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/.

Happy International Women’s Day

by
International Women's Day

International Women’s Day (Photo credit: Tapio Kaisla Photography)

Today is International Women’s Day, and LGBG is proud to celebrate this day and to salute women all over the world for their hard work and accomplishments to improve the world.

International Women’s Day (IWD) was first celebrated in 1911 in four European countries.  It originally commemorated working rights protests of female garment workers.  While these protests actually began on March 7, 1857, the movement became more organized in 1908, where on March 8th, more than 15,000 women marched in New York City, “demanding better pay, voting rights and an end to child labor”.  In the ensuing years, IWD observances took place on varying days in March.  In reaction to a horrific fire at the Triangle Waist Company building in New York City on March 25, 1911 in which 146 women (mostly immigrants) were killed, a movement was organized to bring attention to the inhuman working conditions of female industrial workers.  This effort led to the creation of the Factory Investigation Commission and the passage of laws that mandated “safety standards, minimum wage, unemployment benefits and financial support for aging workers”.  In 1975, the United Nations designated March 8th as the official day of observance for International Women’s Day.  Over the years, IWD observances have evolved to include observance of  advances of women in human rights and discussions of the ongoing challenges women face in all areas of life, including, but not limited to, politics, education, labor and health.

LGBG is especially proud to salute two organizations recently spotlighted on its site.  First up is No Water-No Life, directed by photographer Alison Jones.  NWNL is a globally focused project that employs photography to document the availability of fresh water resources, raises public awareness and provides education to stakeholders to foster partnerships globally.  With a profound understanding and beautifully conveyed message that water is the key to life, NWNL is a dynamic force and important asset to the green movement.

Our second IWD salute goes out to Africa Inside, directed by Lori Robinson.  This project promotes wildlife conservation and environmental protection in Africa.  LGBG is proud to partner with Africa Inside on its program to eliminate pollution by plastic bags in Africa.  With its exchange program, African citizens receive a reusable shopping tote for every 25 bags retrieved from the countryside.  To date, this exchange program has been an overwhelming success in not only cleaning up the countryside, but also in educating the citizens on the value of their natural resources and the need to protect them.

LGBG congratulates women globally for their tireless work to make our world a better place to live.  We thank you and wish you a Happy International Women’s Day!

Sources for this article:

1.  http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2013/0308/What-is-International-Women-s-Day-video.
2.  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2012/0308/International-Women-s-Day-How-it-s-celebrated-around-the-globe/Asia-Pacific?nav=638983-csm_article-promoLink.
3.  http://nowater-nolife.org/index.html.
4.  http://africainside.org/.

 

Why The Vatican Should Continue The Legacy Of The Green Pope

by
pope and me

pope and me (Photo credit: BoFax)

With the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI and the upcoming enclave to elective a successor Pontiff, it is paramount that the College of Cardinals remain mindful of the environmental legacy of Pope Benedict and the need to continue and advance his work.

Pope Benedict XVI, John Ratzinger, is a strong champion of the environment as evidenced by his words and actions.  In his speeches and writings, he called for both Catholics and people of “good will” to care for creation.  He prompted the installation of solar panels on the roof of Paul VI Hall at the Vatican, and he authorized the Vatican’s bank to purchase carbon credits through funding of a Hungarian forest, resulting in Vatican City being the only country that is totally carbon neutral.  Additionally, Benedict adopted the use of the hybrid, partially electric Popemobile.  Pope Benedict’s commitment to the environment is based on spirituality, as well as morality, thereby making his mission a universal one and prompting the environmental community to acknowledge the Catholic Church as an ally in the green movement.

It is noteworthy that Pope Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, also was committed to the environment.  In many of his speeches and writings, he remarked on the principle of “stewardship” and the consequences of failure to address “problems stemming from globalization of the economy and the worsening of the ‘ecological question‘ “.

