Posts
(From Huffington Post)
Three types of Monsanto genetically modified corn are under scrutiny in the wake of a new study published by the International Journal Of Biological Sciences which found that rats ingesting the corn were subject to statistically significant amounts of organ toxicity. These three types -- Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 -- have been approved for consumption in the US and several countries in Europe.
The finding that corn produced by one of the world's agricultural giants could cause organ failure has been met with obvious concern by food activists and consumers alike. It's not the first bout of negative publicity for Monsanto, which has been vilified for everything from producing Agent Orange, intimidating farmers, using aggressive tactics to squeeze out competition, pressuring farmers to be dependent on their products, and strongly promoting the use of genetically modified seeds here and abroad. It has been negatively portrayed in films such as "Food, Inc." and "The World According To Monsanto".
While some groups like Change.org, see this study as a rallying cry for regulatory action and boycott, others on both sides of the GMO issue think the study results itself are not clear and shouldn't be accepted wholeheartedly. The IJBS is not a peer-reviewed journal, and the work was not an independent analysis of the effects of the GM corn on rats. Rather, it was a full interpretation of all of the samples of rats in the 90-day study that Monsanto itself sponsored. After analyzing the data, the European researchers came to the conclusion:
"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity.[...] These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."
Discover notes that Greenpeace, an activist environmental group sponsored the scientists' research -- they had to sue to obtain the raw data in the first place, and that the IJBS is relatively obscure. Leading nutrition professor Dr. Marion Nestle wrote on her blog about the study, "I found the paper extremely difficult to read, in part because it is written in exceptionally dense and opaque language, and in part because it presents the data in especially complicated tables and figures." Monsanto claims that the study employed "non-traditional statistical methods to reassess toxicology data from studies conducted with MON 863, MON 810 and NK603 corn varieties" and that the IJBS paper reaches "unsubstantiated conclusions."
The IJBS study itself strenuously suggests more testing over two years rather than 90 days to evaluate the long-term health impacts, and by independent researchers rather than Monsanto itself. The study also points out that Monsanto conducted the study only once rather than multiple times, and only tested one species -- rats -- and emphasizes that testing on more mammals of this GM maize is needed to reach any kind of conclusion on safety. This maize is used as both animal feed and for human consumption.
According to the FDA's website, the agency concludes that genetic engineering that occurred in the maize varieties, MON 810, NK603, MON 863 was not different enough from past approved products and did not need a pre-market review. The FDA essentially takes Monsanto's word that the company had done adequate testing to ensure its safety, as shown clearly in this letter. Several countries in Europe, such as Germany and France, have recently banned GM crops, specifically MON 810 after it had been approved for consumption in the European Union.
Furthermore, there are no laws requiring companies to label if their products contain GMOs. Even food labeled "Organic" that is processed with multiple ingredients must only be 95% organic, leaving loopholes for obscure ingredients that are genetically modified to be included. HuffPost Blogger and Eco Etiquette columnist Jennifer Grayson has written a comprehensive article detailing the ways to avoid genetically modified foods in light of the fact that there are no labeling requirements in the US.
So the facts are as follows: We eat corn and corn derivatives that have been genetically modified, which has been banned for being unsafe in other countries -- the FDA has not done independent testing on the health effects of at least three types of corn that we are eating, and have instead taken Monsanto's word for the fact that they are safe. Monsanto resisted releasing their data to independent researchers -- environmental groups had to sue to get it. Once it was released and analyzed by one group of scientists, they wrote a dense study in a non-peer reviewed journal and found statistically significant amounts of organ failure in the rats in Monsanto's own study. Consumers often have no way of knowing clearly if they are eating genetically modified food.
The FDA did not return calls for comment.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Nestle Cookie Dough Linked to E. coli, Again
Nestle USA's Baking Division announced last week that it will begin using heat-treated flour in the manufacture of its Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough. On January 11, 2010 Nestle informed the FDA that two samples of Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough manufactured at its Danville, Virginia facility did not pass this rigorous protocol, and had tested positive for E. coli O157:H7. Consistent with our quality assurance protocol, the finished product involved never left our factory or entered the supply chain, and none was shipped to customers.
