TIME for a PUBLIC OPTION on plantmilks?? Let's not WAIT UNTIL we get sick. Let's get our plantmilks NOW.

TIME for a PUBLIC OPTION on plantmilks??
Let's not WAIT UNTIL we get sick.

Let's get our plantmilks NOW.

So MUCH competition in the plantmilk space is broadening opportunities for consumers to try an array of very different plantmilks (not all plantmilks are the same - in fact, NO plantmilks are the same as any other plantmilks; they ALL differ).

But if ACCESS to plantmilks is the issue, there are SOME locations - by zip code - where plantmilks are NOT immediately accessible to coffee drinkers, cereal eaters, and others who tipple at the extruded plants.

Arguably, all this competition in the plantmilk space may be great for consumers, but the price point BENEFITS of competition cannot be GREAT for the fiscal sustainability of all these risk-taking innovators.

Some plantmilk producers will WIN - and some may go out of business after they have done 'their yeoman's duty' to expand the market for plantmilks.

Is it not time for some public strategy for dispersing plantmilks among the ENTIRE human population - maybe granting plantmilk as a protected right - so that everyone can have some plantmilk when and where they need it, and so that the nation's farmers can know that there's a continuing demand for high quality organic non-GMO plants to supply this industrial demand for producing soymilk.

In nations outside the USA, a national healthcare plan can mandate universal coverage yet periodically open to competitive bidders for supplying the national 'right to healthcare'! A national right to plantmilks could be organized the same way without disemboweling competitors who want to continue producing. Those additional competitors would just not win the federal contract for supplying the public option, and the public option could be 95% powered by private industry efforts.

What MIGHT be DIFFERENT (and hopefully BETTER) would be ACCESS to nondairy plantmilks, nondairy cheeses, nondairy creamers, and (I think that this would be INESSENTIAL) nondairy desserts.

I'd wager that restaurants in THAT kind of economic regime would carry plantmilks as a rule because it's a right, not because they suddenly took pity on the paying consumer.

Those who declare 'SOY MILK IS A RIGHT' can build upon their public values.

Plantmilk availability COULD become or be declared ethically normative in such a society.

The Nativity's Hope for All Creatures

The Nativity's Hope for All Creatures

What makes the festive season so special is that sense of hope and expectation leading up to Christmas Day. Hope is a powerful emotion and few sights are able to inspire more hope than that of a new life entering the world.
 

Perhaps that is why the nativity scene is so timeless in its ability to evoke anticipation, optimism and promise. It was in fact St. Francis of Assisi who was credited with creating the first nativity display in 1223, turning the Biblical narrative into a living, breathing, noisy, smelly tableau that brought a once elusive retelling into vivid experience for the eyes.

Visibly today, from children’s school plays to Christmas cards, Church posters to product advertisements, this scene of the infant Christ in a manger surrounded by highly inquisitive farmyard animals is a firm part of our traditional Christmas celebrations.

Christmas underscores the emotive power of the amazing animals with which we share our world. A nativity image, no matter how sentimentally portrayed, reminds us of the beauty and innocence of these endlessly mysterious and familiar beings who live complex lives beyond our control or comprehension.

The birth of Christ is a prime opportunity to remember that Christmas is not just about humanity. Rather the arrival of the infant Christ promises cosmic, restorative consequences for the whole of creation.

The hope of the nativity challenges us to look beyond the darker side of our use and abuse of animals to a manger scene which compels us to live out the love, mercy, and compassion of Christ in the here and now.

Eat Your Fiber

Eating your daily supply of fiber will keep the intestine and colon running healthy, helping to prevent colon cancer and various intestinal diseases.

United Nations says veganism can save the world from destruction

United Nations says veganism can save the world from destruction

UN Says Veganism Can Save the World From Destruction

by Khushbu Shah Feb 16, 2015, 4:35p @KhushAndOJ

Shutterstock

Veggie burgers may soon rule the land.

