Looking To Pope Francis To End Factory Farming

by
Inside a Barn on a Chicken Factory Farm

Inside a Barn on a Chicken Factory Farm (Photo credit: Socially Responsible Agricultural Project)

 

The Vatican’s election of Pope Francis hopefully will signal an era of increased awareness and activism that will culminate in the end of factory farming.  Taking the name of Francis, after St.Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and the environment, the new pope has set the stage for his agenda, which features compassion for animals and a commitment to the poor.

 

This attention to the plight of animals is needed desperately in light of the cruel practices of factory farming, whereby animals raised for food are crammed together in close quarters, barely able to move.  Chickens and turkeys raised for market spend their entire lives on beds of excrement, while pigs, cattle and calves are raised on slatted floors, which permit their feces to drop below into manure pits.  These environments are toxic, with the resulting ammonia fumes from the animals’ waste circulating the enclosed environment, weakening their immune systems and burning their respiratory tracts.  Also, penning animals in close quarters results in fighting with pecking and biting, causing injuries, sores and infections. This whole scenario is indicative of the extreme cruelty to animals and deserves the attention of the world and the passage of laws to end these practices.

 

Additionally, the practice of factory farming, with its inherent contaminated and toxic environment, poses an ever-present threat of disease, necessitating the routine use of antibiotics to treat animals.  This is particularly alarming at a time when there is a major concern about the overuse of antibiotics by humans, which is suspected to lead to antibiotic resistance and the development of mutant virulent strains of bacteria and viruses.  Permitting the commercial marketing of meat products laced with antibiotics for human consumption is hazardous to human health and should not be outlawed.

 

Pope Francis also has voiced his commitment to the poor and the Church’s need to address the issue of poverty all over the world.  It is noteworthy that factory farming practices are more likely to impact the poorer segments of the population because these individuals are less likely than their wealthier counterparts to have access or means to meat and poultry raised organically, largely due to cost.  Nutritionally insufficient diets have been identified as a major contributor to poor health, and the ingestion of products of factory farming clearly is a part of this cycle.

 

With this new era in the Catholic Church, social activists, farm animal welfare activists and environmentalists look with optimism to Pope Francis and the Vatican to lend a voice to the need to protect animals and humans by adopting the necessary legal measures to end factory farming.  To do so is to live green, be green.

Sources For Article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sue-cross/antibiotic-resistance-veganism_b_2874898.html?utm_hp_ref=health-news&ir=Health%20News.
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/pope-says-wants-poor-church_n_2889991.html.
3.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi.

 

Whole Foods Commits To Consumers on GMO Labeling

by
Whole Foods Market

Whole Foods Market (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whole Foods has stepped into the ring in the fight between consumers and the government over food labeling of GMOs.  The company recently announced that by 2018, “all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs)”.

This announcement to require labeling of GMOs speaks loudly to the food industry and the government on industry practices.  A clear message is being sent that people have the right to know the contents of their food they purchase and that a company which markets food as being certified organic has a duty to assure the truth of any such statements to that extent.  Without mandatory labeling, it is impossible for stores such as Whole Foods to guarantee non-GMO products to their customers; however, forging business relationships with companies who are willing to truthfully disclose the contents of food products will go a long way to identify and support worthy businesses.  This is not to say that a product cannot contain GMOs.  Rather, they will not be sold at Whole Foods.  There are some people who do not even read food labels or show concern for such issues, and there still will be places for them to shop.

Recent efforts to require GMO labeling in California was defeated, largely as a result of millions of dollars in advertising against the ballot measure by corporate proponents of GMOs, namely Monsanto and PepsiCo.  It is difficult to understand the controversy over food labeling and the government’s failure to require labeling on foods containing GMOs.  Additionally, it is puzzling that the government opts to block the consumers’ right to know what is contained in the food they purchase.  To this end, Gary Hirshberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Yogurt and chairman of the Just Label It campaign noted that “there are . . . lots of reasons to label these foods:  health and environmental concerns, ethical/religious views or just people want to know”.  Statistics on the need to know whether or not foods contain GMOs indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) want food labeling.