Nearly seven months earlier,on June 18, 2009, the CDC announced that 65 persons infected with a strain of E. coli O157:H7 with a particular DNA fingerprint have been reported from 29 states. Of these, 23 have been confirmed by an advanced DNA test as having the outbreak strain; these confirmatory test results are pending on the others. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Arkansas (1), Arizona (2), California (2), Colorado (5), Delaware (1), Hawaii (1), Iowa (2), Illinois (5), Kentucky (1), Massachusetts (4), Maryland (2), Maine (3), Minnesota (5), Missouri (2), Montana (1), North Carolina (1), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (1), Nevada (2), Ohio (4), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (1), Texas (3), Utah (2), Virginia (2), Washington (5), and Wisconsin (1).
Ill persons range in age from 2 to 57 years; however, more than 70% are less than 19 years old and none are over 60 years old; 75% are female. Twenty-five persons have been hospitalized, 7 developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).
Story taken from the E. Coli Blog
Nearly seven months earlier,on June 18, 2009, the CDC announced that 65 persons infected with a strain of E. coli O157:H7 with a particular DNA fingerprint have been reported from 29 states. Of these, 23 have been confirmed by an advanced DNA test as having the outbreak strain; these confirmatory test results are pending on the others. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Arkansas (1), Arizona (2), California (2), Colorado (5), Delaware (1), Hawaii (1), Iowa (2), Illinois (5), Kentucky (1), Massachusetts (4), Maryland (2), Maine (3), Minnesota (5), Missouri (2), Montana (1), North Carolina (1), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (1), Nevada (2), Ohio (4), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (1), Texas (3), Utah (2), Virginia (2), Washington (5), and Wisconsin (1).
Ill persons range in age from 2 to 57 years; however, more than 70% are less than 19 years old and none are over 60 years old; 75% are female. Twenty-five persons have been hospitalized, 7 developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).
Story taken from the E. Coli Blog
864,000 Pounds of Ground Beef Recalled Due to E. Coli Contamination
MONTEBELLO, Calif. (AP) -- A Southern California meat-packing firm has recalled some 864,000 pounds of ground-beef that might be contaminated with E. coli.
The Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said Monday that no illnesses have been reported from the products sold by Montebello-based Huntington Meat Packing under the Huntington, Imperial Meat and El Rancho brands.
The affected beef was sold to distribution centers, restaurants and hotels in California between Feb. 19 and May 15, 2008, and between Jan 5. and Jan. 15, 2010.
Huntington did not return a phone message.
Officials say department personnel discovered the problem during a food safety assessment.
E. coli is a potentially deadly germ that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and, in the most severe cases, kidney failure.
The Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said Monday that no illnesses have been reported from the products sold by Montebello-based Huntington Meat Packing under the Huntington, Imperial Meat and El Rancho brands.
The affected beef was sold to distribution centers, restaurants and hotels in California between Feb. 19 and May 15, 2008, and between Jan 5. and Jan. 15, 2010.
Huntington did not return a phone message.
Officials say department personnel discovered the problem during a food safety assessment.
E. coli is a potentially deadly germ that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and, in the most severe cases, kidney failure.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Kelis Calls PETA Founder A 'Batty Hypocrite'
I get LOTS of e mails daily, but I found this one the other day and HAD to read the accompanying article. Here's an excerpt:
She notes, "There is no humane way to kill anything. It's unfortunate but it's part of life. With that being said, I would eat pterodactyl if you found some and you told me it was meaty and delicious.
"I eat meat, and in fact my mouth salivates as I type the word meat!"
Kelis goes on to urge PETA activists to concentrate their efforts on other causes: "I feel very strongly about a lot of things such as the sweatshops that spin cotton and the blood on their hands.
"If u (sic) want to preach do it about something worthwhile, don't waste my time trying to save the dang chipmunk.
"Find a worthwhile cause like the women being maimed in these Middle Eastern countries. Or female circumcision. Or women's rights here in America; we still get paid less for doing the same jobs as men."
(the entire article appears here)
Be warned ... a rant is brewing ....
Taking a deep breath.