Can a vegan diet save the world? According to a new report from the UN, the answer is "yes."The Guardian writes that "a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty, and the worst impacts of climate change." The report notes that the Western preference for meat- and dairy-heavy diets is "unsustainable," especially as the population is expected to grow to 9.1 billion by 2050.

The report adds that "animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals." Plus, livestock raised for meat consumes a large portion of the world's crops and a lot of freshwater. Currently, agriculture, "particularly meat and dairy products," account for 70 percent of the world's freshwater consumption. It also accounts for 39 percent of the globe's total land use and 19 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Importantly, as the population grows, the impact from agriculture will substantially grow as well, thanks to the the increasing consumption of animal products. The report notes that "unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives." The only option is to cut down on the number of animal products consumed.

The UN isn't the only one advocating a more plant-focused diet. A couple from the United Kingdom are working hard to make "Veganuary" a global movement. The duo are trying to convince people to eat less animal products by going vegan for the month of January. According to a press release, 50 percent of last year's participants said that they "intended to remain vegan for good." Perhaps the UN just found a new partner in their global mission?

• UN Urges Global Move to Meat Free Diet [Guardian]
• Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production [UN]
• Activists Launch 'Veganuary' to Pressure You Into Veganism [E]
• All Vegan Coverage [E]

Bird Conservation Group Wants Tighter Controls on Wind Industry - Blades run afowl of the MBTA

Bird Conservation Group Wants Tighter Controls on Wind Industry | Wind | Rewire | KCET

The SOLUTION - the ENGINEERING SOLUTION - is to SHIFT THE PLANE from rotating the blades in the VERTICAL plane to rotating the blades in the HORIZONTAL plane.

Let's THANK animal (bird) advocates for raising this issue, but let's insist that future design integrate this concern from the outset.

Lots of blade building has already gone ahead, production machinery has been purchased, and workers have been hired and put on the assembly lines.

I raised this concern nearly a decade ago - and suggested this solution about 3-4 years ago. 

Advocates didn't see that as an issue at that time (or some merely said, yes, the blades shouldn't hurt the birds).

So let's "do the math" and consider that, if the IDEA of the SOLUTIONS pre-existed my SEEING the SOLUTION and RAISING the SOLUTION 3-4 years ago, the "solutions" may have pre-existed actuality in the minds of engineering visionaries.  So when we REQUIRE investment in something that the planet and this species needs (birds would rather adjust to global warming and let the infrastructures of human "civilization" decline or erode at the coastal edges), we need, increasingly, to look at the full picture and to engineer ONLY solutions which do NOT solve OUR problems at the expense of other persons (other species of life).

News and analysis about energy in California with an eye toward renewables.

FB

TW

[=]

Calling bird law violations inevitable at wind facilities, a group wants tighter controls on permitting. | Photo:  Changhua Coast Conservation Action/Flickr/Creative Commons License

WIND

Bird Conservation Group Wants Tighter Controls on Wind Industry

by Chris Clarke 

February 24, 2015 2:45 PM

A national bird protection group is calling on the federal government to require wind energy operators to get permits to kill birds that are protected under one of the nation's oldest environmental laws.

The Washington, D.C.-based American Bird Conservancy, which projects more than 1.4 million annual bird deaths in coming years from wind turbines and their associated transmission lines, petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this month to require owners of wind power facilities to apply for permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 before being allowed to build their projects.

USFWS has been asking wind companies to follow voluntary bird-protection guidelines when siting and designing their projects, but American Bird Conservancy claims in its petition that the voluntary approach has been roundly ineffective at protecting birds from wind turbines.

The petition, filed earlier this month with the U.S. Department of the Interior, is actually a follow-up to an earlier attempt by the group to compel USFWS to crack down on wind industry violations of the law. This month's petition was sent to provide new information on the scope of the threat wind turbines pose to birds.

