An open letter to President-elect Obama.

Dear President-elect Obama, 

After a long, hard and contentious campaign you've won the Presidency of the United States. Congratulations. Take a moment to enjoy your success. Ok, that was long enough. Now let's down to business.  

You well know that you have a long hard road ahead of you, but your first order of business is to choose a cabinet that is strong, thoughtful and will move this country in the right direction. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many people like me, administration environmental jobs should a top order of business. Our crumbling economy will not matter if we cannot breath our air, drink our water, or eat our food. Relieving the credit crunch won't make a difference if rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease continue to rise. Keeping people in their homes, empowering people to buy new cars will become meaningless unless we fix the food system, the water system, and limit the spread of untested genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That is why I am calling out to you to take a good look at who you appoint as Secretary of Energy, Head Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and possibly the new position, Climate Change Czar -- or make this a function of the Department of Homeland Defense.

Of all the cabinet level posts you will fill, there is one that is usually a second thought, but in my opinion is as important as State, Treasury and Defense -- the Secretary of Agriculture. Our food system is in dire need of a change and the right person might be able to help begin the overhaul necessary. 

The Secretary of Agriculture oversees food safety and sets farm policy.  He/she makes recommendations to Congress on which crops should be subsidized, how agricultural laws are enforced, crop-land conservation, and setting the nations nutritional standards and even organic labeling. They also oversee our food stamp program, food distribution during disaster relief efforts, the US Forest Service and the food that is fed to our children in school. That's a big job.

I have read that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack is on the short list for this position. From the corn state, Vilsack strongly supports ethanol subsidies. He believes that he has changed the corn fields of Iowa into energy fields. To me that sounds like a shift in use, not better agriculture or energy policy. As he stated in an op-ed in the Argus Leader, "If you drive across Iowa today, you will see a changing landscape marked by new ethanol and biofuel production plants and wind farms. As a state, we became more economically, environmentally and energy secure." Today, Iowa farmers are still hurting the soil and water by using petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, these farmers have shifted corn from feeding the world to ethanol production, which, as we all know, is not helping increase our independence from foreign oil. But with all his good intentions, former Governor Vilsak is too much of an insider to create really change.

I have also read that your short list includes Tom Buis the President of the National Farms Union and the Congresswoman for South Dakota Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. These two are also agriculture "insiders" who are in the pocket of industrial agriculture who might working in the best interest of the farmers they represent, mostly corporate farming, but neither are strong enough or creative enough to achieve real change we need in the system.

Then there is former Congressman Charles Stenholm (D-TX). Charlie is a conservative Democrat that joined the Republicans to kill a bill that would have prevented sick cattle that are unable to walk from entering the US food supply. (Remember the video released by the Humane Society of downer cows?) While part of the House Agriculture Committee he received more than $800,000 in PAC contributions and took numerous trips sponsored by agriculture lobbyist groups. After leaving Congress he became a lobbyist for the agriculture and food industry. Again, not someone who is going to change our system for the better.

So by now President-elect Obama you must say, well then who? There is one man out there who is not already in politics, who has examined our foods system from farm to table, and who understands the impact it plays on our environment, our economy and our health. He has intimate knowledge of not only farmers, but also diaries, feed-lots, and food processors. He is not a Washington insider and to top it off he has already laid out a plan for tackling the issues we face. His plan takes into account the impact agriculture has on our climate, energy dependence, the healthcare system, foreign and trade policies and national security. As states in his own words:

We need to wean the American food system off its heavy 20th-century diet of fossil fuel and put it back on a diet of contemporary sunshine. True, this is easier said than done — fossil fuel is deeply implicated in everything about the way we currently grow food and feed ourselves. To put the food system back on sunlight will require policies to change how things work at every link in the food chain: in the farm field, in the way food is processed and sold and even in the American kitchen and at the American dinner table. Yet the sun still shines down on our land every day, and photosynthesis can still work its wonders wherever it does. If any part of the modern economy can be freed from its dependence on oil and successfully resolarized, surely it is food.

The scribe of this plan called the Sun-Food Agenda is Michael Pollan, the Knight Professor of Journalism at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC-Berkeley, director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism and author.

President-elect Obama I urge you to read Professor Pollan's plan as laid out in an article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "Farmer In Chief" and stick with what you have been saying throughout your campaign, that America needs real change. I urge you to consider Michael Pollan for the Secretary of Agriculture. (Or at least consult with him to mine his knowledge on the issues to make the best choice possible for the position.)