Ok ... so MANY people know that Ms. Newkirk isn't a "model" for the humane treatment of animals, but at the same time, PETA has done a lot to bring it to peoples attention that attrocities are going on every day to animals who suffer needlessly and in the most atrocious ways. Albeit, PETA likes to shock, but as ANYONE who's ever done work with shelters or rescues, sometimes people NEED to be shocked. To see the message. Animals SUFFER. Now, with that said, let me address Kelis. I have NO idea who this woman is, but her level of either ignorance or disregard of suffering, is appalling. Animal activists realize that this is NOT just about animals. There's a MUCH bigger picture here, but I guess that's lost on "celebrities" who want to grab publicity or just have something to say.
My personal idea about ethical and humane treatment of animals, is that they are NOT commodity, nor property, or have a right to be treated with ANY more harm than you would ANY other living thing. WHY? Because we are their stewards. They have no voice, other than cries, bleats, meows, barks, etc. As a thinking, feeling animal myself, I cannot stand to hear the cries of another animal in pain. It's absolutely shocking to me that someone feels that it's ok to marginalize the plights of animals and FORGET that we, humans, are animals too.
She notes, "There is no humane way to kill anything. It's unfortunate but it's part of life. With that being said, I would eat pterodactyl if you found some and you told me it was meaty and delicious.
"I eat meat, and in fact my mouth salivates as I type the word meat!"
Kelis goes on to urge PETA activists to concentrate their efforts on other causes: "I feel very strongly about a lot of things such as the sweatshops that spin cotton and the blood on their hands.
"If u (sic) want to preach do it about something worthwhile, don't waste my time trying to save the dang chipmunk.
"Find a worthwhile cause like the women being maimed in these Middle Eastern countries. Or female circumcision. Or women's rights here in America; we still get paid less for doing the same jobs as men."
(the entire article appears here)
Be warned ... a rant is brewing ....
Taking a deep breath.
Ok ... so MANY people know that Ms. Newkirk isn't a "model" for the humane treatment of animals, but at the same time, PETA has done a lot to bring it to peoples attention that attrocities are going on every day to animals who suffer needlessly and in the most atrocious ways. Albeit, PETA likes to shock, but as ANYONE who's ever done work with shelters or rescues, sometimes people NEED to be shocked. To see the message. Animals SUFFER. Now, with that said, let me address Kelis. I have NO idea who this woman is, but her level of either ignorance or disregard of suffering, is appalling. Animal activists realize that this is NOT just about animals. There's a MUCH bigger picture here, but I guess that's lost on "celebrities" who want to grab publicity or just have something to say.
My personal idea about ethical and humane treatment of animals, is that they are NOT commodity, nor property, or have a right to be treated with ANY more harm than you would ANY other living thing. WHY? Because we are their stewards. They have no voice, other than cries, bleats, meows, barks, etc. As a thinking, feeling animal myself, I cannot stand to hear the cries of another animal in pain. It's absolutely shocking to me that someone feels that it's ok to marginalize the plights of animals and FORGET that we, humans, are animals too.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Saturday Cuteness
Puppy rescued from train track, frigid air; gets new home, name
Seriously ... this story (and the puppy) is too cute for me NOT to post.
Seriously ... this story (and the puppy) is too cute for me NOT to post.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Report: Monsanto Corn Causes Organ Damage in Mammals
A report released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences states that three types of Monsanto corn, cause cancer and organ damage in mammals.
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.
Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities.
The study can be found here
The original article can be found here
Sign the Petition here to tell the FDA to get Monsanto's GMO corn off the market.
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.
Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities.
The study can be found here
The original article can be found here
Sign the Petition here to tell the FDA to get Monsanto's GMO corn off the market.
Farm Sanctuary
The video posted below has some disturbing images, but please don't let that take away from the power and immediacy of the work being done on behalf of these animals.
Cell Phone's and Driving
I know that this subject is off base from what I normally post here but I just stumbled upon what looks like a great non-profit. Their name is Focus Driven and they are advocates for Cell Free Driving. Take a minute to go to the site, and take the pledge.