The decision by Whole Foods to require labeling foods if they contain GMOs is a major step forward for the green movement and for people who insist on making informed choices on food purchases.    This decision also reinforces the commitment of stores such as Whole Foods to sell food that is organically grown.  This plan offers much-needed support to the suppliers of certified organic products.  It is a clear indication that the proponents of healthy living will not be dominated or defeated by big corporations on the issue of right to know and to choose the food they want to eat.  Hopefully, many more companies will join Whole Foods and manufacturers, such as Stonyfield, in supporting consumers’ right to know whether or not their food contains GMOs.  To do so is to live green, be green.

 

Source for this article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?utm_hp_ref=green.
2.  http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/product-faq/gmos.
3.  http://justlabelit.org/.

Trickery, Cruelty and Greed: The Untold Story About Horsemeat

by
Seal of the United States Department of Agricu...

Seal of the United States Department of Agriculture (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a media frenzy with repeated disclosures on the commingling of horsemeat with beef in frozen food products distributed in Europe and possibly here in the United States; (3) however, the real discussions on the problems of horsemeat production with the details of trickery, cruelty and greed—  have been noticeably absent.  We have been given the names of some of the perpetrators in these violations of public trust, namely Nestle, Sodexho, Ikea, Burger King and Tesco, but there are many more out there yet to be identified.  It is important to note that to date, U.S. officials state that they doubt that horsemeat has been sold in any beef products in the United States. 

Aside from the deception by not revealing the contents of these food products, the more heinous act here is the introduction of a product into the food system that is not intended to be consumed by humans and, in fact, is deemed unsafe for human consumption.  Horses, after all, are “raised to be companions, competitors or work partners.” (1)  They routinely are administered medications that are toxic to people, including wormers, fly treatments and pain-killers.  All of these products contain chemicals that are prohibited for food ingestion by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA).  Additionally, many of the drugs routinely given to humans have never been tested.  It appears that this problem of commingling horsemeat with beef is not merely a sleight of hand and harmless trickery of consumers.  Rather, it is a criminal violation to knowingly taint the food supply, and it is done simply for the purpose of financial gain, constituting pure greed with no regard for the health and safety of the consumer.  Simply stated, in the United States, commercially marketed meat is monitored and inspected by the federal government (USDA) and horsemeat is not approved for human consumption.

Another issue here is that of horse slaughter.  Ed Sayres, President of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) notes that there is little demand for horse slaughter in the United States, and horses are trucked to Canada and Mexico for such purposes.  He states, “These trips involve slipping, trampling injuries and death for many horses.  Those who survive then must suffer at the hands of the butcher.”  In other words, this is a very cruel industry.  Inasmuch as many of the horses that go to slaughter are not “aging, unwanted or sickly”, this abhorrent industry is simply making money while ignoring the suffering it causes to the horses and now it presents a threat to the health of humans.

It has been disclosed that the USDA intends to move forward to process pending applications on file for horse slaughter operations in the United States.  We here at LGBG say that this is not who we are as Americans.  We totally oppose this effort and support the ASPCA in its fight to spread the word about this effort which is gaining momentum and which must be stopped.  All eyes should be on Roswell, New Mexico, which is expected to be “ground zero” for this industry.  We urge all of our readers and supporters to unite to fight to ban the horse slaughter industry in America.  Also, please be particularly mindful of the meat products you buy and do not give your money to companies which participate in this practice.  Let’s advocate for a ban on horse slaughter.  To do this is to live green, be green.