As these Pontiffs have set the stage for the inclusion of the environment in the work of the Vatican, it is so important that this legacy continues and grows.  This could be especially beneficial to the Catholic Church in light of its status in the world today.  Faced with distractions from its good work by criticism of its handling of sexual abuse and pedophilia within its realm and corruption extending into its inner circle, the Vatican needs a game changer.  Inasmuch as the younger generation (millennial) appears to be more committed to the green movement (as evidenced by their greater efforts as compared to older generations to recycle, buy local and to reduce their ingestion of meat), the election of a successor Pope strongly committed to the environment presents an excellent opportunity for outreach to young people g
globally, who have left the Catholic Church.  Additionally, the issue of the environment is a global one, which also tends to be more attractive to the younger generations, particularly in the United States, which has witnessed an increased apathy of young people towards many institutions in America, such as church and government, largely due to the toxic state of politics in this country.

The Catholic Church is the one organization that has a global presence.  Whether Catholic or not, we all listen to the messages and doctrines coming from the Vatican, and we look to the Church for guidance on most issues.  This acknowledgment of the Church as a major player in world matters positions the it to be not just a voice on the environment, but also to be a leader in this effort.  We hope this will be recognized by the College of Cardinals in their election of their new leader.  Having a green Pope at the helm of the Catholic Church definitely inspires us to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

1.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130228-environmental-pope-green-efficiency-vatican-city/.
2.  http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264jm.htm.
3.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/meditations-on-the-legacy-of-pope-benedict-xvi.html?_r=0.

Artificial Trees– Clear Indication that God Is Great, Beer Is Good, And People Are Crazy

by
#GeoEngineering - more prevalent than u know

#GeoEngineering – more prevalent than u know (Photo credit: joykennelly)

In the wake of the realization that climate change is a reality, a geoengineering technology incorporating the use of artificial trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a clear indication that “God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy”.  Geoengineering is defined as “climate engineering, climate remediation, and climate intervention” .(1)  Geoengineering has been used primarily to refer to “the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming“.  It typically involves efforts to rid the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and solar radiation management techniques to “offset effects of increased greenhouse gas concentration by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation“. (2)

It has been noted that scientists at Columbia University’s Earth Institute are working on a “carbon capture” project, which involves the use of a prototype of artificial trees that will remove carbon dioxide from the air “faster and at higher levels than natural photosynthesis can accomplish”. (3)  This group postulates that the captured carbon dioxide then can be released by a “gentle flow of water” and then can be used industrially or safely sequestered underground.  Many environmentalists take an exception to technological fixes for global warming, such as these because such actions “discourage us from the hard work of actually cutting down on greenhouse emissions”.  The main consideration here is whether the goal here is climate manipulation or solutions to address climate change.

The reality here is that trees are not the culprits in this scenario.  They consistently have done their job well.  They effectively reflect the “greatness of God“.  It is man who has disrupted this process by actions that increase our carbon footprint, namely pollution of land, air and water, reliance on fossil fuels, and to a large extent, deforestation.  Consideration of ethics and moral responsibility is a very valid approach to this issue.  Followers of the green movement recognize themselves as “stewards” of the Earth.  We have a duty to protect the environment and to pass on a healthy world to future generations.  This notion of benevolent management of the world has a foundation in religion, ethics and morality and must not be diminished by greed, politics or sheer lack of responsibility.

Now on to the role of beer (which is good) and its relationship to the idea of artificial trees, in particular, and geoengineering, in general.  So many of us are caught up in a rat race.  You have to admit that when you take a break with an ice-cold beer, the stress level goes down and you can reflect on life.  Now you can appreciate a tree as opposed to the stressful periods when you “couldn’t see the forest for the trees”.  Things start to make sense.  You realize that so many things about life have become artificial, and maybe we should stop this nonsense.

