The reason I put “expose” in quotes is because it surprised me to find that people were surprised about this revelation. It seems to me that the government has showed a concrete and substantial history of toggling between health and illness, such that this seems to be par for the course.

In the case of the New Your Times article, the author describes how a surplus of whole milk and extracted milk fat required the government to step in and create subsidies for the industry so that those products don’t go to waste. This is the exact same scenario and what happened in the 1970’s with the corn industry, resulting in the creation and excess use of High Fructose Corn Syrup in American food products.

In both cases, multiple studies have been performed to show that both sugar and cheese are two of the top reasons Americans have increased obesity and heart disease compared to other countries, yet, we keep subsidizing them, perpetuating industries that are making us sick and fat.

There is a third industry at play, here, however. The medical industry. They are just as much to blame for our health problems as the food industry. Having worked for a biotech/pharmaceutical company for a very long time, I feel confident that I can say most of these businesses are not in the business of curing anything. They are only in the business of creating a quality of life. To put it bluntly, there is no revenue when something is cured. They need to create a lifetime of patients, so they have a lifetime of money.

So here we have Big Agriculture Industry (corn, dairy, meat) and the medical industry with the government dancing between the two partners… like a woman accepting two dates to prom and not wanting either partner to know of the other. Add to that the fact that we live in a capitalistic society where everyone wants more and more money for themselves and the shareholders. In our current climate the government has no choice but to tout good health on the one hand while putting money into the pockets of the dairy farmer and the doctor in the other.

And why do I feel so confident this is true and will stay in existence? It comes down to this simple logical argument: if the government cared so much about our health, instead of creating a universal health plan, they would have stopped the subsidies. In doing so, they also would have saved close to $200 Billion dollars. But they didn’t. Every industry at play in this game is getting our money. The only people not getting our money is us. What we are getting is a lifetime of disease and shorter life span.. and being miserable and fat in the process.

The government pays close to $100 Billion in Big Ag subsidies. The nationwide Health Care plan is expected to cost $60 Billion dollars. The Big Ag subsidies are making us sick so we need the healthcare. Get rid of the one (subsidies) and you don’t need the other (healthcare). The citizenry has a surplus of income on the magnitude of $160 Billion dollars nationwide, which we can then put back into the system by supporting small farmers, agriculture and healthful food. Since we are healthier we will also be spending our money on activities outside of the home, stimulating growth of the economy and consumer confidence.

I will leave it up to you to decide what the government, Big Ag, and the Medical Industry have at stake to keep us dependent on our current way of life. I have my opinions, but that is irrelevant to the overall conversation and ultimate solution. Regardless of your beliefs of why they are doing it, why don’t we let that go, and start doing something to change it.

It was the culmination of a long fought battle between the United States and Russia, answering the question “who would get there first?”

I have spent parts of the day listening to the radio commemorating the historic event.  I will be the first to admit that if this happened a year ago, I would not have given the coverage the time nor day.  Like many Americans, this day would hold absolutely no significance.

I am completely unqualified to go into details, but I have had the privilege of conversations, with someone who knows, that has led me to understand the magnanimous feat it was to get to the moon.  This truly was no small thing.  Just to give you a starting point, we went to the moon using a slide rule as a calculator.  The margin for error was more probable than it would be today using one of our mega-computers.  But we did it!

Sadly, as is with many things for America, that is where the story ends.

During the aforementioned conversation, there was also a discussion of how disheartening it was that we have so much knowledge and ability, but instead of using it to do things to advance the human species, we use it to engineer mini-malls and super highways.  For all of the potential that landing on the moon could have advanced us, we abandoned it like it were a lost cause.

What I realized today, though, is that this is the American psychology.  The only reason we even entered the space race was because we were in competition with Russia during the Cold War.  I contend that is why we Americans do anything; to win.  The question is to what end are we winning?  Is it winning if what we win at today, is what kills us tomorrow?

We have advanced technology only in that it serves us to go to war and “win” over another culture.  We have gotten the “next, better, best” in our cell phones, cars, homes, and clothing, only for the purpose of being the winner between ourselves and our next door neighbor.  We have used our skills to create chemicals that are injected to prevent wrinkles or make bigger breasts, in this perverse attempt at being alluring to the opposite sex.  We have created an agriculture system where we have dominated the planet so much, we are conquering it and killing it off.