Sources for this Article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/moving-in-wrong-direction_b_2790418.html
2.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/usda-says-horse-slaughter-plants-may-open-after-ban-lifted-1-.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/horse-meat-passes-through-texas-advocacy-groups-say.html?_r=0

LGBG Spotlight: Michele’s Granola – Seriously Green Granola

by

For all of our readers out there who are serious fans of granola, like I am, here’s a LiveGreen article for you! This week’s spotlight comes on the heels of a trip to my local grocery store, Wegmans. While there, shopping like I would on any other Saturday morning, I came across something that was not the norm for me and my Wegmans — there was a promotional stand set up in near the grains section. Immediately sparking my interest, I rode my curiosity on over to the stand to see what was up.  I met a great guy who offered me samples of and explained the mission of Michele’s Granola, a small Maryland company who is vegan, organic, and most inspiringly, GREEN. Needless to say, between the small talk and the tastings, I fell in love and walked away with two bags myself. But now, I’d like to delve a bit deeper into who Michele’s is…

Michele's Granola

Photo Credit: www.michelesgranola.com

Born from the experimentation sessions of a granola-crazed, self-taught baker, Michele’s Granola has grown from a one-woman stand at local farmer’s markets, to an operation which now produces about 5,000 pounds of product to serve its nearly 200 community retail outlets (markets, grocers, & other food service facilities).  Michele’s is dedicated to using 100% organic whole grains in its homemade style processes of production, guaranteeing the best tasting and most healthy granola possible.  But the brand’s mission does not end there.

Its baking facility currently runs 100% on wind power!  Amazing right? Yes. But what is even more amazing is that Michele’s also uses delivery vehicles that run on re-used vegetable oil from the deep fryers of local eateries.  Outstanding!  And as if this all weren’t enough already, Michele’s estimates that not only does 40% of its waste get recycled by traditional methods, but another 40% is sent to a local composting center to be used in the production of fertile soils (that are then used in Baltimore’s urban farming projects).

It is amazing that a young company like Michele’s Granola can be so committed to making a difference in the ways of green, especially within their local ecological and business environments.  They are a testament to the notion that the triple bottom line business methodology — Profit, People, and Planet — can prove successful beyond measure.  Here at LiveGreenBeGreen, we would like to firstly acknowledge the company’s great work and great product, and secondly, we want to extend the utmost respect and gratitude to Michele’s Granola for its initiatives and actions to do greener business.  Good luck, and God speed!

To read more about Michele’s Granola, or to enquire about how to get your hands on this scrumptious and socially-evolved health snack, visit the company’s official site at: https://www.michelesgranola.com/.

A Green Movement Requires A Green Body

by
High-fructose corn syrup for sale

High-fructose corn syrup for sale (Photo credit: Steven Vance)

 

The fact that America has an obesity epidemic is no secret. Apologists argue that this is a product of the world in which we live.  Americans, today, live a more sedentary lifestyle than in the past, and as a consequence, we have become fatter. Of all of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), America has the largest population percentage (30.6%) that is obese.  Coming in at 23%, the United Kingdom is the second most obese nation, and interestingly, of all the other OECD countries, it is comparably most similar to America in terms of cultural aspects.  Following the sedentary lifestyle argument, it would only follow that the world’s most developed nations would have comparable obesity rates. However, in reality, this is not the case. The G8 countries are the most affluent in the world, yet none have an obesity rate close to that of America.  Having already listed the obesity rate of two G8 Nations, now allow me to name the rest: France: 9.4%, Russia:  Anywhere between 16.2% and 20 %; Russia does not actively report on obesity)[1], Italy: 8.5%, Germany: 12.9%, Canada:14.3%, and finally Japan: 3.2%.[2]

 

Despite having very similar levels of living, America’s obesity rate is staggeringly higher. However, it would be factious of me not to say that there is not a correlation between income levels and obesity rates.  The OECD has taken note and has released some staggering facts such as, “until 1980, fewer than one in ten people were obese. Since then, rates doubled or tripled and in 19 of 34 OECD countries, the majority of the population is now overweight or obese. OECD projections suggest that more than two out of three people will be overweight or obese in some OECD countries by 2020”1. Nonetheless, the question must be asked: despite obesity being on the rise, why does America appear to have such a huge head start? While a sedentary lifestyle does undoubtedly play a role, there is another dominant factor as well. Your good old Uncle Sam is determining what you are and aren’t eating through laws and taxes.

