Source: Science Daily.com

Posted by: Elizabeth Fiend

A simple program involving color-coded food labeling and adjusting the way food items are positioned in display cases was successful in encouraging more healthful food choices in a large hospital cafeteria. The report from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) researchers will appear in the March American Journal of Public Health and has received early online release.

“We found that labeling all foods and beverages with a simple red, yellow and green color scheme to indicate their relative healthiness led patrons to purchase more of the healthy and fewer of the unhealthy items,” says Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, of the MGH division of General Medicine, who led the study. “We also found that moving items around to make the healthy items more convenient and visible led to further improvement in the nutritional quality of items purchased.”

The study authors note that most current point-of-purchase efforts to encourage more healthful food choices focus on labeling the calorie content of food, which will soon be required for many restaurants and food service vendors as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, calorie information is only useful if people read and comprehend it — which requires understanding their own calorie needs, accurately estimating serving sizes, and having enough time to consider and act on the information provided. Studies by psychologists and behavioral economists also have noted that individuals tend to maintain their typical behavior patterns and are more motivated by actions with immediate, rather than long-term rewards.

In the MGH cafeteria, color-coded labels indicate the healthiest sandwich choices (green), along with those designated less (yellow) and least (red) healthy.

To find a simpler way to encourage more healthful food purchases, the research team — including leaders of the MGH Nutrition and Food Service — devised a two-phase plan. In the first phase, which began in March 2010, color-coded labels were attached to all items in the main hospital cafeteria — green signifying the healthiest items, such as fruits, vegetables and lean meats; yellow indicating less healthy items, and red for those with little or no nutritional value. Signage in the cafeteria encouraged customers to consume green items often, yellow items less often, and to consider other choices for red items. All cafeteria cash registers were programmed to record and identify each purchased item as green, red or yellow; and additional nutritional information was made available in the cafeteria throughout the six-month study period.

For the second “choice architecture” phase, which began in June 2010, displayed food items were rearranged according to principles of behavioral economics. This phase focused on cold beverages, pre-made sandwiches and chips — popular items likely to be purchased by customers who have little time to spend and may be more influenced by location and convenience. Cafeteria beverage refrigerators were arranged to place water, diet beverages and low-fat dairy products at eye level, while beverages with a red or yellow label were placed below eye level. The sandwich refrigerator was also arranged to put green items at eye level while red or yellow items were placed above and below. Racks of chips had yellow items at eye level and red items below, and additional baskets of bottled water were placed near stations where hot food was served.

At the end of the study period, sales of green items had increased significantly, while sales of unhealthy “red” items decreased. More specifically, during phase 1, sales of all red items decreased 9.2 percent — with red beverage purchases dropping 16.5 percent — while green item sales increased 4.5 percent, with a 9.6 increase in green beverages. In phase 2, red item sales dropped another 4.9 percent compared with phase 1, with beverages dropping by 11.4 percent; and while sales of green items decreased 0.8 percent in phase 2, sales of green beverages increased another 4 percent. A comparison with two satellite cafeterias where these measures had not been instituted revealed that these changes were much more pronounced in the cafeteria where the study was conducted.

“We believe this intervention was so successful because it was simple and easy to understand quickly. The labeling did not require any special skills and could be easily interpreted when a customer was in a rush,” Thorndike explains. “The ‘choice architecture’ intervention was much more subtle and took greater advantage of the convenience factor. Any of these strategies could be easily translated to other food service environments.” An assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Thorndike adds that all elements of the program remain in place, with the color-coded labeling extended to other MGH food service locations, and future analysis is planned to see whether the observed changes are maintained over time.

Additional co-authors of the report — which was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute — are Lillian Sonnenberg, DSC, RD, LDN, and Susan Barraclough, MS, RD, LDN, MGH Nutrition and Food Services; Douglas Levy, PhD, Mongan Institute of Health Policy at MGH; and Jason Riis, PhD, Harvard Business School.

Bookmark to:

Source New York Times     Written By MARK BITTMAN     Posted by Elizabeth Fiend

Americans eat more meat than any other population in the world; about one-sixth of the total, though we’re less than one-twentieth of the population.