As part of that update, the group summarized a December 2014 study, commissioned by the group and conducted by researchers at Mississippi State University, that indicates USFWS' voluntary compliance policy has failed to prevent wind turbines from being built in extremely sensitive bird areas:

Nearly 30,000 wind turbines have already been installed within areas identified as being of high importance to federally-protected birds in the United States, with more than 50,000 additional turbines planned for construction in similar areas. These include more than 18,000 in the migration corridor of the whooping crane -- one of the nation's rarest and most spectacular birds, 1,800 in greater sage-grouse breeding strongholds, and nearly 1,400 in locations deemed to be of the most critical importance to conserving the nation's birdlife. This clearly indicates that the voluntary guidelines are not working to protect our public trust resources, especially since proper siting is probably the best and most effective form of mitigation.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal to kill or harm any of the 800-odd species of bird specifically listed under the law without a permit. Penalties for a single offense -- injury to a single bird -- range up to $200,000 in fines and a year's imprisonment.

As Rewire reported two years ago, USFWS has been highly reluctant to enforce the law against operators of wind turbines.

"In effect, the MBTA is not being enforced, except perhaps under very special circumstances," said Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy's Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign. "This reality is particularly significant for the wind industry because wind energy projects will inevitably take birds protected under the MBTA. In fact, because it is virtually impossible to operate a wind energy facility without killing or injuring at least some migratory birds, most operational wind energy projects are in ongoing violation of the MBTA, and are effectively breaking the law with impunity."

25 years younger ???

Today I was told that I "look 25 years younger than the calendar says and still have boundless energy."

Well, I do typically get my age estimated to be 12-15 years younger than my age, but not 25. That wasn't (and isn't) always the case.  Staring at a computer, getting inadequate sleep, and drinking tea or coffee can depress the muscles in the eyes and face.  But I think that proper nourishment is important, and merely eating vegan-compliant diets may not do that.  Avoiding the animal-based inputs is important, but ensuring the plant-based inputs is just as important for health.

In the dispute between John McDougall* (vegan diet except for holidays), and Joel Fuhrman (vegan nutritarian all the time) 

(but tolerant of others because they publicly say that their principles apply to everyone, but that meat eaters should not eat much meat or dairy - and McDougall tells them to swear off the dairy first - Fuhrman says that dairy is entirely unnecessary - and shows them how to nourish themselves), 

• the Fuhrman "nutritarian" emphasis is on the nutrient-rich diet and fat-burning (which I strongly advocate - selecting foods for nutrient value, not for taste or satiety.  I think that satiety and satisfaction follow from getting the nutrients in one's daily diet (one MUST exercise** IN ORDER TO build muscle and burn fat - Fuhrman photos show that, despite his foot injury, he hasn't stopped exercising after he left competitive figure skating);
• the McDougall "starchitarian" emphasis seems to be on a "starchitarian" weight loss by "no added fat" - and that means no nuts or oils.

*One of my long-time vegan friends in Boston has FLIPPED his loyalties from the vegan diet of Dr. Joel Fuhrman ("His diet is a good diet") to the vegan diet of Dr. John McDougall on the basis of the emphasis non weight loss (we all have problems with piling on extra weight; Steve lost "mucho" weight when he stopped eating a handful of nuts each day)
** All right - so, to START exercising, one walks around as much as possible; gently move and exercise each of the joints (yoga has ways to do this); in bed before rising, something called "a crunch" is stretching your chest UP toward your abdomen as much as possible - about 8-10 times - that's a set of 'reps' or 'repetitions' - and the goal is to build the muscles one has by exercising each muscle group, including the muscles in the abdomen.  On can also stand up and rotate around the waste, then slowly bend forward, back, sideways, and stretch up and down until one aches.

Everyone can do crunches each day.

The nuance seems to be on the definitions of a 'starch' and a 'carb' or carbohydrate (few of us have the sophistication, but we ought to understand the differences between starches and sugars - particularly simple sugars.  A starch is a carbohydrate; fiber is a carbohydrate.