 

America was founded as a democracy, but that has not stopped the establishment of kings in this country. The first and most famous king was, of course, King Cotton. The economic power of this cash crop helped propel the economic success of America in a pre-industrialized world. While it is uncomfortable to think that the forging of cotton and slavery together helped establish America on the world stage, it is a reality, and it is our duty as Americans not to shy away from our past. However, our King today started out in a more humble fashion and ascended to the throne over the course of American history. I am, of course, talking about King Corn, present in America at the first landing of settlers and saturating American culture today, quite literally might I add. Agriculture in America is a business that is heavily supported and subsidized by the federal government. While we will be primarily discussing its negative consequences, we must recognize that it was started to help farmers in the Great Depression, and many programs, such as crop insurance, are beneficial. However, this government support has morphed over the years and skewed the market in favor of corn and corn-based products. So how does this all work? It works through the rather bluntly titled Farm Bill:

 

“The 2008 Farm Bill approved $300 billion in mandatory spending (this figure does not include discretionary spending measures that are approved separately). About two-thirds (67%) of the spending measures were allocated toward nutrition, followed by agricultural subsidies (15%), conservation (9%), and crop insurance (8%). The remaining three percent included credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy, livestock, and horticulture/organic agriculture.”[3]

 

The Farm Bill is typically renewed every five years, but has yet to be renewed in whole. At the moment, it is a victim of Congressional gridlock, a reexamining of its benefits, and the pull of the corn lobby.

 

farm-bill-allocation1

 

This pie chart details the percentages of the bill from 2008. As you see a majority went towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps. We, however, are to focus on the 14% that went to crop subsidies. With regards to the 2008 Bill:

 

“The [2008] bill [gave] some $4.9 billion a year in automatic payments to growers of [corn and soy] such commodity crops, thus driving down prices for corn, corn-based products and corn-fed meats. Cows that are raised on corn, rather than grass, make meat that is higher in calories and contains more omega-6 fatty acids and fewer omega-3 fatty acids—a dangerous ratio that has been linked to heart disease.

 

Cheap corn has also become a staple in highly processed foods, from sweetened breakfast cereals to soft drinks, that have been linked to an increase in the rate of type 2 diabetes, a condition that currently affects more than one in 12 American adults. Between 1985 and 2010, the price of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup dropped 24 percent, and by 2006 American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages. Over the same period, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 39 percent. For families on a budget, the price difference can be decisive in their food choices.”[4]

 

Here are some more numbers to put the effect of corn syrup into perspective:

 

  • Percentage of high fructose corn syrup in Americans’ daily caloric intake: 7
  • Percentage of U.S. caloric sweeteners made from high-fructose corn syrup: ~40
  • The year that high fructose corn syrup became available in the U.S. food supply: 1967
  • Percentage U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup rose between 1970 and 1990: 1,000%
  • Percentage of obese Americans in 1960-1962: 13.4
  • Percentage of obese Americans in 2005-2006: 35.1
  • Approximate ratio of obese Americans in 2007-2008: 1 in 3

 

One could argue that America itself has been the test subject since 1967 concerning the effects of high fructose corn syrup. Actual clinical studies are starting to point in the same direction as well. As stated in a recent study published in the journal, Global Health:

 

“Researchers compared the average availability of high-fructose corn syrup to rates of diabetes in 43 countries. About half the countries in the study had little or no high-fructose corn syrup in their food supply. In the other 20 countries, high-fructose corn syrup in foods ranged from about a pound a year per person in Germany to about 55 pounds each year per person in the United States. The researchers found that countries using high-fructose corn syrup had rates of diabetes that were about 20% higher than countries that didn’t mix the sweetener into foods. Those differences remained even after researchers took into account data for differences in body size, population, and wealth.”[5]

 

This all begs the question of what we as the public can do about this. There are a wide variety of answers. Some argue for getting rid of the subsidies altogether or extending them to fruits and vegetables. Both arguments rest on the notion of the even playing field upon which capitalism is built. Let the consumer vote with his/her wallet, and the invisible hand will choose the one that is more beneficial. However, we must recognize that corn has a huge head start in this affair, and as such the two hardly can be deemed to be on even footing. This should be taken into consideration during the debate itself, the debate which is still ongoing. This is still a debate which the public can affect, whether you support the status quo or seek change of any kind. Your voice  still can be heard by your Representative and your Senator. Of course this is America, home of the ‘do it myself’ attitude. If you’ve lost faith in the political process in this country, and I think there may be several of you out there, why not break the chain, if only a little, by planting your own garden? Democracy is and should never be a top-down process. If a bill is to become law or if something is to be given preference, it should be initiated at the behest of the people. This helps to ensure that we live green, be green.