But that’s changing.

Until recently, almost everyone considered their dinner plate naked without a big old hunk of meat on it. (You remember “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner,” of course. How could you forget?) And we could afford it: our production methods and the denial of their true costs have kept meat cheap beyond all credibility. (American hamburger is arguably the cheapest convenience food there is.) This, in part, is why we spend a smaller percentage of our money on food than any other country, and much of that goes toward the roughly half-pound of meat each of us eats, on average, every day.

But that’s changing, and considering the fairly steady climb in meat consumption over the last half-century, you might say the numbers are plummeting. The department of agriculture projects that our meat and poultry consumption will fall again this year, to about 12.2 percent less in 2012 than it was in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in chicken is even more dramatic, over the last five years or so; pork also has been steadily slipping for about five years.

Holy cow. What’s up?

It’s easy enough to round up the usual suspects, which is what a story in the Daily Livestock Report did last month. It blames the decline on growing exports, which make less meat available for Americans to buy. It blames it on ethanol, which has caused feed costs to rise, production to drop and prices to go up so producers can cover their increasing costs. It blames drought. It doesn’t blame recession, which is surprising, because that’s a factor also.

All of which makes some sense. The report then goes on to blame the federal government for “wag[ing] war on meat protein consumption” over the last 30-40 years.

Is this like the war on drugs? The war in Afghanistan? The war against cancer? Because what I see here is:

a history of subsidies for the corn and soy that’s fed to livestock
a nearly free pass on environmental degradation and animal abuse
an unwillingness to meaningfully limit the use of antibiotics in animal feed
a failure to curb the stifling power that corporate meatpackers wield over smaller ranchers
and what amounts to a refusal — despite the advice of real, disinterested experts, true scientists in fact —  to unequivocally tell American consumers that they should be eating less meat

Or is the occasional environmental protection regulation and whisper that unlimited meat at every meal might not be ideal the equivalent of war? Is the U.S.D.A. buying $40 million worth of chicken products to reduce the surplus and raise retail prices the equivalent of war?

No. It’s not the non-existent federal War on Meat that’s making a difference. And even if availability is down, it’s not as if we’re going to the supermarket and finding empty meat cases and deli counters filled with coleslaw. The flaw in the report is that it treats American consumers as passive actors who are victims of diminishing supplies, rising costs and government bias against the meat industry. Nowhere does it mention that we’re eating less meat because we want to eat less meat.

Yet conscious decisions are being made by consumers. Even buying less meat because prices are high and times are tough is a choice; other “sacrifices” could be made. We could cut back on junk food, or shirts or iPhones, which have a very high meat-equivalent, to coin a term. Yet even though excess supply kept chicken prices lower than the year before, demand dropped.

Some are choosing to eat less meat for all the right reasons. The Values Institute at DGWB Advertising and Communications just named the rise of “flexitarianism” — an eating style that reduces the amount of meat without “going vegetarian” — as one of its top five consumer health trends for 2012. In an Allrecipes.com survey of 1,400 members, more than one-third of home cooks said they ate less meat in 2011 than in 2010. Back in June, a survey found that 50 percent of American adults said they were aware of the Meatless Monday campaign, with 27 percent of those aware reporting that they were actively reducing their meat consumption.

I can add, anecdotally, that when I ask audiences I speak to, “How many of you are eating less meat than you were 10 years ago?” at least two-thirds raise their hands. A self-selecting group to be sure, but nevertheless one that exists.

In fact, let’s ask this: is anyone in this country eating more meat than they used to?

We still eat way more meat than is good for us or the environment, not to mention the animals. But a 12 percent reduction in just five years is significant, and if that decline were to continue for the next five years — well, that’s something few would have imagined five years ago. It’s something only the industry could get upset about. The rest of us should celebrate. Rice and beans, anyone?

Bookmark to:

BY ELIZABETH FIEND
Serves 4 as lunch or main course, 6 as a side salad
Time: 20 minutes

Category: Vegetarian Recipe

This salad is all about contrasts.
The pears are served warm, making this a great dish to serve on a chilly, rainy day. The sharp cheese, crunchy nuts and creamy honey-lime dressing each stimulate different taste buds providing satisfaction and a feeling of fullness. I’ve divided up one serving between the cheese and nuts so even thought you’ll be eating cheese AND nuts (both contain fat) you will be getting just the right amount of fat and protein.