Man rescues Puppy with Mouth to Mouth
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
What's Really In Our Food
So I recently discovered a show from the BBC called "What's Really In Our Food." After watching the intro and a few minutes of the show, the first thing that screamed out at me was how much this show couldn't/wouldn't be produced in the US. It's no secret that I'm a closet optimist. I hold most things in contempt, while waiting for better results. The reason I bring this up, is I have a memory that crosses back to my political "protest" days. I protested the Gulf War, and even went to Crawford Texas to do so. Again, I felt it was a moral obligation to do so. The BBC was showing protests around the world ... the US media ... alarmingly silent. My point being, American media have their pockets filled by companies that a show like this would anger. Not only do the American media fall into this money pit, but so do the politicians:
American Farm Bureau Federation
One of Capitol Hill's most vocal lobby groups, it is also one of the nation's largest crop and livestock insurance companies. Its county-level meetings have been a prime forum for airing fears about the climate bill.
Lobby spending: $2,634,661
Lobbyists: 37
Campaign contributions: $26,000
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
The group that brought you "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" represents the likes of the American Hereford Association, Purina, Dow Chemical, McDonald's, and Wal-Mart.
Lobby spending: $198,257
Lobbyists: 15
Campaign contributions: $225,047
National Pork Producers Council
Members include billion-dollar corporations like Cargill, Bayer, and Pfizer. Top priorities this year include a demand for a $250 million swine subsidy.
Lobby spending: $863,137
Lobbyists: 26
Campaign contributions: $202,134
National Milk Producers Federation
Has some 40,000 members, from local co-ops to titans like Kraft Foods; vows to "ensure that agricultural enterprises are shielded from any adverse impacts" of climate legislation.
Lobby spending: $460,000
Lobbyists: 17
Campaign contributions: $88,000
(taken from Mother Jones for the last election cycle.)
If you get a chance, find "What's Really in Our Food." Download it, watch it and question why shows like this don't get produced in the US to be shown on major cable or non cable entities.
"The Food business is far and away the most important business in the world. Everything else is a luxury. Food is what you need to sustain life every day. Food is fuel. You can't run a tractor without fuel, and you can't run a human being without it either. Food is the absolute beginning."
Dwayne Andreas, former chairman, Archer Daniels Midland
American Farm Bureau Federation
One of Capitol Hill's most vocal lobby groups, it is also one of the nation's largest crop and livestock insurance companies. Its county-level meetings have been a prime forum for airing fears about the climate bill.
Lobby spending: $2,634,661
Lobbyists: 37
Campaign contributions: $26,000
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
The group that brought you "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" represents the likes of the American Hereford Association, Purina, Dow Chemical, McDonald's, and Wal-Mart.
Lobby spending: $198,257
Lobbyists: 15
Campaign contributions: $225,047
National Pork Producers Council
Members include billion-dollar corporations like Cargill, Bayer, and Pfizer. Top priorities this year include a demand for a $250 million swine subsidy.
Lobby spending: $863,137
Lobbyists: 26
Campaign contributions: $202,134
National Milk Producers Federation
Has some 40,000 members, from local co-ops to titans like Kraft Foods; vows to "ensure that agricultural enterprises are shielded from any adverse impacts" of climate legislation.
Lobby spending: $460,000
Lobbyists: 17
Campaign contributions: $88,000
(taken from Mother Jones for the last election cycle.)
If you get a chance, find "What's Really in Our Food." Download it, watch it and question why shows like this don't get produced in the US to be shown on major cable or non cable entities.
"The Food business is far and away the most important business in the world. Everything else is a luxury. Food is what you need to sustain life every day. Food is fuel. You can't run a tractor without fuel, and you can't run a human being without it either. Food is the absolute beginning."
Dwayne Andreas, former chairman, Archer Daniels Midland
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Vegetarians, Flexitarians and the problems I have with "definitions"
Every day I tend to log into one of my various computers, either at work or at home and spend some time going through my e mail, checking out twitter or my blog to see who's visited me or to scan the headlines of a few sites that I regularly visit. Today's post was inspired by an article that I'd seen posted on Challenge Oppression web site. The article was titled "Vegetarians Who Eat Meat" which was itself inspired by an article in Newsweek called "No More Sacred Cows."
The Newsweek article starts off as follows:
"The latest cookbook by Mollie Katzen, author of vegetarian bibles The Moosewood Cookbook and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest, includes recipes for spinach lasagna and vegetable tofu stir fry with orange ginger glaze. It also includes a recipe for beef stew. No, not "beef" stew, in which some soy-based protein substitute is dressed and and spiced to look (and sort of taste) like meat. Beef stew. With real beef. From a cow.