Again, I am totally bastardizing this, but Carl Sagan once stated that in order for a civilization to participate in interstellar space travel (travel between stars), it would have to evolve beyond war and become globally peaceful.  Therefore, if we were visited by aliens, it would be safe to assume that they were more advanced then us by the sheer nature that they would have to be non-violent having evolved to a level where they can travel between stars.

I have come to fully understand what he meant by this.  I think, he has been proven correct.  Because of our insatiable need to compete and win, we abandoned the possibility that we could have human travel beyond the Moon.  That, to me, is sad.

However, in all of this, I had a thought that might be a glimmer of hope.  Our need for competition is what might be killing us, when you apply it to climate change; the need for stuff in order to outshine a friend, a neighbor, or even a country.  But what if we use competition to save us?

Who is the first to reduce their CO2 emissions for 100ppm?  Who is the first to come up with a sustainable way to get its citizens water?  Imagine the first country to be “off the grid”?  What if we made saving the planet a race to see who can get us all to the finish line first?

You would actually have a lot of data to prove your point.  Each grocery store you went into would look exactly the same, with the fruits and vegetables always meeting those expectations.

However, you would be wrong.

In fact, the truth is that a lot of fresh, edible produce is thrown away because it does not meet standards set by the FTC and the Grocery Manufactures Association.

On average, U.S. farmers are forced to dispose of approximately 1/5 of their entire harvest because it does not fulfill visually uniform and blemish-free criteria set forth by the FTC, modern advertising imagery and consumer desire. Other resources cite that figure being as high as 50%. That means that every twisty-goateed-carrot, two-headed eggplant, and eyeball-ridden potato that they encounter is either left on the fields to rot before finally being tilled underground or immediately carted off to the dumpster. Remarkably, the UK has followed suit for decades with the EU-imposed regulation of 26 varieties of fruit and vegetables that must be banned for sale if they are under-sized and/or misshapen – resulting in an annual crop loss for British farmers of 20%.

But during this time of an economic recession, as well as concerns about global warming, is this really a good practice to keep in place.  There are estimates that with minor changes to the United States system of throwing out flawed produce, we could save tens of BILLIONS of dollars.  And, this

Right now, I am thinking about the ridiculousness of the Monsanto campaign…”Helping Farmers Produce More”.  Their claim is that with a looming 9 Billion people… they will need to assist farmers to produce more.

It seems that if they are throwing away 20-50% of edible, nutritious food, the need for technological advances seems unwarranted.  But, maybe I am missing something.

I was happy to read that the UK recently changed their food policy to allow for “flawed” produce to hit the store shelves.  However, there are stipulations as the product must be labeled “Product Intended for Processing”.  This is fruit that does not meet visual standards, but is perfectly nutritive and can be used for things like preserving into jams and jellies or used in fruit salad.

Does the ridiculousness of this strike anyone else?  Do you think our ancestors, in the African desert, would have passed by fruit because it crooked?  The fact that we have these standards should be a sign of how out of control the food system has become. This mask of perfection that is created is distancing ourselves from the value of real food.  It is a sign of the elitism that we have created in this country surrounding food.  We are saying, loud and clear, that it is better for you to be starving on the street than eat an imperfect apple.  (I wonder what the apple looked like in the Garden of Eden.)

I think that this policy needs to change.  Food is a gift we have been given, whether you believe through evolution or divinity.  The more we get detached from the variations in food, the more we ensure the growth of huge corporate entities that create our food.  But more importantly, I feel it places the last nail in the human coffin.

by Shelley Boyle

In it, the author, discusses the new trend of being a climate change denier.  According to this, there are a large number of politicians and scientists who claim that climate change is the “worst scientific scandal in history.”  They claim that they are looking at the data more closely because of the impact from the recession and it has left them with no doubt to believe it just does not exist; racking it up to something no greater than a new religion.

Surprisingly, the most outspoken of them all is a politician from Australia, Steve Fielding.  Why this is surprising is because of the impact Australia is facing due to changing temperatures; drought, fire, food shortages, and rising temperatures.  But this man can sit there and say there is not enough scientific evidence.