There’s an optional fun part in this recipe for the kids too. Instill in them a love for vegetables by having them cut the cucumber slices into stars with cookie cutter.

Salad Ingredients:
½ pound spring salad mix
¼ head endive – tear off and discard ends; break into bite size pieces
1 cucumber (see below for treatment)
1/8 lb gorgonzola cheese – break into pieces
3 pears (any kind) – cut into slices
½ cup walnuts – break into pieces

Dressing Ingredients:
1 tablespoon honey
3 tablespoons lime juice
Blend above with a spoon or small whisk until honey is dissolved, than add:
½ cup buttermilk (or 3/8 cup soy milk plus 1/8 cup lemon juice)
2 stalks scallions diced
1/4 teaspoon salt
pepper to taste

Instructions:
Mix dressing ingredients until blended (use a small plastic container with a lid for easy shaking)

Mix together spring salad mix and endive in a large bowl

Peel / slice ½ cucumber
Optional: For a beautiful presentation cut cucumber slices into stars with a cookie cutter
Kids love to do this, it’s a great way to get them interested in vegetables too
Dice remaining cucumber and add to dressing

Coat greens with dressing

Gently blend the nuts and cheese into the greens

Top with cucumber stars / slices

Just before serving, microwave pears for 1 minute (or until heated, but not cooked)
Place warm pears alongside cucumbers

Bookmark to:

from all of us at

BiG TeA PaRtY

Love, VaLerie Keller and Elizabeth Fiend

EAT MORE VEGETABLES IN 2012

Bookmark to:

Source: Mother Jones    Written By Kate Sheppard     Posted by: Elizabeth Fiend

In 2006, Congress quietly passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping new law that classified many forms of animal rights campaigning as terrorism. Now the law’s critics have taken to the courts to try to kill it. In a case filed last week, five activists argue that AETA violates their rights by criminalizing constitutionally protected actions.

AETA, which replaced an earlier, weaker law called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), prohibits anything done “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” or that “causes the loss of any real or personal property.” (The earlier version of the law only covered “physical disruption” to operations.) The law also prohibits “economic damage” to an enterprise, which includes loss of profits and pressure put on any investors or other companies that do business with the animal enterprise. Even the definition of “animal enterprise” is so broad that it could be construed as covering any institution that has a cafeteria selling meat or cheese products, argues Rachel Meeropol, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is backing the plaintiffs in the case filed against Attorney General Eric Holder.

“Basically, the law is saying if you cause an animal enterprise to lose profits, then you’ve committed a terrorist act,” Meeropol says. “The whole point of many protests is to cause a business to lose profits, to convince the public that a certain company doesn’t deserve to be patronized.”

Faced with the possibility of terrorism charges for engaging in many forms of protest, a number of activists have decided to curb their activity.

Sarahjane Blum, the cofounder of the anti-foie-gras group Gourmet Cruelty [1], is the lead plaintiff in the suit. She has spent years documenting ducks and geese that are too fat to walk or breathe in videos and photographs, posting them online. In 2004, she was charged with burglary for removing birds from a New York farm, though the charge was later downgraded and she was sentenced to community service. Blum, 33, now worries that otherwise legal activities—like picketing a restaurant that serves foie gras or running education campaigns—could lead to her being deemed a terrorist under the AETA. The law’s broad reach means Blum’s no longer comfortable participating in or encouraging much of the work that helped prompt California lawmakers to outlaw foie gras [2] in the state starting in 2012.

“It’s impossible for me at this point to speak freely,” she says. “I feel, and I am, censored. I am censoring myself.”

One federal judge has already endorsed the idea that the government’s use of AETA has been too broad. In 2009, four protesters in California were charged under the law for allegedly chalking a sidewalk, handing out fliers, and engaging in protests at the homes of researchers that use animals. Ronald M. Whyte, a federal judge in California, threw out [3] the charges, finding that they were too vague and included constitutionally protected actions.