Pollan's plans are not liberal.  They are not conservative.  They are what is best for America.  And most importantly they are achievable.

As Pollan states:

[The] sun-food agenda promises to win support across the aisle. It builds on America’s agrarian past, but turns it toward a more sustainable, sophisticated future. It honors the work of American farmers and enlists them in three of the 21st century’s most urgent errands: to move into the post-oil era, to improve the health of the American people and to mitigate climate change. Indeed, it enlists all of us in this great cause by turning food consumers into part-time producers, reconnecting the American people with the American land and demonstrating that we need not choose between the welfare of our families and the health of the environment — that eating less oil and more sunlight will redound to the benefit of both.

This is a new era for America and Michael Pollan may just be The Change We Need.

Yes We Can!

Best,

Green Luvin'

1908 Ford Model T vs. 2008 Ford Pick-Up

On October 1st, 2008, the Ford Model-T turned 100-years-old.  Back in 1908, the year my grandmother was born,  this "universal car" as Henry Ford called it, became the first mass-produced car and the symbol of low-cost reliable transportation. But more important than it's centenial, the Model T got 13-21 MPG (max speed 45 MPH), and it was the first flexible-fuel vehicle, running on gas, ethanol or both. According to Model T collector Stu Chaney of the Model T Ford Club of America who appeared on the The CBS Saturday Early Show, "It will run on moonshine, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel-- about anything you can put a match to. And, whatever it runs on, it would pass today's very strict emission standards, because it burns the complete charge in the combustion."

Call me crazy but why are we no better off 100 years later? According the the US Department of Energy's website, FuelEconomy.gov, the 2008 Ford Ranger Pick-Up gets 15 MPG (highway, city combine).  I drive a Acura MDX and hardly ever go above 45 MPH and I am only getting about 15 MPH, and neither of these cars are Flex-Fuel vehicles.  

Are you kidding me?  So the 100 year-old Model-T does better on fuel efficiency than cars made today and its a flex-fuel automobile.

Henry Ford knew there was a future in alternative fuel.  In 1925 he told the New York Times that "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

In the late 1920's, Ford began to test crops for their industrial potential.  He actually used soybeans in gearshift knobs and horn buttons. This process of creating industrial products from agricultural raw materials is called Chemurgy.  Coined by the chemist William J. Hale, chemurgy in the 1930's during the Great Depression, many farmers and others were advocating the link between farm and industry. In 1935, the Farm Chemurgic Council (later renamed the National Farm Chemurgic Council) was formed to encourage greater use of renewable raw materials in industry. This sounds like a good idea to me.  If you've read some of my other blogs, you know that I feel strongly about the pervasive nature of petrochemicals in our everyday lives.  

So tell me what happened in the past 100 years.  Well, after Henry Ford began producing the Model-T oil-based gasoline emerged as the dominant fuel due to it availability, price, and of course lobbying from petroleum companies to maintain steep alcohol taxes. According to Hemp Car Transamerica (don't laugh this is both legit and important):  "Many bills proposing a National energy program that made use of Americas vast agricultural resources (for fuel production) were killed by smear campaigns launched by vested petroleum interests."  So big oil killed big agriculture's bid for our gas tanks?  We're dependent upon foreign oil due to American big oil efforts.

Hemp Car Transamerica continues, "One noteworthy claim put forth by petrol companies was that the U.S. government's plans 'robbed taxpayers to make farmers rich'. Gasoline had many disadvantages as an automotive resource. The 'new' fuel had a lower octane rating than ethanol, was much more toxic (particularly when blended with tetra-ethyl lead and other compounds to enhance octane), generally more dangerous, and contained threatening air pollutants. Petroleum was more likely to explode and burn accidentally, gum would form on storage surfaces and carbon deposits would form in combustion chambers of engines."  So this fuel is less efficient, dirtier, and more dangerous.  Great choice America.

Finally, Hemp Car Transamerica concludes,  "Pipelines were needed for distribution from 'area found' to "area needed". Petroleum was much more physically and chemically diverse than ethanol, necessitating complex refining procedures to ensure the manufacture of a consistent "gasoline" product. However, despite these environmental flaws, fuels made from petroleum have dominated automobile transportation for the past three-quarters of a century. There are two key reasons: First, cost per kilometer of travel has been virtually the sole selection criteria. Second, the large investments made by the oil and auto industries in physical capital, human skills and technology make the entry of a new cost-competitive industry difficult."