 

 

 

By Sean P. Maguire

 

[1] http://www.oecd.org/health/49716427.pdf

 

[2] http://www.aneki.com/countries2.php?t=Countries_with_the_Highest_Obesity_Rates&table=table_obesity&places=2=*=*=*=*=*&order=desc&orderby=table_obesity.name&decimals=–1&dependency=independent&number=all&cntdn=asc&r=-373-404&c=&measures=Country–obese%20population%20aged%2015%20and%20over%20(OECD%20Countries)&units=–&file=obesity

[3] http://www.snaptohealth.org/farm-bill-usda/u-s-farm-bill-faq/

[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin

[5] http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20121127/high-fructose-corn-syrup-diabetes

 

Social Entrepreneurship and Bahay Kubo Organics

by

Social entrepreneurship encompasses the relentless drive to disrupt the “now” and to create something out of nothing in order to improve the way in which we live. Often, social entrepreneurs possess a passion characterized by the altruistic desire to better their communities and better the world in which we live. That is exactly what Ryan Aguas and his colleagues are striving to accomplish in the Philippines with Bahay Kubo Organics.

Immediately after graduating from Fordham University, Ryan Aguas returned to Manila, and along with Enzo Pinga and Illian Pascual, founded Bahay Kubo Organics, a social entrepreneurship venture designed to combat the local scarcity of reliable and affordable sources of food for low-income communities. Ryan and his team have innovated aquaponic farming techniques that incorporates both aquaculture and hydroponics to develop a sustainable ecosystem for assorted plants and fish, local staples. Plants are grown vertically, without soil, through a system of filters and rock beds while fish are raised in tandem. The waste from the fish is used as fertilizer for the hydroponic plants, while the plants serve as a filtering mechanism for the fish. They are currently building their first commercial sized facility that is 130 square meters in size. The facility will be used to showcase all of the possibilities of vertical farming.
Below is a video that Ryan made, showing us exactly how the system works.
Bahay Kubo Organics is working to spearhead several social issues at once that have unfortunately plagued the Bahay Kubo Community. With this venture, they ultimately hope to eliminate any concern for food scarcity, reduce environmental degradation throughout the country, and eventually establish a sustainable farming culture that can help locals establish a means to earn a respectable living. We are confident that Ryan and his team will be successful with this venture, and we will continue to follow them on their journey. Most recently, they made it into the top 10, out of 300 projects entered into Project Pagsulong, a nationwide competition seeking the next “big” social enterprise all over the Phillipines.
Here you can see a video that features Project Pagsulong
Please give Ryan, Enzo, and Illian your support as they try to better the world and help in the mission for everyone to consciously live green and be green in all that they do. LGBG solutes Bahay Kubo Oragnaics and their mission as true, social entrepreneurs, daring to take on the world.
A link to their Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/BKOrganics?fref=ts. Please “Like” them and learn more!
Bahay Kubo Pic

FDA Poses A Threat to Green Living

by
Food and Drug Administration logo

Food and Drug Administration logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As evidenced by the frequent news reports on outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and now hospitalizations and deaths from contaminated medical products, it is apparent that there are major problems within the ranks of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Some policy analysts attribute the FDA’s deficiencies to “the haphazard manner in which it has grown”.  The agency began operations in 1852 with a single chemist working within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and operated without regulatory duties until 1906 when news stories about horrible conditions at food-processing plants became the rage.  The public uproar from these graphic stories culminated in the passage of the Federal Food and Drug Act.  Future instances of health disasters in 1937 and again in the 1950s and 1960s heightened awareness of the need for the FDA to have greater oversight of the food supply and led to the passage of laws regarding pesticides and food and color additives.  It is important to note that the FDA still shares the responsibility for the nation’s food supply with the USDA, with the latter agency overseeing the safety of meat and poultry, and the former assuming control of the rest of the food supply.