From Wikipedia:

In food science and in many informal contexts, the term carbohydrate often means any food that is particularly rich in the complex carbohydrate starch (such as cereals, bread, and pasta) or simple carbohydrates, such as sugar (found in candy, jams, and desserts).

McDougall likes COMPLEX carbohydrates but not simple carbohydrates; Fuhrman likes the carbohydrates bound in vegetables, beans, and whole fruits, but not those carbs that are ground up into grains and then made into breads.  However, what about whole grain cereals (oatmeal, not instant oatmeal)?

• As I seem to recall it, McDougall was trying to help us understand how we would educate all of South and Central American about plant-based vegan diets. No one wanted to do that EXCEPT for Victor Forsythe, who inherited the California Vegetarian Association from Blanche Leonardo, then moved to Colorado and joined the Colorado Green Party.  South American root vegetables are SUFFICIENTLY rich in proteins to provide all the human requirements for protein, according to the WHO.  Therefore, one could live entirely on tubers and root vegetables grown in the South American mountains without supplementing with nuts, beans, or soy.  "Protein is not an issue" in a plant-based whole foods diet based on real foods, not prepared and packaged foods.  The indigenous diet is sufficient; in America, the (SAD/MAD) diet isn't mainly whole foods.  When I talk with inquirers, I tell them that many Americans like to "eat out" - eat out of a package, out of a drive-in-window, eat out of a tragically conceived restaurant menu, etc.
  
• Fuhrman began as 'a natural hygienist' an told me in person, when we flew together in mid-August 1995 from the 8th International Vegan Festival in San Diego to Boston, that he was 'more vegan' than hygienist - then he said, 'just vegan' with an emphasis on the nutrients in whole fresh vegetables - more vegetables than fruits.

They agree, but they substantially disagree - and they settled on agreeing to the notion that they "agree about 90% of the time..."

From Wikipedia:

Starch is the most common carbohydrate in the human diet and is contained in many staple foods. The major sources of starch intake worldwide are thecereals (rice, wheat, and maize) and the root vegetables (potatoes and cassava).^[23] Many other starchy foods are grown, some only in specific climates, including acorns, arrowroot, arracacha, bananas, barley, breadfruit, buckwheat, canna, colacasia, katakuri, kudzu, malanga, millet, oats, oca, polynesian arrowroot, sago, sorghum, sweet potatoes, rye, taro, chestnuts, water chestnuts and yams, and many kinds of beans, such as favas, lentils, mung beans,peas, and chickpeas.

Widely used prepared foods containing starch are bread, pancakes, cereals, noodles, pasta, porridge and tortilla.

If we ate fewer starches, might we fart less frequently?

From Wikipedia:

Digestive enzymes have problems digesting crystalline structures. Raw starch will digest poorly in the duodenum and small intestine, while bacterial degradation will take place mainly in the colon. 

Some of us have celebrated the WIDE VARIETY of available foods of plant origin  Vance Lehmkuhl even sings about it.

I still think that erring on the side of nutrient-density is good, but affordability and refrigeration can be issues.  Therefore, whole vegetables (grow your own, like the Obama family does at the White House); farmers' markets; regular grocery store (shop produce aisle first), etc.  Eat them as you need them (and share the rest).  Further, when talking with students, other singles, and general inquirers, buying vegetables in the grocery is ALWAYS cheaper than dining out.  But college students have overpriced dining hall meal plans.

I need to credit my boss who raised the rhetorical question: "Why do so many Americans NOT want to be thin and attractive?"  Nudging from many sources - my boss, my vegan friends, and my doctor - pushed me to search for how as a vegan I could lose weight on an evidence-based program.

And to credit Michelle Obama, though she and her program are not my specific reason for 'daily motions' throughout my day, every one of us ought to get up and get out there and 'start moving' around...

I'm concerned to live by just principles.  Vegans CAN do that with evidence-based strategies that are built from the growing bodies of knowledge relevant to that project in human history.  Others seem to live, but that may not be justice, simply because they are able to live in health, if they do great damage and harm to other persons - simply because they only ways they know to feed themselves involve the destruction of others.