Finally, the acceptance of artificial trees clearly would indicate that people are crazy.  By definition, artificial means “humanly contrived, often on a natural model, manmade, simulated; sham”  Already we rely on so many artificial products and ingredients which ultimately bear heavy costs in terms of money, waste, and adverse health consequences.  Now trees?  To this notion, we must say a resounding NO.  We can grow trees with seeds made by trees.  We do not need to manufacture them artificially.

We can address climate change by a consolidated effort to avoid pollution, recycling, reducing our fuel and energy consumption and living responsibly.  We do not want climate manipulation.  Rather, we demand climate change solutions.  We want to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

1.  United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) (July 2011) (PDF). Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses (Report). Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-12-01.

2.  Royal Society (September 2009) (PDF). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (Report). p. 1. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5. Retrieved 2011-12-01.

3.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/artificial-trees-carbon-capture_b_2728083.html.

4.  Credit to Bill Currington from song “People Are Crazy”.

Related articles

Homeowners Alert: Now Is The Time To Cultivate A Green HOA

by
Make your HOA dues count!

Make your HOA dues count!

As we march, rally and cajole our elected officials to address the issues of global warming and climate change, it is important that we include our homeowners associations (HOA) in the group of elected bodies who must be committed to this effort.  According to data by the Community Associations Institute, [1] there are more than 323,600 homeowners’ associations in the United States, resulting in jurisdiction over 63.4 million Americans.

HOAs have quasi-political powers over its residents.  In many cases, they represent “government among friends,” where rules and covenants are adopted and enforced regarding upkeep of facilities to ensure that these communities look good and function well.  The HOA is an excellent source to incorporate sustainability practices, but some serious nudging by residents is needed to accomplish this.  In fact, HOAs in the past have been notable for employing restrictive practices that are contrary to a green lifestyle, all in the name of aesthetics.  Some of these practices include the prohibition of outside organic gardens that feature edible flowers and fruit, banning the use of outdoor clothes-drying and prohibiting the use of solar panels.

The first step to engage the HOA in going green is to get involved in the election of officers to the board of directors.  Often the individuals who serve on these boards are cajoled by the current officers to simply be a warm body to fill a vacant seat or they are individuals who join the board to fulfill a specific agenda– approval for a new playground or installation of speed bumps are immediate examples that come to mind.  Imagine the impact that a board of directors who are committed to climate change,  living green and sustainability would have on the community.  In addition to working to have a beautiful neighborhood, the community could adopt a plan for eco-landscaping, [2] which promotes a healthy environment with the selection of flowers and deciduous trees that save the soil, require fewer pesticides and herbicides and need less water to survive.

Those “green voices” on the board of directors of the HOA also encourage discussion on green technology.  The board could then make informed recommendations regarding sustainable products, and they may be able to get group discounts for some items.  This alone will spike residents’ interests in programmable thermostats, hot tub timers, CFL bulbs, motion sensors and green appliances.  Also, those “green voices” on the board could rally the residents to force the HOA officers to review restrictive covenants and remove the provisions that thwart sustainability, such as the prohibition of the use of solar panels.

The point to be made here is that the HOA should represent the community.  After all, the residents pay dues to live in these neighborhoods, and they should have a voice in the management of their developments.  The residents have the right to property management companies which truly look out for their interests, and the companies selected to do this should be versed in green living and capable of directing the board on instituting policies and procedures which help the developments they serve to be healthy communities in addition to being clean and beautiful.[3]

As we approach the season for HOA annual meetings and elections, we here at LGBG hope that each of you who live in communities served by homeowners associations use this opportunity to elect officials who will truly represent you and promote your agenda to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

1.  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/coercion_by_contract_how_homeo.html.
2.  http://www.sustland.umn.edu/maint/trees.html.
3.  http://melrosemanagement.com/news.cfm/mode/details/id/6302/tips-for-going-green-with-your-hoa.