Repeatedly in reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the FDA has been noted to have “systemic problems . . . that threaten the health of anyone who consumes food in the U.S.”  These problems include, but are not limited to:

  • An ineffective and confusing inspection process.
  • Poor performance in addressing overuse of antibiotics in livestock feed.
  • Lack of scientific capacity for the agency to do its job.
  • Failure to take enforcement action in more than half of its uncovered violations.

A review of articles and news stories regarding the activities of the FDA reveals that the agency’s inspection and investigation work is severely flawed.  Routine inspections are limited and audits sometimes are performed by third-party auditors who advertise work at an”unbelievable price” and give out “superior ratings”.

One major area of concern with the FDA is oversight of seafood sold in the United States.  More than 84% of our seafood is imported, with 50% of it coming from Asia.  These fish farmers produce large volumes of seafood, including shrimp, catfish and tilapia in polluted and overcrowded ponds and then use antibiotics and fungicides to sterilize the seafood to pass inspection in this country.  Amazingly, the FDA is charged with keeping these very same ‘drug-tainted fish” out of the food supply, but as the GAO reports, the agency is failing to do this and really is not even trying.   In 2009, the FDA tested only one out of every 1000 imported seafood products for 16 different chemicals.  Reports indicate that Canada tested 50 of every 1000 products for more than 40 different chemicals, and Japan tested 110 of every 1000 products for more than 57 chemicals.  In addition to posing a health threat to people who eat seafood, the actions of the FDA threaten the very existence of domestic seafood farmers, who must compete with foreign counterparts, who employ cheap labor and who get away with using chemicals that are banned for use by seafood farmers here.

The failure of the FDA to do its job puts the life of every American at stake.  For those of us trying to live a green life and eat healthy, this news is particularly unsettling.  Every citizen has the right to a safe and healthy food supply.  The federal government is obligated to perform dutifully regarding this.  We must stand together and demand effective oversight of the nation’s food supply so that we can live green, be green.

Surviving the Winter Without the Farm Stand

by

Hurricane Sandy successfully blew away large remnants of fall and has ushered in cooler temperature, which ultimately will signal the season’s end for local farm stands, especially in the mid-Atlantic region.  Although we welcome the change of seasons, we will miss the local fresh vegetables and fruits  supplied by local farmers.  I would like to say a special thank you to Patrick Padilla of Home Grown Produce on Patuxent Road in Odenton, Maryland. for making this summer and fall special with such a bounty of produce.

This farm stand just opened this summer, and owner, Patrick Padilla, has done a wonderful job of stocking the best corn, tomatoes, green beans, cucumbers, etc., that can be found in the area.  With the support of the local community and the press (http://odenton.patch.com/articles/fresh-produce-for-sale-on-patuxent-road), Padilla has maintained a steady business throughout the summer and fall.  In addition to receiving excellent service, it was great to be able to get produce that was literally “just picked,” with freshness and taste that cannot be found in any grocery store.  Also, this farm stand served as a place to meet people interested in fresh vegetable and fruit products, who often were eager and willing to share recipes and stories about cooking.  Patrick even posted recipes on a dry erase board at the stand.

Home Grown Produce will be closing for the season on November 4th, and you can bet there will be a lot of people counting the days until it reopens next year.  After researching and learning so much about the benefits of purchasing local produce, Homegrown Produce has provided me with the perfect “laboratory” to test my research findings and to experience these benefits firsthand.  This indeed is a great way to live green, be green.

Home Grown Produce’s fall bounty.