Back in 1974, the EPA began the Miles Per Gallon rating system.  In a 1999 press release announcing the 25th Anniversary of the rating system, the EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner stated, "Choosing the most fuel-efficient vehicle within a class can save drivers at least $1500 [in 1999] in fuel costs and avoid more than 15 tons of greenhouse gas pollution [in 1999] over the life of the vehicle as well as help reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil."

Well only now in 2008, 100 years after the first Model T rolled off the manufacturing line, are Americans and our government, seeing the health, economic and environmental effects of not listening to Henry Ford's original vision.  Well I'm not sure about this?  Are we leading the world, or or we lagging behind?  Can you guess?

Currently one country in Asia has fuel efficiency standards of 43 MPG.  Another has mandated 35.5 miles per gallon by 2010. Those crazy Europeans have mandated 47 MPG by 2012, and Australia is 34.4 by 2010.  But the US is waiting until 2020 to require cars to go 35 MPG. 

Guess who is at 43 MPG?  THE CHINESE.  Yes China, the land of coal fired power plants popping up like weeds is WAY ahead of us in this area.

Time to go vote.  Let your Senator or Congressperson know how you feel about this.  Now is the time.  Think Green on November 2. 

WIRED Environmentalism

"Attention Environmentalists: Keep your SUVs. Forget organics. Go nuclear. Screw the spotted owl." Wow, if that is not an attention getting headline I don't know what is. Well that is what is stated on the cover of the June issue of WIRED magazine.  The headline continues "If you're serious about global warming only one thing matters: Cutting Carbon. That means facing some inconvenient truths."

So what is this all about? Yes our climate crisis is important but forget organics, drive an SUV... huh? According to WIRED magazine, "The war on greenhouse gasses is too important to be left to the environmentalist" and we need to push everything aside and just focus on our reducing our CO2 emission. Forget about everything else? Our health, cleaning up toxic areas, erosion, our culture and work only on global warming? 

This single minded way of looking at the environment is split up into "10 tenets" of what WIRED magazine calls "the new environmental apostasy."

Here's what WIRED says:

(1) Live in Cities.  WIRED posits that urban dwellers emit less greenhouse gases than those living in suburban sprawl.  Well this is true.  As reported by Reuters on May 30th in a story entitled Big US Carbon Footprint Lie East of the Mississippi,  "metropolitan areas, where people drive shorter distances and use less electricity in their homes, are greener. On average, an urban dweller's carbon footprint was 86 percent of a suburban or rural resident's." So we should all move to cities? Is this realistic? Cram everyone into NY, LA, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver? LA where you can only see the surrounding mountains when it rains and the smog settles? What about health issues? Also, "green" goes beyond just CO2 emissions. Cities can't sustain themselves. Central Park isn't a farm, and Staten Island isn't used as a giant diary. So yes, urban areas may emit less greenhouse gasses per person, but they are still massive heat islands, net consumers of food, oil and other things that are generated by the generation of CO2, NO2 and SO2.  

(2) A/C is OK.  According to WIRED it takes more energy to raise the thermostat in New England to 70 degrees when it is zero outside then it takes to lower the temperature in Phoenix to 70 degrees when it is 110 degrees outside. Therefore using the A/C emits less greenhouse gases in heating a house in winter. Well how about all the greenhouse gases emitted from shipping all the food that does not growing 110 degree weather to feed those people using the A/C or all the water that needs to be pumped into the swimming pools to cool down those sweating people in Arizona.  

(3) Organics are not the answer. WIRED magazine's argument here is organic dairies do not produce as much milk as industrial dailies.  Organically fed animals take longer to fatten up before going to market.  More time breathing means more time to burp, fart and poop emitting more greenhouse gases e.g. methane. Organic farmers do not produce as much produce per acre as industrial farmers.  Even so, organic farming has become big business delivering "wholesome" food to moms like me across many thousands of miles; think grapes from Chile or Strawberries from California. Well this is one that rips my heart out. Don't eat organic? Are they kidding? First, don't we need to be healthy and alive to save the environment? Organic produce and meats are significantly more nutritious than industrial foods. (To read more about the nutritional difference of organic over industrial produce read my past post "Another Point of the Organic Industry!") The pesticides and fertilizers that are used on industrial farms are ALL made out of fossil fuels, degrading the land and polluting the water from runoff. And the same trucks and planes that are hauling the organic foods are also hauling their industrial counterparts.  So organic or industrial? Go organic. Now I will agree with WIRED on one point.  Buy local.  But local industrial is worse than shipped organic. WIRED's reporters would have us eat the pesticide laden lettuces grown locally. Yuck! Not for me and my family.