What is interesting to me about this type of article is this notion that we, who believe that climate change is real and moving closely upon us, seem to want it to occur.  That we are looking forward to it and that we are damned that we haven’t been able to provide concrete evidence that it exists. And, not only that, but when asked, these same “deniers’ are not providing data to the counter, either.  Despite that, it is all the fault of those who “believe” that are allowing legislation to go through and decisions to be made based on false information.  (Of course, when the Federal Reserve does it causing economic collapse, they turn a blind eye.  But, when it comes to the collapse of an entire species, they are screaming from the rooftops.)

What I am trying to say is this: that maybe there is a 50/50 chance that climate change does not exist.  I certainly hope so.  If climate change does exist and I change my lifestyle accordingly, then we have caught something before it is too late.  If it doesn’t exist, then my changes will have little impact and will be a net neutral to the planet.  If I don’t change my lifestyle and climate change doesn’t exist, again… net neutral… no impact, no change.  But, if I don’t change my lifestyle and climate change DOES exist, then the impact I have made onto the planet is drastic and life threatening.

So.. my question is this… why are some people so adamant to not change, and do small things that might greatly alter the planet, just for the sake of being right?

Check it out: FOOD, INC.

You can watch the preview here or on LAist.

THE SUSTAINABLE TABLE

Sustainable Table was created in 2003 by the nonprofit organization GRACE to help consumers understand the problems with our food supply and offer viable solutions and alternatives. Rather than be overwhelmed by the problems created by our industrial agricultural system, Sustainable Table celebrates the joy of food and eating.

Today’s dominant form of agriculture relies on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, large amounts of water, major transportation systems and factory-style practices for raising livestock. Industrial farming creates over-processed, over-traveled, and under-nourishing food that may contribute to health problems like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. This type of food production causes pollution and creates environmental and public health problems that cost taxpayers both money and quality of life. Sustainable Table was launched to offer consumers a choice and to show that fresh food from small, independent family farmers is still available.

I have been following them for quite a while and had the pleasure to meet Diane Hatz, the founder and Exec. Producer of the Meatrix video series.  (check out the video on the sidebar if you don’t know what this is).  Just recently, I started following them on Twitter, which introduced me to their blog: The Daily Table.  This has fantastic information about recommended summer reads and movies about food, information on school lunch programs, genetically modified foods and much, much more.

You can follow them on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/eatsustainable

Now, I don’t know much except that, as advertized, it is “limited time” and a co-promotion with Delta ONLY.  But, you have to know more things like this will be on the way.

If you are a frequent reader, you know that I have made it a goal to educate as many people as I can about two things: Bisphenol-A and media manipulation.  I am about to write about the convergence of the two: the minutes from a meeting held by major corporations, whose purpose was to discuss how best to change the perception of BPA, were released and they aren’t pretty.

In the meeting, which was attended by Coca-Cola, Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (a lobbying group), and Del Monte, amongst others, it was discussed how to get people to not believe the data that shows that BPA is harmful.  The strategy: FEAR.  But I will get to that in a moment.

I want to first remind everyone about Bisphenol-A, or BPA, as it is more commonly known.  This is an additive used in the manufacture of plastic and canned goods.  For plastic, it is used during the synthesis of the plastic into components like water and baby bottles, toys, to-go food containers, and other similar items.  In canned goods, it is used as a liner, to limit the contact between the food or drink item and the metal materials used to make the can.

BPA came onto the scene in the 1930’s and has grown to be a $6-10 billion industry.  Even though there were indications when it was first manufactured, growing concern of the effects to the body increased in the 1990’s.  This is when some of the first studies came to light about the possible estrogenic effects of the component onto the body.

Data is conclusive that BPA is a hormone mimicker.  This means when it enters our system, the body interprets it as estrogen and reacts accordingly.  This has increased cancers, created premature reproductive development, sterility, and the feminization of males.  It has a greater influence on the bodies of children, which is why having it in baby bottles and toys, makes it so detrimental.  They have found that BPA leaches into every product that is stored in the various containers, and is transferred to our bodies.  In fact, 95% of all Americans have BPA in their blood stream and urine.