Considered one of the chefs most responsible for the mainstreaming of vegetarianism in the 1970s and '80s, and a vegetarian herself for 30 years, Katzen began eating meat again a few years ago. "Somehow it got ascribed to me that I don't want people to eat meat," Katzen said. "I've just wanted to supply possibilities that were low on the food chain.""
My roommate has The Moosewood Cookbook and it was one of her first introductions to vegetarian cooking. I've never personally cooked from it, but for most vegetarians I've known, it ranks up there with Julia Childs or their mothers recipe's. For the longest time, not really that many people were writing about vegetarianism or vegetarian cooking so you got what you came for.
The Newsweek article goes on to say:
"For as long as people have been foreswearing meat, they've also been sneaking the occasional corn dog. The difference is, vegetarians used to feel guilty about their sins of the flesh-consumption. Now, thanks to the cachet attached to high-end meat, they are having their burgers without sacrificing the moral high ground."
This is where my ire gets a little ahead of my logic. The implication that vegetarians are "sneaking" what is assumed a guilty pleasure in MY mind is absurd. Let me explain. See to me, not only is vegetarianism a choice, to me its an ETHICAL choice. It's not just because I'm a foodie (which I'm not) but because I actually and truly care about the plight of what goes on my plate. To imply that me occasionally sneaking a corn dog like some naughty child, leads me down a very dark moral road. I would like to think that most vegetarians wound up being so, not out of only a call for good health but also because there is a moral implication that resides in the statement "You are what you eat" and in this country, that would be violence, torture, maiming, abuse, neglect and death. To me, there's a line here, that me personally, I just can't erase. I realize that I'm probably not the "poster child" for vegetarianism. I still own a leather jacket (I bought it when I was young and stupid) but don't wear it. I try to not buy from companies that do testing on animals, I essentially don't buy food from most companies who have commercials on TV and I do my best to contribute time to shelters and volunteering. So I like to consider myself somewhat redeemed. But hold on ... here's where my ire hits full blown anger.
"Buying only grass-fed, sustainably raised (and incredibly expensive) meat allows former vegetarians to maintain the same sanctimony they expressed with their old "I don't eat anything with a face" T shirts."
This is the SAME logic that offended me with Gourmet magazines idea of a "humane slaughter." I'm sorry but that kind of duality just doesn't exist in my mind and can't or my head would explode. There is NO such thing as HUMANE slaughter. Murder is murder now matter HOW you colour it.
to be continued .....
The Newsweek article starts off as follows:
"The latest cookbook by Mollie Katzen, author of vegetarian bibles The Moosewood Cookbook and The Enchanted Broccoli Forest, includes recipes for spinach lasagna and vegetable tofu stir fry with orange ginger glaze. It also includes a recipe for beef stew. No, not "beef" stew, in which some soy-based protein substitute is dressed and and spiced to look (and sort of taste) like meat. Beef stew. With real beef. From a cow.
Considered one of the chefs most responsible for the mainstreaming of vegetarianism in the 1970s and '80s, and a vegetarian herself for 30 years, Katzen began eating meat again a few years ago. "Somehow it got ascribed to me that I don't want people to eat meat," Katzen said. "I've just wanted to supply possibilities that were low on the food chain.""
My roommate has The Moosewood Cookbook and it was one of her first introductions to vegetarian cooking. I've never personally cooked from it, but for most vegetarians I've known, it ranks up there with Julia Childs or their mothers recipe's. For the longest time, not really that many people were writing about vegetarianism or vegetarian cooking so you got what you came for.
The Newsweek article goes on to say:
"For as long as people have been foreswearing meat, they've also been sneaking the occasional corn dog. The difference is, vegetarians used to feel guilty about their sins of the flesh-consumption. Now, thanks to the cachet attached to high-end meat, they are having their burgers without sacrificing the moral high ground."