Maynard         

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maynard S. Clark, MS (Management: Research Administration)

Pesticides and Produce: What you need to know

Pesticides and Produce: What you need to know

Pesticides and Produce: What You Need to Know

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on gmailShare on linkedinMore Sharing Services39

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the majority of pesticides now in use are probable or possible cancer causes. Studies of farm workers who work with pesticides suggest a link between pesticide use and brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple myeloma, leukemia, lymphoma, and cancers of the stomach and prostate.1-3Collectively, many studies have established strong links between several different classes of pesticides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma among agricultural workers.4 The question remains, however, does the low level of pesticides remaining on our food present much of a risk?

The large amount of studies performed on the typical pesticide-treated produce have demonstrated that consumption of produce, whether organic or not, is related to lower rates of cancer and increased disease protection. This suggests that the health benefits of eating phytochemical-rich produce greatly outweigh any risk pesticide residues might pose. As such, some scientists argue that the extremely low level of pesticide residue remaining on produce is insignificant and that there are naturally occurring toxins in all natural foods that are more significant. Bruce Ames, Ph.D., director of the Nutrition & Metabolism Center at the University of California-Berkeley, who has spent much of his career to examining this question, believes these minute amounts present pose no risk at all.

He and other scientists in this field support this view because humans and other animals are exposed to small amounts of naturally occurring toxins with every mouthful of organically grown, natural food. The body normally breaks down self-produced metabolic wastes and naturally occurring carcinogens in foods, as well as pesticides, and excretes these harmful substances every minute. Since 99.99 percent of the potential carcinogenic chemicals consumed are naturally present in all food, reducing our exposure to the 0.01 percent that are synthetic will not reduce cancer rates, according to Ames.5,6

These scientists argue that humans ingest thousands of natural chemicals that typically have a greater toxicity and are present at higher doses, compared to the very minute amount of pesticide residue that remains on food. Furthermore, animal studies establishing carcinogenic potential in synthetic chemicals are done at doses a thousand-fold higher than what humans are ingesting in foods. Ames argues a high percentage of all chemicals, natural or not, are potentially toxic in high doses—“the dose makes the poison”—and that there is no evidence of possible cancer hazards from the tiny amounts of chemical residues remaining on produce.5,6

On the other hand, recent studies have documented a link between pesticides ingested from foods and certain diseases. Organophosphate exposure (organophosphate pesticides are used on several crops including corn, apples, pears, grapes, berries, and peaches) during pregnancy or childhood has been associated with low birth weight, ADHD, behavior problems and neurodevelopmental deficits in children.7-10

A number of pesticides may have damaging effects on the brain that contribute to Parkinson’s disease, including paraquat, which is used on a variety of vegetable crops, and organochlorines.11,12 Exposure to organochlorines occurs primarily via fatty foods like meat, dairy, and fish.13 If you are concerned about pesticides and chemicals, keep in mind animal products, such as dairy, fish, and beef, contain the most toxic pesticide residues. Also, glyphosate, which is also linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in agricultural workers, is present primarily in processed foods.4,14 By centering your diet on unrefined plant foods you will automatically reduce your exposure to the majority of dangerous chemicals.

Certainly, it is better to eat fruits and vegetables grown and harvested using pesticides than to not eat them at all, but it is also wise to minimize our pesticide exposure. The Environmental Working Group provides lists of produce called the “Dirty Dozen Plus” (highest in pesticides) and the “Clean 15” (lowest in pesticides). These are their most recent lists.

Download a printable PDF version of the Dirty Dozen PLUS™

Download a printable PDF version of the Clean Fifteen™

It makes sense to peel fruits, if possible and not to eat potato skins, unless you are able to purchase them organic. Remove and discard the outermost leaves of lettuce and cabbage, if not organically grown, and other surfaces that cannot be peeled can be washed with soap and water, or a commercial vegetable wash.