How To Keep The Power On When Your Utility Company Fails

by
P1304138.jpg

P1304138.jpg (Photo credit: Sigfrid Lundberg)

The reality of climate change, combined with global warming and deterioration of infrastructures, has resulted in numerous power failures in many areas of the country, and now is the time for each of us to accept the responsibility of maintaining power in our homes when our utility companies fail to maintain the flow of electricity during extreme weather occurrences.  The need to take matters into our own hands is more urgent than ever as we now witness the task of finding solutions to climate change being undertaken by our politically divided Congress.  We can assume that major upgrades of power grids will happen one day, hopefully before a complete irreparable power failure ensues.   Meanwhile, on a more frequent basis, we are forced to endure days or hours without electricity during winter and summer storms or during excessively hot days when the present power grids face an undue burden.

A little research shows that there are remedies to ensure house power when the utility companies fail, some more costly than others, but solutions, nonetheless.  We will take a look at few of these.

  • Gas generators.  Most of us are familiar with gas generators that can be purchased for as little as $299, especially if bought during non-emergency periods.  The simplest generators operate off of gas.  Cheaper models can support a few lights and perhaps a fan or electric heater  and a refrigerator during power failures, but not much more.  These generators tend to be very noisy.  However, the biggest issue is that they MUST be placed in an open area to prevent carbon monoxide buildup and exposure, which can be fatal.  In times of power outages, gas generators do help us have access to some power in our homes.
  • Backup generators.  A more sophisticated generator is the backup version which is wired into a gas or propane line.  Depending on the size, these products can keep the lights on in the entire house, preserve refrigerator function to prevent food spoilage, maintain power supply to heating and cooling systems and keep sump pumps and well pumps in operation.  These systems have built-in battery chargers to guarantee battery operation and feature automatic transfer switches between utility power and generator power.  Backup generators are available for purchase or for lease.
  • Solar panels.  As President Obama noted in the State of the Union Address this week, the cost of solar energy is getting cheaper.  As solar energy becomes a more mainstream option, there now are many financing, leasing and equipment options available.  Cost can run from about $1500 to more than $10,000.  When we hear the term solar energy, we immediately think about “photo-voltaic panels,” but there are other sola products available.  They include ground solar panels or grid-tied solar energy systems with a battery backup.  The latter option is very expensive, but it may be a worthwhile investment, particularly in areas of the country that are forced to endure repeated extended periods without power.  Another option is small portable emergency solar power systems that can be used to operate a few small appliances but is inadequate for large appliances, furnaces or cooling systems.  A review of other available products indicate other options, including stand alone systems, remote power systems and emergency power systems.  Solar energy systems often include a bonus of energy tax credits, thereby making them even more attractive.

Considering that the storm season is approaching and that it is more than reasonable to expect as many or more power outages than we have previously experienced during the past summer seasons, it is important that we take charge of the responsibility of keeping our electricity running when the local power grid fails.  We must continue to hold our elective officials, federal, state and local, responsible for enacting policies to protect the environment and to make it a priority to upgrade deteriorating infrastructures and power grids.  Also, we must communicate with utility companies and demand to be included in the conversation on the power needs of our communities.  Lastly, we must continue to rally and speak up for the environment, the need to reduce our carbon footprint, protect our waters and to accept the reality of climate change based on hard scientific facts.  We must continue to fight to live green, be green.

Sources:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/security/emergency-power.htm

http://www.getsolar.com/residential_Solar-Roof-vs-Ground-Installation.php

http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/tips-renewable-energy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-r-fink/solar-electric-backup-for_b_1696535.html

 

Violence Against Women– Perception Of Double Standard

by

This week’s Senate vote for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is being viewed by many as a referendum on the issue of violence against women in America.  We here at LGBG know that the problem of violent crimes against women, such as rape, physical abuse, intimidation and stalking are both social and health issues that must be adequately addressed in America.