(4) Farm the Forest. WIRED reports that 55 years is the age at which a tree's ability to absorb carbon begins to decline. Their solution -- cut down trees and plant new ones -- clear old trees and landfill the scraps. So now we need landfills for trees? Then they suggest planting seedlings and cut them down as soon as their CO2 absorption declines and make furniture. According to Alex Steffen of Editor of WorldChanging.com in his rebuttal article in WIRED, "Older trees can absorb CO2 for centuries after reaching maturity, while replanted forests can emit more CO2 than they sequester until the new trees are as much as 20 years old." He continues to say "Chopping down forest causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated plantings a dodgy prospect." Gosh, clear cutting just doesn't make that much sense does it? Old growth is still better than no growth.

(5) China is the solution. WIRED says it is the solution because China is producing 35% of the worlds photovoltaic factories (solar panels) and soon will produce inexpensive wind turbines--though there is currently more than a 3 year backlog of orders for wind turbines globally.  I would not say that this makes China the solution. With China's population at more than 1.3 billion and rising, they are more of the problem than the solution. China heats itself with coal, can't feed itself, and has become the fastest consumer of oil and other petroleum-based products in the world. Additionally, China (like the US) has not signed the Kyoto treaty, so they will pump the greenhouse gasses out as fast as they can. So they are the solution? Also, just between you and me, while I love solar and wind, neither are base-load solutions, and can only supplement coal, gas or nuclear plants (and yes I know all about geothermal, but there aren't enough resources to really make a difference.)

(6) Accept genetic engineering. WIRED believes that we need to look at Mosanto, Dupont and Syngenta as saviors who will feed the world- where's Bob Geldoff when you need him? They gleefully report that genetically engineered crops creates higher yields, and that they are the only hope for biofuels. WIRED's reporters even discuss genetically created meat -- lab-grown animal flesh--think Soylent Green--its people. (To read some of my rants on Monsanto  check my past post on milk labeling.) Are they kidding?  

(7) Carbon trading does not work. Now I cannot dispute or agree with this position. I have limited knowledge on this issue. According to WIRED magazine, the trading system put forth by the Kyoto Protocol will slow rising emissions by 6.5 days. That does not sound so good. They feel that a carbon tax would do a better job. To understand the difference between carbon trading and tax read "Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading: What's the Difference, and Which is Better?" by Kevin Baumert posted on the Global Policy Forum. Also, check out Gar Lipow pieces on Grist called "Emission trading: A mixed record with plenty of failures, regulations work better."

(8) Embrace nuclear power. Well I am not sure I can embrace something that leaves us with a lot of radioactive waste. However,  nuclear power does emit a lot less carbon than coal as it is currently used but it is not zero--there is no zero carbon electricity generation. Uranium needs to be mined, refined and enriched; the power plant needs to be built and operated; each step uses fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases. The biggest issue for me is safety. A nuclear accident could do extreme harm to people and the environment -- killing thousands of people, injuring hundreds of thousand and contaminating a very larger area of land. Is that worth it? I say no, my husband says yes. 

(9) Used cars not hybrids. A company called CNW Marketing Research Inc. released a study titled Dust to Dust Energy Report which analyzed data on the "energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrap." Based on the results of this report, which used data points from 2005 and earlier including setting oil at a maximum of $80 per barrel and gas at $3.00 per gallon (a worse case scenario they say), WIRED suggests that we purchased a used car and that a hybrid such as a Prius has a larger carbon footprint than a Hummer.  From concept to road, CNW discovered that because of the nickel hybrid battery of hybrids the complete carbon footprint is higher than a Hummer. To get the full gist of the study you have to read it but what WIRED is suggesting is purchase a used car that the first owner already paid off the carbon debt such as a 1994 GeoMetro XFi -- what they say is the most fuel efficient car there is. However, I do not think I would put my kids in a car that has no airbags with all those "green" Hummers on the road.  By the way, I not sure how this all applies in 2008 when oil is at $140 a barrel and gas is as high as $4.40 in some places.  

(10) Prepare for the worst. So WIRED says some type of climate change is going to happen and I agree with them. We are already seeing it around the world.  But this just means we have to get with the program and stop delaying the necessary steps needed. We have been talking about this for years and we still see delays. The auto industry should be forced to build more fuel efficient cars. Heavy manufacturing industries need to be forced to reduce carbon. Utilities need to invest in new energy sources. Ethanol subsidies need to end. There is so much that must be done.  