Environmental and nutritional benefits of buying organic
When we buy organic, we minimize our pesticide exposure, and we are also minimizing the amount of these pesticides that our environment is exposed to. Organic farming is clearly the more environmentally-friendly choice. According to the USDA, organic farming integrates cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.15Supporting organic agriculture will increase the demand for organic produce and decrease the percentage of farmland (and farm workers) exposed to potentially harmful agricultural chemicals. This will also benefit insects (such as bees) and worms which are essential for the health of our planet as well.
Several studies have suggested that organically grown produce is richer in antioxidant nutrients, than conventional produce. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of 343 peer-reviewed publications showed significant differences in the concentrations of a range of antioxidants, which were found to be substantially higher in organic crops and organic crop-based foods. For example, concentrations of flavanones, anthocyanins, and flavonols were found to be 69%, 51%, and 50% higher, respectively.16 Organic apples, plums, blueberries, grapes, strawberries, and corn have all been shown to have higher antioxidant capacities than their conventional counterparts. Organic strawberries were even found to have more anti-cancer activity than conventional strawberries!  Scientists have theorized that when the plants are grown without pesticides, they are forced to deal with the stress of insects, which causes them to produce more antioxidant compounds, which are beneficial to humans.17,18 Buying organic is a wise choice—organic foods taste better, have more antioxidants, and organic agriculture protects farmers and our environment.

---

References

1. Brown TP, Rumsby PC, Capleton AC, et al: Pesticides and Parkinson's disease--is there a link? Environ Health Perspect 2006,114:156-164.
2. Sanderson WT, Talaska G, Zaebst D, et al: Pesticide prioritization for a brain cancer case-control study. Environ Res 1997,74:133-144.
3. Zahm SH, Blair A: Cancer among migrant and seasonal farmworkers: an epidemiologic review and research agenda. Am J Ind Med 1993, 24:753-766.
4. Schinasi L, Leon ME: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014, 11:4449-4527.
5. Ames BN, Gold LS: Environmental pollution, pesticides, and the prevention of cancer: misconceptions. FASEB J 1997,11:1041-1052.
6. Ames BN, Profet M, Gold LS: Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1990, 87:7777-7781.
7. Rauch SA, Braun JM, Barr DB, et al: Associations of prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticide metabolites with gestational age and birth weight. Environ Health Perspect 2012, 120:1055-1060.
8. Zhang Y, Han S, Liang D, et al: Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and neurobehavioral development of neonates: a birth cohort study in Shenyang, China. PLoS One 2014, 9:e88491.
9. Bouchard MF, Bellinger DC, Wright RO, et al: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides. Pediatrics 2010, 125:e1270-e1277.
10. Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, et al: Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year-old children.Environ Health Perspect 2011, 119:1189-1195.
11. Dinis-Oliveira RJ, Remiao F, Carmo H, et al: Paraquat exposure as an etiological factor of Parkinson's disease. Neurotoxicology2006, 27:1110-1122.
12. Fleming L, Mann JB, Bean J, et al: Parkinson's disease and brain levels of organochlorine pesticides. Ann Neurol 1994, 36:100-103.
13. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Organochlorine Pesticides.; 2009.
14. Bohn T, Cuhra M, Traavik T, et al: Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chem 2014, 153:207-215.
15. United States Department of Agrigulture: National Organic Program. [http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop]
16. Baranski M, Srednicka-Tober D, Volakakis N, et al: Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br J Nutr 2014, 112:794-811.
17. Grinder-Pedersen L, Rasmussen SE, Bugel S, et al: Effect of diets based on foods from conventional versus organic production on intake and excretion of flavonoids and markers of antioxidative defense in humans. J Agric Food Chem 2003, 51:5671-5676.
18. Olsson ME, Andersson CS, Oredsson S, et al: Antioxidant levels and inhibition of cancer cell proliferation in vitro by extracts from organically and conventionally cultivated strawberries. J Agric Food Chem 2006, 54:1248-1255.