There is a lot of conflict about the research into BPA, so I will try to make it as understandable as possible.  Everyone should know that BPA has been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.  Since that time, there have been independent research studies that call into question the data used in approval of the chemical.  Aside from conflicting results, more importantly, there is evidence of negligent activity on the part of the FDA.  First, they approved BPA using two non-multi-generational studies that were funded by the American Chemical Council, who are the same folks that make money off of BPA.  Secondly, the FDA also allowed the American Chemical Council to write the safety and efficacy reports affiliated with the approval documentation.  Bottom line, there are allegations that FDA knowingly approved an unsafe chemical because it best served corporate interest instead of citizen interest.

In light of the new evidence, and because of consumer awareness, many countries, including the United States, have or are looking into legislation that bans the use of BPA.  One catch, the are banning it in bottles.  Most people are unaware that BPA is used in canned goods; sodas, soups, canned fruits and vegetables.  These are all lined with BPA.

Which brings us to the topic at hand.

Last week, a meeting was held sponsored by the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc.  Attendees, including Coca Cola and Del Monte, “discussed the need to be more proactive in communications to media, legislators, and the general public to protect industries that use BPA, prolong the life of BPA, put risks from chemicals in proper prospective, and transcend the media and the blogosphere.”

The meeting minutes were obtained and released by EnviroBlog and Environmental Working Group.  Excerpts are as follows:

- Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. “Do you want to have
access to baby food anymore?”)

- The committee doubts obtaining a scientific spokesperson is attainable.  Their “holy grail” spokesperson would be a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”

- The members are focusing on more legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process.

- Focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor is also important.

There is much more to the three page long minutes, but you get the idea.

Here it is, in black and white, big corporations discussing how to manipulate the consumers to use something that is harmful to themselves and their children because it might hurt their bank account.

Bottom line, I believe that these companies do not care about you.  When you see advertising, I think it is important for everyone to understand, that the executives have made the decision that the particular campaign is felt to be the most effective way to convince you to buy the product, so that they make more and more money, but they don’t really believe or stand behind that advertising.  It is manipulation to get you to buy, buy, buy.

And this is the most abhorrent version of that.  They are going to manipulate you and your family to putting poison into your body for the good of their pocket books.

Coca-Cola products:  Coke, Sprite, Dasani, MinuteMaid, Bacardi, Fanta, Dr. Pepper, Nestea

Del Monte: Del Monte, S&W, Contadina, 9Lives, MilkBone

On the surface, this doesn’t seem like that bad of a partnership, I suppose.  You may not even know who Nobu is or care about any LG products.  But, in reality, this ad is very, VERY wrong and giving you a false impression of this man and this company.

An excerpt from the same ad:

Do you see that line about the environment being better off?  Keep that in mind as I tell you the next thing….

Nobu is a very famous sushi chef.  His fame competes with the celebrities created on Food Network.  He has 20 restaurants across the globe, with co-owner Robert DeNiro, amassed friendships with any and every known celebrity, and is under harsh criticism for refusing to stop selling endangered bluefin tuna in his restaruants.

Yes.  The man peddling the energy efficient fridge sells a critically endangered species on his menu.

The Sunday Telegraph reports this morning that, thanks to Greenpeace investigative work*, we now know that London’s Nobu restaurants, among the capital’s favourite celebrity hangouts, are serving up endangered bluefin tuna as sushi.

The official response from Nobu on whether they sell bluefin has been a repeated, resounding ‘no comment’. But now we know clearly that they are serving bluefin, and the fish can be traced back to endangered Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks, through their supply chain and the DNA evidence.

Why am I sharing this with you? A great part of being better to the environment is being a better consumer.  Because you trust an ad campaign that is selling an energy efficient appliance, touting benefits to the environment, you may also be unknowingly adding to the financial gain of a man who is ensuring the demise of another living, and endangered, species.

Shame on you LG for asking such a man to be a part of your campaign.  Same on you, Nobu, for thinking you can get away with it.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

This is such a disappointment.  And there are so many things to this story that need to be addressed.

Oprah Winfrey has partnered up with KFC to promote their new grilled chicken dinner by giving away free meals.  I don’t know where to begin, in all honesty, because so much of this is wrong.

First off, promoting something as unhealthy as KFC by a woman who has a show on about health, child obesity, and her own obesity nearly every week, it seems that someone might not have thought this through.