Does that mean I need to buy more bikini's to prepare? Not sure what WIRED wants us to do.

What do you think? What are you doing?

 

Corn: How can one food lead to both obesity and starvation?

Corn: it makes us fat, makes our cows sick, degrades our land and now it is causing a food crisis. How can one crop cause both obesity and starvation? Can a plant be evil?

Well, as we all know, and as I wrote about in my "King Corn" post, corn is the basic building block of most of our food. But with mountains of corn, all that processed food and high fructose corn syrup, how can there be global a food crisis? Think about this, there are people RIOTING in the streets because there is not enough food to eat!

Due to the poorly conceived energy policies of the United States and European Union a tremendous amount of corn is being converted to biofuels (think ethanol). The acreage being used to grow fuel corn is contributing to the explosive rise in global food prices.  Many farmers are growing corn for your gas tank and not your belly.

Yesterday the United Nations said that fuel policies pursued by the U.S. and the EU were one of the main causes of the current worldwide food crisis. So now, not only are we fighting for oil in Iraq, but Iowa isn't feeding us anymore, its feeding Ford's, Chevy's and Toyota's.

Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, UN special rapporteur on the right to food and a professor of sociology at the University of Geneva and at the Sorbonne in Paris, said "that last year the United States used a third of its corn crop to create biofuels, while the European Union is planning to have 10 percent of its petrol supplied by biofuels."  To me, that's both pretty amazing and scary.  Thirty-three percent of all the corn grown in the US is going to run our cars.

When speaking with Voice of America, Greg Barrow of the UN's World Food Program stated, "There is a perfect storm that has emerged over this issue [due to] a combination of factors - high fuel prices, high food commodity prices driven by the growth of economies in China and India. Then this phenomenon of biofuels production, where fields that were once used to produce grain for human consumption are now producing grain for fuel."

Food prices have risen dramatically in the last year and we are already seeing a food crisis in Haiti, Cameroon, Egypt, Ivory Coast, South Korea, Bangladesh and the Philippines. And American's are not immune to the crisis.  Both Costco and Sam's Club have begun rationing sales of rice allowing a maximum of two to four institutional-size bags per customer, depending on supply. 

When speaking with the Washington Post, Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University said "If you didn't have ethanol, you would not have the prices we have today. It doesn't mean it's the sole driver. Prices would be higher than we saw earlier in this decade because world grain supplies are tighter now than earlier in the decade. But we've introduced a new demand into the market."  And the astounding thing is, ethanol is not an efficient source of fuel and might be exacerbating global warming. 

According to the Associated Press, even President Bush-- that well knowing environmentalist--said biofuel is responsible for about 15 percent of the rise of food prices. However the U.S. Department of Agriculture believes it to be more around 20 percent. And the International Food Policy Research Institute and Ziegler says it is 30 percent. Leave it to Bush to underestimate a crisis.

Then of course there is the biofuel industry that says that biofuels have only brought food prices up 4 percent. But who are they kidding. It is in their best interest to keep the corn flowing to their chemical vats, and the fuels flowing to our cars.

Check out the Associated Press photo above of a pump at an Ohio Department of Agriculture fuel station in 2006 that is 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum. Currently gasoline contains up to 10% ethanol. If the biofuel industry had it their way all our pumps would look like the one in the photo.

Ziegler and other international scientist have called for a moratorium on the production of biofuels. But of course Bush believes the opposite. Good thing he is a lame duck!

What do you think?

(pump image by Kiichiro Sato, AP)

King Corn: We are what we eat.

Corn, it is hot news these days. With crops at record prices and grocery bills rising everyone is looking at the corn industry. 

Corn is in almost everything we eat. Livestock is fed corn, farmed fish are fed corn, processed food are made of corn and the mighty sweeter, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is made of corn. Corn is even used to fuel our cars in the form of ethanol thanks to a poorly thought out government policy.

Well for those of you are interested in an introductory course on the corn, two college friends, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, filmed a documentary on the industry called "King Corn." This pretty amazing film will air on PBS on April 15th. 

What's the story here? Well, Ian and Curt decided to move to Iowa in 2003 for a year to plant one acre of corn to follow it from seed to table. What they find out raises scary questions not only about what Americans eat but also how our agriculture is farmed. 