This is where my ire gets a little ahead of my logic. The implication that vegetarians are "sneaking" what is assumed a guilty pleasure in MY mind is absurd. Let me explain. See to me, not only is vegetarianism a choice, to me its an ETHICAL choice. It's not just because I'm a foodie (which I'm not) but because I actually and truly care about the plight of what goes on my plate. To imply that me occasionally sneaking a corn dog like some naughty child, leads me down a very dark moral road. I would like to think that most vegetarians wound up being so, not out of only a call for good health but also because there is a moral implication that resides in the statement "You are what you eat" and in this country, that would be violence, torture, maiming, abuse, neglect and death. To me, there's a line here, that me personally, I just can't erase. I realize that I'm probably not the "poster child" for vegetarianism. I still own a leather jacket (I bought it when I was young and stupid) but don't wear it. I try to not buy from companies that do testing on animals, I essentially don't buy food from most companies who have commercials on TV and I do my best to contribute time to shelters and volunteering. So I like to consider myself somewhat redeemed. But hold on ... here's where my ire hits full blown anger.
"Buying only grass-fed, sustainably raised (and incredibly expensive) meat allows former vegetarians to maintain the same sanctimony they expressed with their old "I don't eat anything with a face" T shirts."
This is the SAME logic that offended me with Gourmet magazines idea of a "humane slaughter." I'm sorry but that kind of duality just doesn't exist in my mind and can't or my head would explode. There is NO such thing as HUMANE slaughter. Murder is murder now matter HOW you colour it.
to be continued .....
Thursday, January 7, 2010
An Animal Welfare Primer
Advocates for animals divide themselves into two camps: animal rights and animal welfare. Wikipedia defines animal welfare as “the belief that non-human animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are used for food, in animal testing, as pets, or in other ways.” The first part we can all agree on. Animals are capable of feeling –- both physically and emotionally -- and should be treated with compassion and respect. But after that is where the viewpoints diverge. Animal rights advocates believe that animals should not be used by humans in any way.
Humans are Animals
In the natural world, animals often form relationships with other species, as we do. A number of species have a tendency to eat other animals, too. However, you won’t find factory farms occurring in nature. The animal welfare movement includes vegans and meat-eaters (and everything in between) who understand that animals are not just food that walks around. Animals are independent creatures that deserve the highest quality of life while they're alive and, at the end, to be slaughtered in the most humane way possible. If our food systems met those standards, humans would be no better and no worse than other species. As a society, we're not even close.
Compassionate Conflicts
The food question isn’t the only one where animal advocates haven’t reached a consensus. From Adoption to Zoos, issues around animals are complex and emotionally charged. Different animals have different needs. Beyond the common goal of ending suffering, we don't always agree on where the line is drawn between acceptable use and exploitation, or what defines "quality of life" for one species versus another. Yet across the spectrum of beliefs, animal welfare advocates are passionate about how non-human animals are treated. That passion has saved many lives, and caused many heated debates.
Humans are in a position to cause a lot of pain or do a lot of good in this world. As Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
(Change.org)
Humans are Animals
In the natural world, animals often form relationships with other species, as we do. A number of species have a tendency to eat other animals, too. However, you won’t find factory farms occurring in nature. The animal welfare movement includes vegans and meat-eaters (and everything in between) who understand that animals are not just food that walks around. Animals are independent creatures that deserve the highest quality of life while they're alive and, at the end, to be slaughtered in the most humane way possible. If our food systems met those standards, humans would be no better and no worse than other species. As a society, we're not even close.
Compassionate Conflicts
The food question isn’t the only one where animal advocates haven’t reached a consensus. From Adoption to Zoos, issues around animals are complex and emotionally charged. Different animals have different needs. Beyond the common goal of ending suffering, we don't always agree on where the line is drawn between acceptable use and exploitation, or what defines "quality of life" for one species versus another. Yet across the spectrum of beliefs, animal welfare advocates are passionate about how non-human animals are treated. That passion has saved many lives, and caused many heated debates.
Humans are in a position to cause a lot of pain or do a lot of good in this world. As Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
(Change.org)
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Micheal Pollan on the Daily Show
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Michael Pollan | ||||
| ||||
Monday, January 4, 2010
Meet Lucy and Emma
Lucy is somewhere close to 8 years old. She is solid black with a white swoosh on her chest. The vet said she has some Siamese in her; she’s quite the talker. She weighs 11 pounds and is in good shape. She enjoys time outside; as she’s getting older she pretty much just hangs out. She loves to lounge. She also loves to drink water out of the bathroom faucet and likes to hang out with you in the bathroom during showers, baths or anything else. Lucy and Emma still enjoy showers from time-to-time with a good bit of noise and purrs. Lucy will get loud and growl but purrs while she’s doing it. She’s a real pushover and she’s wonderful with babies and kids.