Vegetarians Do Live Longer

by

This is good news Monday, and today’s good news (which was not easy to find with Hurricane Sandy dominating the news) is that people who move away from animal-based diets to plant-based diets can expect to live a decade longer than traditional meat-eaters.  This represents a major conclusion of a series of studies from the Loma Linda University in California which tracked tens of thousands of Seventh Day Adventists since 1958.  Additionally, this research specifically identifies foods in vegetarian diets that can:

  • Reduce an individual’s risk for diseases, such as cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes;
  • Control body mass index; and
  • Boost brain health.

Known as the Adventist Health Study 2, this research project is still underway.  The sample population includes 96,000 people from the United States and Canada.  Seventh Day Adventist members were selected for this study because their religion specifically promotes vegetarianism and discourages drinking, smoking and drug use.  Statistics show that California Vegetarian Adventist men live to an average of 83.3 years and that state’s Vegetarian women to 85.7 years, representing 9.5 and 6.1 years longer, respectively, than other Californians.  This study population also was 25% African-American and half vegetarian.

Other findings of this study are as follows:

  • Vegans generally 30 pounds lighter than meat eaters.
  • Vegans overall have a BMI that is 5 units lighter than meat eaters.
  • Vegetarians and vegans are less insulin-resistant than meat eaters.
  • Lean people are more likely to exercise regularly, eat plants and avoid cigarettes than overweight people.
  • People who limit ingestion of animal products, but eat meat sparingly, have “intermediate protection” against lifestyle diseases.
  • Obesity cuts the lives of African-Americans by 6.2% and across the races, the protective quality of fat in seniors was not observed.

This study presents a very convincing argument on the need to restrict or eliminate the ingestion of animal products largely because it covers such an extensive study period and incorporates a very large and diverse population.  Combined with other evidence on the adverse consequences of meat consumption, including, but not limited to, reduced availability of grains for human consumption, increased carbon footprint, destruction of land by grazing animals, and lack of compassion for animals, the option of vegetarianism or veganism is becoming an important choice for a healthy life and a great way to live green, be green.

The source for this article is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/vegetarians-live-longer-longevity_n_1961967.html?utm_hp_ref=healthy-living.

Eat veggies to live longer!

War on Organics Continues

by

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has released a new report which concludes that there is “no evidence that organic foods provide nutritional benefits that children cannot get from conventionally grown foods”.  The report does acknowledge that organic foods have lower pesticide levels, but parents should ensure that their children are getting a healthy diet, organic or not.

While it is understandable that parents have to consider the cost of foods and that many organic foods typically cost 10% to 40% more than conventional foods, there are some other alternatives to getting wholesome fruits and vegetables.  The first of these is to buy fruits and vegetables from local farmers.  These products are readily at hand and do not have to travel long distances to get to market, thereby reducing their carbon footprint and not requiring harmful preservatives.  Secondly, most farmers markets have rules for participants enacted by state legislatures to control the runoff of pesticides and fertilizers into lakes and rivers.

Interestingly, I see another issue here that concerns acceptable farming practices.  Despite the long history of farming and gardening in America, which predates industrialization and the growth of mega-businesses and regionally located supermarket chains, we have come to the point where “conventional” defines the manipulated and engineered products as oppose to the natural products, which now are made to be the exception.  Moreover, although we know that pesticides and fertilizers are chemicals, and specifically that the purpose of pesticides is “to kill or destroy” things, we choose to debate the level of destruction our bodies can “safely” tolerate.  I find it disappointing that so many people are willing to relinquish control over their bodies and their children’s health based on the levels of tolerable damage possible for the sake of convenience and cost.  This is making our health through good nutrition a crap shoot.

I know that it may not be possible to only buy organic fruits and vegetables, but we do not have to totally throw caution to the wind.  Maybe buy organic berries because they are easier to clean for consumption.  Another alternative is to only buy the organic versions of the products that our families consume in large supply.  Also, please do not forget the local farm stands and farmers markets.

The effort to maintain a healthy diet can become difficult if you let it.  However, with the use of some research from green initiatives and a little common sense, it is possible to have a healthy diet and save money.  Let’s stick with the green movement to make sure we live green, be green!

The source for this article came from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2579.