Their journey takes them first to have their hair carbon tested at the University of Virginia to discover that their bodies are made out of more than 50% corn! From Virginia, they venture to fields of Iowa where acres and acres of farmland are planted with corn and the grain elevators are overflowing with corn. Then to the grasslands of Colorado where cattle use to graze.  The fields are now cornfields that feed the cows in feed-lots.  Ian and Curt look at every part of the corn production cycle. They even speak to a high fructose corn syrup producer who thinks the liquid sweetener is the best invention since sliced bread.  

Corn is a commodity and Ian and Curt learn this very quickly when they taste their industrial corn for the first time.  It was inedible! They discover for their corn to become any type of food it must be processed.  

The film is in large part a homage to Michael Pollen, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma. In "King Corn," Pollan states, "If you take a McDonald's meal, you don't realize it when you eat it but you're eating corn. Beef has been corn-fed. Soda is corn. Even the French fries -- half the calories in the French fries come from the fat they're fried in, which is liable to be either corn oil or soy oil. So when you're at McDonald's, you are eating Iowa food. Everything on the plate is corn." 

The agriculture system today is a result of America's government subsidized farm program.  In 1973, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz declared, "What we want out of agriculture is plenty of food."

 

Well, we have plenty of food but our nutritional supply has degraded. When Ian and Curt speak with one of the Iowa farmers about their crops, the farmer admits that they do not eat their corn.  As he states in the movie, "We aren't growing quality, we are growing crap."

Ian and Curt's acre harvested 10,000-pounds of corn which could yield 57,348 cans of soda or 3,894 corn-fed hamburgers.  Sixty-three percent of their harvest went into feed for livestock, 32% into ethanol and 5% into sweeteners like HFCS.

A great visual into to corn industry and the American food system, "King Corn" should become required viewing for all schools across the country to teach children to eat better.  

"King Corn" will air on PBS on April 15th at 10:00 PM.  You can also purchase the DVD on their website.  

How "green" are your personal and household products?

When my youngest son was only a few months old, a friend sent me an email warning me about baby products that include 1, 4-Dioxane, an Environmental Protection Agency identified carcinogen. This compound has been known to causes cancer in lab animals and now I find out its in Johnson & Johnson Baby Wash.  Once I found out about this I quickly stopped using this soap and found one that was not on the EPA list.  That was almost a year and half ago.  

Now a new study released last week by the Organic Consumers Association revealed that the carcinogenic 1, 4-Dioxane was found in nearly 50% of leading "organic" personal care products tested.  The study included a test of more than 100 organic and natural soaps, shampoos, lotions, and other products from some of our favorite "green" companies including Jason Pure, Natural & Organic, Kiss My Face, Method, Seventh Generation and 365 - Whole Foods private label. Forty-seven of the products tested had detectable levels of 1,4-Dioxane. 

Are you kidding me? Nearly half of the "green" products tested had a cancer causing compound in it!  We kind of expect this from the traditional, industrial products, but from household and personal care products advertised as natural, green and organic, no way! 

"For companies to knowingly or carelessly put a carcinogen into commerce in this day and age is barbaric, I think, particularly products that have the moniker of natural or self-proclaimed organic,"  stated consumer advocate and leader of the study David Steinman in the Los Angeles Times.

According to the Organic Consumer Association, the petroleum based product, ethylene oxide, is used in many product to make them milder and 1,4-Dioxane is a by-product of ethylene oxide. In addition to being known to cause cancer, 1,4-Dioxane is also suspect kidney, neuro and respiratory toxicant. It is also a leading groundwater contaminant.  

So what are we to do? Well, any USDA certified organic product does not contain 1,4-dioxane because companies are not allowed to use ethylene oxide or any other synthetic petroleum chemical modification.  So look for the USDA Organic Seal on the products. A full list of all products tested and the levels of 1,4-dioxane can be downloaded here.  This document also includes a list of ingredients to avoid.

The Organic Consumer Association is working hard to push the organic personal care industry to stop misleading consumers and is leading a movement called "Coming Clean."  They are pressuring the USDA National Organic Program, Organic Trade Association and the industry to adopt strict national organic standards for personal care products. Currently 485 business have sign in support.  On May 14th the Organic Consumer Association and Dr. Bonner's filed a "Cease and Desist" letters to many of the companies who tested positive for 1,4-Dioxane.  Let's hope all this pressure makes a change in the right direction. 

There is something fishy with salmon.

I don't know about you but I am always very confused when it comes eating salmon.   Should I eat farmed or fresh? Most articles about eating fish publish charts on safe fish and fish to avoid and I find that salmon makes it into both columns.