Emma is 5-6 years old. She is a small Siamese, crossed eyes and all. She, on the other hand, is pretty quiet with a sweet soft voice unless it’s time to eat, something she loves. For a small cat, she can pack it in. Emma is not a real outdoor cat but will occasionally wander outside. She’s a big napper. She likes to nap on the back of chairs or any cubbyhole she can find. She’s really cute!
Both of these guys are pretty laid back. They eat wet food twice a day and split a half (1/4 each) of can of Friskies Select in the morning and then again in the evening. They also have a small bowl of Science Diet dried food out all the time. Lucy may eat a bit of the wet food and then come back later if there is anything left after Emma gets done. They both love sunbeams and the being out on the patio. Like most cats, show them the litter boxes once then they’re good. They are fine with alone time but really enjoy seeing their human friends and are appreciative of the companionship. If you know of anyone who would be interested in either of these two kitties please feel free to e mail me at dougancil@yahoo.com
Food Rules
Happy New Year to everyone and I hope that your holidays went well. Myself, I had a very nice time and I'm looking forward to bringing new visitors to my blog and making this more of a pleasant experience for anyone who enjoys reading what I have to say. Also, I'm going to try something new this year. I often get told about animals that need new homes or that would like to be adopted, so as I'm passed along that information, I'll do my best to pass it along to you. Also, hopefully sometime this year, I'm going to start marching towards making my own food web site a reality. It will be, of course, focused on local, healthy, vegetarian/vegan friendly food.
With that said, Michael Pollan has a new book coming out called Food Rules. I will say firstly that I don't always agree with Mr. Pollan, simply because he's a "foodie" and not so much concerned about the health of animals as it pertains to the issue of factory farms. I understand that there's a fine line to be ridden here, but after watching Food Inc and reading the Omnivore's Dilemma, I'm faced with the idea that in Mr. Pollan's eyes, that if an animal is treated humanely, it's ok to eat them. I could be wrong, but that's just my assessment. More importantly though, he does, in fact, have a new book coming out, talking about ways to address the health care crisis in this country. Here are some of the "rules" he's posted thus far:
#11 Avoid foods you see advertised on television.
Food marketers are ingenious at turning criticisms of their products -- and rules like these -- into new ways to sell slightly different versions of the same processed foods: They simply reformulate (to be low-fat, have no HFCS or transfats, or to contain fewer ingredients) and then boast about their implied healthfulness, whether the boast is meaningful or not. The best way to escape these marketing ploys is to tune out the marketing itself, by refusing to buy heavily promoted foods. Only the biggest food manufacturers can afford to advertise their products on television: More than two thirds of food advertising is spent promoting processed foods (and alcohol), so if you avoid products with big ad budgets, you'll automatically be avoiding edible foodlike substances. As for the 5 percent of food ads that promote whole foods (the prune or walnut growers or the beef ranchers), common sense will, one hopes, keep you from tarring them with the same brush -- these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
From "Food Rules":
#19 If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don't.
#36 Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.
This should go without saying. Such cereals are highly processed and full of refined carbohydrates as well as chemical additives.
#39 Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.
There is nothing wrong with eating sweets, fried foods, pastries, even drinking soda every now and then, but food manufacturers have made eating these formerly expensive and hard-to-make treats so cheap and easy that we're eating them every day. The french fry did not become America's most popular vegetable until industry took over the jobs of washing, peeling, cutting, and frying the potatoes -- and cleaning up the mess. If you made all the french fries you ate, you would eat them much less often, if only because they're so much work. The same holds true for fried chicken, chips, cakes, pies, and ice cream. Enjoy these treats as often as you're willing to prepare them -- chances are good it won't be every day.
#47 Eat when you are hungry, not when you are bored.