Since the recent mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona, combined with the discovery and outrage over the sexual abuse of young boys at Penn State, the arguments for and against gun control, as well as the need to address the problem of mental illness in America have been loud and clear.  It is unfortunate that we have remained quiet and less emotional about the violence against women in the home, schools and armed services.  The House of Representatives chose to vote against the reauthorization of thus much needed legislation, and now we are waiting for the Senate to act.  Why must there be so much resistance to reauthorize an act already on the books that seeks to protect women?  In other words that are more direct and simple—why the double standard?

Statistics by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and UN Women indicate that:

  • Approximately 20% of American women have been raped or have experienced an attempted rape;
  • Greater than 15% of American women have been stalked;
  • Approximately 25% of American women have reported physical abuse by an intimate partner.

Despite these disturbing statistics, Congress has chosen to become mired down in technicalities when discussing this issue, rather than acting on the urgency of the matter.

Legislators seem to give a lot of lip service to support for women and issues relative to them, but often when the time to act arises, that strong support quickly dissipates or becomes lost in bureaucratic rhetoric and entanglements.  For instance, we claim to fully support our military.  If that is the case, that support should extend to the protection of females in the military from violent sexual attacks and intimidation at the hands of fellow soldiers.  We now boast that women can go into active combat.  Imagine being able to boast that we keep our females in the military completely safe sexual attacks by other soldiers.  Also, legislators tout the need to curb the deficit to ensure the fiscal health of the nation for our young people.  Considering that so many young women and even girls, particularly students, experience rape, stalking and intimidation, it is just as important that we stop violence against women in this country to ensure the physical and mental health of these citizens.

Interestingly, it was reported that the Super Bowl celebration historically has resulted in the single largest day of human trafficking.  Amazingly, on this day of records, this one significant dark statistic is never mentioned.  Once again, this points to a double standard by our leaders and our society on both the value of women and their right to protection from violence.  We understand that VAWA does not address the issue of human trafficking, but we know that the reauthorization of this act can be the lightning rod to ignite meaningful discussion of all aspects of violence to women, thus leading to increased awareness of the problem and solutions.

It is important that we reauthorize the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act because in addition to funding crucial grant programs, it makes critical improvements in the former act and strengthens the program to protect all victims of domestic and sexual abuse.  The purpose of the reauthorization of VAWA is simple:  To ensure that “college students, immigrants, Native Americans, gays, lesbians and transgender people have access to anti-abuse programs”.  The Violence Against Women Act contains programs that work to prevent violence and to help victims of violence and their families remain safe and self-sufficient”.  We urge you to contact your U.S. senator and ask that he/she support this bill on the floor and oppose any harmful amendments to the current act.  Hopefully, the perspective of a double standard will be a myth, and this week the Senate will show that by its vote to reauthorize this act.

For your convenience, we are providing a link to the list of the phone numbers and addresses for the members of the U.S. Senate.  It is as follows: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/senate.html.  You also can email your opinion or a message on the topic of VAWA to your senator at the following site: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/s47/comment/support.

Sources for this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/super-bowl-sex-trafficking_n_2607871.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riane-eisler/violence-against-women_b_2584808.htmlvawa_poster_image

 

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

 

The New Year Ushers in New Green Laws

by
Bill Daniels getting chicken feed from the fee...

Bill Daniels getting chicken feed from the feed bags which he must store in one of his three rooms. Panther Red Ash… – NARA – 540999 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New Year ushered in new legislation in many states, including some “green laws” that we find worthy of comment today.

The state of Maryland enacted a new law that prohibits the use of chicken feed that contains arsenic, a known carcinogen.  This is the first law of its kind in this nation, which bans the use of arsenic-containing additives, specifically roxarsone, in chicken feed.  The bill to prohibit arsenic-containing chemicals in chicken feed was sponsored by Del. Tom Hucker (D-Dist 20) of Silver Spring.   Del. Hucker notes that this new law is “a win for all Marylanders.”  Historically, arsenic-containing additives were added to chicken feed to protect the birds from parasites.  However, this chemical can build up in the birds’ bodies and manure and then can be washed into the Chesapeake Bay.  it is important to note that arsenic has been linked with diabetes, heart disease and cancer.  This win comes with a caveat as the poultry industry expresses concern that roxarsone (previously manufactured by Pfizer and voluntarily suspended in 2011) could be marketed again as a similar product by a different company.  It is important that we watch for any new developments that may occur in response to this new legislation.

