ten times as much benzene as non-smokers) and I'm not referring to regular exposure to benzene from car exhaust. I'm talking about about consuming it in soft drinks and many other food items. But I thought it was illegal to use benzene as a food additive?

In the race to sell products and make money, many food and beverage companies use cheap preservatives like sodium benzoate and cheap additives like ascorbic acid. In combination, sodium benzoate and any Vitamin C additive chemically react to make benzene. Therefore, the companies may not have put dangerous benzene directly into your food or drink, but it's in there anyway. This is true especially in soft drinks. Almost all soft drinks use sodium benzoate as a preservative because they must have long shelf-lives. But the longer a product sits on the self, the longer it has to chemically react creating more and more benzene. In sodas like Mt. Dew benzene levels are five times higher than the "safe" limit established by the FDA (1).

Furthermore, some have found that the preservative sodium benzoate is harmful enough on its own. Dr. Piper of Sheffield University, who has studied sodium benzoate since his first research paper on it in 1999, established that the additive damages the mitochondria of a cell to the point of completely inactivating it altogether. Mitochondria consume oxygen which in turn gives you energy; damage to this area of a cell can cause diseases like Parkinson's (2) .

As health and food agencies catch on to these problems, some food companies are trying to compensate. In soft drinks, EDTA, or calcium disodium, is added to combat the effects of sodium benzoate; specifically trying to stop it from forming benzene (although on labels it simply says that it is added to "preserve freshness"). Unfortunately, the effects of EDTA may be just as bad as the additives it's meant to combat. It's been found not only to be toxic, but toxic to one's genetic make up as seen in tests on rats. Consumption of EDTA is linked to reproductive defects (3).

With all these test results emphasizing the negative aspects of sodium benzoate and EDTA, why does the FDA and FSA allow substances like these to be used as food additives? Their stance is that these chemicals are "too new" to fully determine their long term effects. However, they do make it very clear that these chemicals should endure further testing and investigation.

Long story short, check your food labels. If you see sodium benzoate as an additive, stay away; especially if the product also contains acids that cause it to form benzene. You may think to yourself that you drink plenty of soda or eat plenty of food with additives like these in them, and you haven't gotten cancer or feel sick so what's the big deal? But I'd rebut by saying that you only have one body; you will never be able to go back and start anew, so why risk consuming these artificials on a daily basis just because you think they taste nice? At least consider having them only in moderation because the food industries are making us sick and getting rich from it, let's re-determine what we'll let them get away with.

***For my first post I want to give a special thanks to AttainableMind who helped in my decision to start my own blog and whose page helped inspire the formatting of my own.***