KFC is promoting this as a healthy, UNfried version of their Original Recipe.  However, when you look at the nutritional information provided on the website, it is still not the healthiest alternative.  In fact, it is less healthy that getting the Original Recipe and taking off the breading and skin.  The other thing to note is this little trick of deception: the serving size is listed in grams.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t bring a scale with me when I go out to eat.  And, most places would either try to figure out the per piece nutritional value or, at the very least, tell you how many grams an average piece weighs.  For example, the serving size of the chicken breast is 119grams which is the equivalent to 4 ounces, or the size of your palm.  So, if you are eating any more than that amount, the “health” benefits of the grilled chicken are null.

Now, let’s talk about the term: chicken.  Here is how KFC has listed chicken, this time from its ingredient list.

Chicken, Salt, Sodium Phosphate, and Monosodium Glutamate Seasoned with: Maltodextrin, Salt, Bleached Wheat Flour, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and Cottonseed Oil, Monosodium Glutamate, Spices, Palm Oil, Natural Flavor, Garlic Powder, Soy Sauce (Soybean, Wheat, Salt), Chicken
Fat, Chicken Broth, Autolyzed Yeast, Beef Powder, Rendered Beef Fat, Extractives of Turmeric, Dehydrated Carrot, Onion Powder, and Not More Than 2% Each of Calcium Silicate and Silicon Dioxide Added as Anticaking Agents. Contains Wheat and Soy.

I have always liked my chicken made from beef fat.  Yum.

But, please keep in mind, this is what the chicken contains.  This is not the ingredients for a meal… this is the chicken.  I always thought chicken was just chicken.  But, at KFC, it is almost 26 ingredients…. and they haven’t even gotten to the eleven herbs and spices yet.

What Oprah is giving away is not just the chicken, but also two sides and biscuits.  I am not going to spend my time going over each ingredient list.  The bottom line is for someone who is trying to change the collective conscience on nutrition, it is hypocritical to promote such an item.

The second reason this promotion is so horrifying is because just six months ago the show did an expose on factory farms and the cruelty those animals suffer to provide us food.  This site has written about this many times, and you can find another article HERE, about the devastation CAFO’s have brought to us, the animals and the environment.

KFC is notorius for using animals raised in inhumane conditions, specifically farmed by Tyson.  Tyson has been caught on tape torturing animals, and is under investigation for multiple complaints of violations of animal cruelty laws.  Not too mention, it is a partner with Monsanto in creating legislation that will change the food dynamic of this country, in regards to the illegalization of organic products.

For a women who was named PETA’s Celebrity of the Year, I think it is a shame that she is now promoting a company that knowingly and admittingly has tortured animals.

The last reason this is this: disease.  Whether it is human, animal or the environment, the living conditions of how we raise our food is hurting and will kill us and them.  The animals raised in these conditions are sick and filled with antibiotics and hormones.  There is concrete evidence that this condition leads to drug resistant organisms which lead to the possibility of outbreaks like swine flu. (please note, we are aware that this latest ‘pandemic” didn’t amount to much, but that is not to say something like it won’t in the future).

These same conditions are creating an animal, that when we eat it, is a root cause to a national obesity level of 60% and growing.  As a result, we also have an increase in diabetes and other illnesses that are occuring at ever increasing rates.

Lastly, these conditions are hurting the planet.  The CAFO farming method is lethal to this planet via waste run-off, methane gas release, and dead zones in soil.  Elliminating a meat heavy diet just once a day can have lasting effects on the sustainability of this planet.

There are low income families all over this nation that are struggling to get food on the table.  I want to make sure that I am not saying she, or any of you, should not do what you can to help these people.  But they are the same peole that have no access to clean, healthy organic food.  And then, they have no access to good health care from the myriad of diseases causes as a result of their eating habits.

Oprah needs to spend her money and use her name more wisely.  She has created a marketing campaign that re-enforces the belief that healthy eating and organic clean food are for the wealthy and elite; that if you are of a lower income bracket you do not deserve to have the same food priveleges as other Americans.

She easily could have partnered with any other food company that would have gotten the same affect (free food to people in need) with a different effect; that being healthy and eating well, while not harming animals or the planet is the most important message to be passed to future generations.

But she didn’t.

by Shelley Boyle