For many of us, eating has surprisingly little to do with hunger. We eat out of boredom, for entertainment, to comfort or reward ourselves. Try to be aware of why you're eating, and ask yourself if you're really hungry -- before you eat and then again along the way. (One old wive's test: If you're not hungry enough to eat an apple, then you're not hungry.) Food is a costly antidepressant.
#58 Do all your eating at a table.
No, a desk is not a table. If we eat while we're working, or while watching TV or driving, we eat mindlessly -- and as a result eat a lot more than we would if we were eating at a table, paying attention to what we're doing. This phenomenon can be tested (and put to good use): Place a child in front of a television set and place a bowl of fresh vegetables in front of him or her. The child will eat everything in the bowl, often even vegetables that he or she doesn't ordinarily touch, without noticing what's going on. Which suggests an exception to the rule: When eating somewhere other than at a table, stick to fruits and vegetables.
(if you'd like to e mail him with a new rule you can write him at pollanfoodrules@gmail.com. and the rest of the article that this is taken from is located here.)
With that said, Michael Pollan has a new book coming out called Food Rules. I will say firstly that I don't always agree with Mr. Pollan, simply because he's a "foodie" and not so much concerned about the health of animals as it pertains to the issue of factory farms. I understand that there's a fine line to be ridden here, but after watching Food Inc and reading the Omnivore's Dilemma, I'm faced with the idea that in Mr. Pollan's eyes, that if an animal is treated humanely, it's ok to eat them. I could be wrong, but that's just my assessment. More importantly though, he does, in fact, have a new book coming out, talking about ways to address the health care crisis in this country. Here are some of the "rules" he's posted thus far:
#11 Avoid foods you see advertised on television.
Food marketers are ingenious at turning criticisms of their products -- and rules like these -- into new ways to sell slightly different versions of the same processed foods: They simply reformulate (to be low-fat, have no HFCS or transfats, or to contain fewer ingredients) and then boast about their implied healthfulness, whether the boast is meaningful or not. The best way to escape these marketing ploys is to tune out the marketing itself, by refusing to buy heavily promoted foods. Only the biggest food manufacturers can afford to advertise their products on television: More than two thirds of food advertising is spent promoting processed foods (and alcohol), so if you avoid products with big ad budgets, you'll automatically be avoiding edible foodlike substances. As for the 5 percent of food ads that promote whole foods (the prune or walnut growers or the beef ranchers), common sense will, one hopes, keep you from tarring them with the same brush -- these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
From "Food Rules":
#19 If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don't.
#36 Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.
This should go without saying. Such cereals are highly processed and full of refined carbohydrates as well as chemical additives.
#39 Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.
There is nothing wrong with eating sweets, fried foods, pastries, even drinking soda every now and then, but food manufacturers have made eating these formerly expensive and hard-to-make treats so cheap and easy that we're eating them every day. The french fry did not become America's most popular vegetable until industry took over the jobs of washing, peeling, cutting, and frying the potatoes -- and cleaning up the mess. If you made all the french fries you ate, you would eat them much less often, if only because they're so much work. The same holds true for fried chicken, chips, cakes, pies, and ice cream. Enjoy these treats as often as you're willing to prepare them -- chances are good it won't be every day.
#47 Eat when you are hungry, not when you are bored.
For many of us, eating has surprisingly little to do with hunger. We eat out of boredom, for entertainment, to comfort or reward ourselves. Try to be aware of why you're eating, and ask yourself if you're really hungry -- before you eat and then again along the way. (One old wive's test: If you're not hungry enough to eat an apple, then you're not hungry.) Food is a costly antidepressant.
#58 Do all your eating at a table.
No, a desk is not a table. If we eat while we're working, or while watching TV or driving, we eat mindlessly -- and as a result eat a lot more than we would if we were eating at a table, paying attention to what we're doing. This phenomenon can be tested (and put to good use): Place a child in front of a television set and place a bowl of fresh vegetables in front of him or her. The child will eat everything in the bowl, often even vegetables that he or she doesn't ordinarily touch, without noticing what's going on. Which suggests an exception to the rule: When eating somewhere other than at a table, stick to fruits and vegetables.
(if you'd like to e mail him with a new rule you can write him at pollanfoodrules@gmail.com. and the rest of the article that this is taken from is located here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)