Last week my friend and I were discussing the issue, because she, like I, is obsessed with food these days. Our list of foods we eat is ever dwindling.  We were wondering what salmon is best for the environment and our health.  Subsequent to our conversation, she called me up to say that she had just read an article in Eating Well Magazine on the fresh vs. farm salmon debate that helped bring some clarity.  

So I quickly grabbed the March/April issue and began to read the article entitled "The Wild Salmon Debate."  The piece was written by David Dobbs, a salmon angler and author of The Great Gulf, about the decimation of the ocean fisheries.  Dobbs is "a sort of salmon-expert-for-the-day." In his article, Dobbs discussed the differences between types of salmon, location caught and farmed vs. fresh. 

Wild salmon today is all from the Pacific. Why? Because the Atlantic salmon are now on the Endangered Species List.  Salmon from the Pacific can be found in Alaska, British Columbia, Northern California and the Pacific Northwest.  

All Atlantic salmon species are farmed and live in net pens of tens of thousands of fish. These fish are vaccinated against diseases because they live in crowded confinement and fed fish pellets of food and additives to make their flesh pink like their wild fishy friends in the Pacific. 

As Dobbs reports, "Farmed salmon holds about 2 to 10 times the levels of PCBs, DDT, dioxins, pesticides, mercury and some other suspected carcinogens that most wild salmon do, apparently because the rich meal they eat contains bits of oily fish in which these contaminants tend to concentrate." These levels are still low (relatively) and that the benefits of eating salmon out way the cost of these contaminants unless you are pregnant, nursing or young. 

 

However, as he points out, there is a bigger picture to the farmed salmon. Farming salmon is wreaking havoc on the environment.  With the expansion of farmed salmon, there appears to be more and more problems emerging.  Many of the fish escape and disrupt the spawning of the wild salmon.  Sea lice that have infested farms are now spreading to wild populations killing many wild salmon.

Dobbs concludes that wild salmon is the way to go. It may be seasonal, inconsistent in taste and more expensive, but these trade offs are small in the whole scheme of things.

So I thought I was set.  Wild salmon was all my family would eat.  But then last week the Pacific Fishery Management Council stated that the wild salmon in the Pacific West fisheries, were at an all time low.  The managers are discussing cancelling the early seasons of ocean fishing for chinook salmon off the coast of Oregon and Northern California because of a collapse in stock. 

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 12th, "only 63,900 fall run salmon were documented spawning in the Sacramento River in 2007, far below the 122,000 to 189,000 objective the council had set."  And to make matters worse, the number of jacks (two year old fish that return to the river to spawn) are at an all time low. Frighteningly, officials expected 157,000 jacks but only counted 6,000.

So now I was really in a tizzy. First I moved my family to eating more fish. Then, only wild salmon. Now, heck, what am I supposed to do? The salmon stocks in the Northwest are collapsing, I can't figure out which way is up.  So stealing a line from Dr. Suess, one fish, two fish, red fish, who knew fish?  

So I decided to contact Dobbs and get his take on the issue. Dobbs, who in addition to writing for Eating Well and other outlets, writes his own blog called Smooth Pebbles where he covers various health issues. 

He explained to me that this truly is a confusing issue. "To make it easy, just think Wild Alaskan Salmon -- these are Pacific salmon but unlike Pacific Northwest salmon, the Alaskan salmon have habitat undamaged by dams (which are doing in many salmon) and are extremely well-managed so that they are not overfished."

Dobbs told me he considers farmed salmon disastrous and the only salmon he eats is wild Alaskan.  And now so do I.

So next time I go shopping, I'm looking for the mukluks on my fish.

Milk labeling: I rather be confused.

I don't know about you, but shopping for milk is very confusing.  It used to be it was either skim, 1%, 2% or whole milk.  Now when you go to the market and read the labels each brand is touting something different.  Pasteurized, ultra-pasteurized, homogenized, organic, no antibiotics, no hormones, ultra-pure, no rBST, no rBGH, fortified with vitamin A & D added, lactose-free, DHA Omega-3, the list goes on. 

But at least we have a list of items to decipher.  Maybe not for long if Monsanto gets their way. Monsanto, the maker of Posilac, an artificial hormone that stimulates milk production, would like to change the labeling law on milk.  We recognize this hormone as rBST or rBGH (recombinant bovine somatotropin). Many milk companies now label their milk stating that no rBST (or rBGH) were used on their cows but they also have to add the statement: The FDA has found no significant difference between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST treated cows. Confused? 

Monsanto feels if the FDA deems it safe then why should milk be labeled that no rBST/rBGH were used.  Safe?  If it is so safe, why is the hormone banned in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most of Europe?