A second piece of legislation worthy of mention is New York’s new law that exempts the sale and installation of commercial  solar energy system equipment from state sales use tax.  This law was enacted in response to the state’s commitment to “achieve the goal of 45 percent of New York State’s electricity needs through clean renewable energy and improved energy efficiency by 2015.”  Sen. George Maziarz (R-C, Newfane) Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications, notes that eliminating all state sales tax on solar systems equipment and installations and providing local municipalities the option to do the same should serve to stimulate the economy with increased commercial solar installations and the creation of more jobs to complete the work.  This law definitely should serve as a model for other states to increase the use of clean renewable energy while simultaneously stimulating the job market.

energy

energy (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Our third selection of legislation to discuss can be found in the state of Iowa, which enacted a new law that allows the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to permit anglers to fish with three poles and a total of six hooks for an additional $12 licensing fee.  This law is aimed to spur ice fishing which is trying to rebound after a poor showing last winter.  Additionally, the Iowa DNR passed a new law that makes licensing more convenient by permitting hunting and fishing on a combined license.  The goal of these laws are to promote more outside activity, which definitely is green.

There are so many things we can do to protect the environment and promote healthy living.  Today we at LGBG salute the states of Maryland, New York and Iowa for the steps they have taken to protect the environment and to help us all live green, be green.

English: Iowa Department of Natural Resources logo

English: Iowa Department of Natural Resources logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sources for this article:

http://www.gazette.net/article/20121231/NEWS/712319987/1122/bethesda/New-Maryland-laws-target-veterans’-licenses-chicken-feed-elections&template=gazette

http://bellmore.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/laws-taking-effect-on-jan-1-2013#

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20130101/NEWS10/301010068/Updated-5-new-laws-new-year-take-effect-Iowa

House Failure to Aid Sandy Victims Sends Distress Signal

by
FEMA Trailers

FEMA Trailers (Photo credit: Urban Sea Star)

The recent action by the House Republican leadership to allow the current Congressional term to expire without voting on an aid package for Hurricane Sandy victims speaks volumes about the GOP‘s commitment to fight climate change and help those hurt by its severe weather.  Moreover, this Congress’ lack of action represents an abandonment of responsibility and duty to American citizens.

To date, there still are thousands of people whose homes and businesses were damaged or completely destroyed by the storm.  Many families are caught up in bureaucratic entanglements and local ordinance conflicts that prevent them from repairing their homes and businesses or finding accommodations close to their former schools and businesses so that they can regain some sense of normalcy while trying to get their lives back on track.  While FEMA trailers are being delivered, there still is a process required to secure such lodging.  Once approved, the families have to wait for the trailers to be delivered, secured to a pad and hooked up to utilities.  As many families as possible are being placed in local rentals, and as can be expected, there is now a scarcity of available properties.

With that said, the result is that the storm was emotionally and financially damaging to so many people with the massive loss of property and life.  The resulting homelessness and uncertainty have pushed the scales to a tipping point.  The victims of this storm need help now, and our government is capable of providing that help.  Shame on any Congressman who chose to leave without making this right.  If the House of Representatives cannot not act on this because they want to go home on vacation, we as citizens must rally together and use the vote to send them home for good.

Climate change is real and its adverse weather occurrences is equally damaging to the financial and mental health of its victims.  Super storm Sandy struck the New Jersey/New York/Connecticut area in November.  The next storm could be anywhere in this country.  The face of each Sandy victim is the face of any American citizen.  Let’s stand together to protect ourselves by seeking solutions to climate change and global warming with its severe weather.  Let’s all live green, be green.