Well to be fair to Monsanto, they are not directly trying to change the law, it is a group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (Afact).  But who is Afact? As reported in the New York Times, Afact was formed by Monsanto and a consultant that has Monsanto on their client roster, in addition to a marketing/pr firm whose founders were former Monsanto executives, and were hired to work on Posilac. 

Last year, Monsanto asked the FDA and Federal Trade Commission to crack down on milk labels. And for once these agencies refused.  So Monsanto has taken their fight to the states. Label change bills have come up in Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Vermont and Missouri.  Pennsylvania, the fifth largest dairy state in the nation, actually banned the no rBST labeling but rescinded the law when consumers and some dairies complained.  Ohio passed a law that stating milk labels are not allowed to say rBST free.  In Indiana, a bill was introduced banning rBST-free labeling. It passed in the Indiana House Agriculture Committee but was never brought to the full house because the state representative did not have enough votes for it to pass. But dairy farmers in Indiana are pushing it because they use rBST.  Kansas just introduced a similar bill. 

Just to give a a little background on Monsanto.  This is the wonderful company that brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, genetically engineered seed, sacchrin, aspartame, nuclear weapons, and growth hormones. The Environmental Protection Agency list Monsanto as a potentially responsible party for 56 Superfund sites in the US.  Who knows how many sites they have contaminated around the world.

If Monsanto has its way, Ben & Jerry's would have to change its advertising campaign that their ice cream doesn't contain the synthetic growth hormones made by Monsanto.  Currently Ben & Jerry's is fighting these labeling laws.  As they state, "We believe that rBGH, a genetically engineered hormone given to dairy cows to increase their milk productions, is a step in the wrong direction toward a synthetic, chemically-intensive, factory-produced food supply.  It also raises the risk of serious health problems in cows.  That's why we've worked with our dairy suppliers to make sure they do not use rBGH on their herds. And it seems like it shouldn't be a secret."

When it comes to the labeling of our foods, I rather be provided with as much information as possible so I can make my decision.  Confused or not, the more information the better. 

To label or not, what do you think?

Daylights-Saving Time -- What are we saving?

Daylight-savings time takes effect Sunday at 2:00 am springing the clocks ahead to 3:00 am.  Growing up I always was excited about daylight-savings time, when we got to spring ahead with the change of season. However, now that the Bush Administration changed the date to the second Sunday in March, rather than the first Sunday in April, it all just seems like another day with an extra hour.

In 2005, Congress amended the Energy Policy Act, extending daylight-savings time by one month by beginning earlier and ending later, in hopes to conserve energy and help the environment. However, a recent study conducted by University of California-Santa Barbara economics professor Matthew Kotchen and Ph.D. candidate Laura Grant, shows that springing forward may actually waste energy.  

Waste energy, how can that be?  If we have more daylight, there should be less demand on energy right.  We turn our lights on later, no?

Well, Kotchen and Grant studied energy use in nearly every household southern Indiana from 2004 to 2006 (7 million monthly meter readings for 3 years).  Most counties in Indiana did not observe daylight-savings until 2o06.  They discovered that residents that lived in counties that adopted daylight-savings used 1 t0 4 % more energy per year.  They found that the reduce of the cost of lighting in the afternoons was offset by hight air conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increase heating cost on cool mornings. 

So what is the cost of daylight-savings time according to Kotchen.  Well, a recent interview published in USA Today, Kotchen stated, "The change in cost to Indiana residents in terms of increased electricity demand is just over $3 per household per year. Over the whole population, that comes out to $8.6 million a year.  Another element is the social (and economic) cost of pollution emissions.  Having to generate more energy for electricity means there is going to be more pollution.  We estimate those cost are between $1.6 million and $5.3 million per year in increased pollution costs."

Kotchen admits that more studies need to be done to evaluate the cost to the entire nation and that in some areas it just may save energy.  In addition, he says that before we scrap the increased daylight we must take many other factors into consideration like increased leisure time. 

There are so many arguments for it and against it.  Teachers do not like it because many kids go to school when it is still dark.  Oil companies love it because it keeps people on the roads driving.  Retailers and merchants make more money during daylight-savings because it gives people more time to shop after work.  However, the silliest and one I do not really understand I read about in the San Francisco Chronicle. Cows do not like it. According to an organic dairy farmer in California, it is very hard for the cows to adjust.  Can they tell time?  Is hard for them to change their watches?  

What do you think about it?