The US Department of Justice has used the older version of the law successfully in some cases. In 2004, a group of animal rights advocates were convicted and imprisoned under AEPA. One of the convicted activists, Lauren Gazzola, is a plaintiff in the suit against the updated law. Gazzola, 32, was a US coordinator of an international campaign against animal product testing known as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [4]. The campaign started in the United Kingdom and targeted the animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences, which tests a variety of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and other products on animals. The SHAC campaign gained traction in the late 1990s after undercover video was released showing Huntingdon employees in the UK punching beagle puppies in the face. It eventually expanded to the US to target a Huntingdon facility in New Jersey.

Gazzola worked with other US-based activists to organize demonstrations, write press releases, and run SHAC’s websites, which advocated for and published reports on a variety of protest activity targeting Huntingdon, its employees, and companies that had done business with it. That included publishing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of Huntingdon employees and other people who had done business with the company. The actions SHAC posted on ranged from legal nonviolent protests to property destruction. In its indictment [5], the government argued that the SHAC website encouraged people to commit violent acts and gave them the information they needed to do so.

In March 2006, Gazzola was found guilty of six felony charges, including stalking and conspiracy to violate AEPA. Gazzola was never personally involved in any illegal protest, she says—just in writing and speaking about protest actions, and posting accounts from people who did engage in those acts. Nor were the other five SHAC activists charged with actually committing violent acts. But government prosecutors made it clear that they believed they were shutting down the activities of a group that promoted terrorist acts. (Mother Jones covered the case [4] in 2006.)

Gazzola served over three years in a federal women’s correctional institution in Danbury, Connecticut, and another five months under supervision at halfway house. She’s now in the middle of three years of federal probation, and for next 20 years, part of her salary will be garnished to pay restitution to the companies her actions affected. She works a communications associate at the Center for Constitutional Rights and is finishing up a graduate degree from Antioch University that she began while in prison.

Although the government locked up Gazzola and other SHAC activists under the the older statute, in 2006 Congress decided to strengthen the law and rebrand it as the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.” The new version passed in the Senate in September 2006, where it was touted by cosponsors [6] Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) as necessary to “enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Justice’s ability to prosecute animal rights extremists.” It passed the House without a roll-call vote several weeks later, and President George W. Bush signed it into law on Nov. 27, 2006.

AETA was passed specifically to cover a broader range of groups and activities than its predecessor, says Will Potter, a reporter who has covered the attempts to classify various forms of activism as terrorism in his blog and book [7] Green Is the New Red. “They’re really trying to scare the hell out of people,” he says.

Gazzola and the other activists involved in the case say they want to resume their work on animal rights campaigns—but not if that means being labeled terrorists. “It’s a real problem when you’re not sure if your protest activity is protected or terrorism,” Gazzola says. “Under AETA, protest and terrorism are conflated. They’re one and the same.”
Source URL: http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/12/are-animal-rights-activists-terrorists

Links:
[1] http://www.gourmetcruelty.com/
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/in-california-going-all-out-to-bid-adieu-to-foie-gras.html?pagewanted=all
[3] http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/judge-dismisses-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-indictments-against-activists
[4] http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/americas-1-threat
[5] http://www.scribd.com/doc/5496568/SHAC-Complete-federal-indictment
[6] http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=7929e3ca-7e9c-9af9-78e6-8049c2e67205
[7] http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/

Bookmark to:

Written By Elizabeth Fiend

Christmas causes cancer. You knew it would come to this sooner or later.

Okay, OK, Christmas doesn’t cause cancer, but Christmas trees might, and I’ll get to how both real and fake ones might lead to cancer. But the real point of this column is: If you have a real tree, don’t throw it in the trash! Recycle your tree. Recycle your tree. Recycle your tree.

First, which is kinder to the planet — a real Christmas tree or a fake one?

FAKE TREES: No Vinyl, That’s Final pretty much says it all.

Fake trees are made from PVC (polyvinyl chloride). It’s bad stuff. These faux trees are made from nonrenewable sources and are petroleum based — and, uh, we’re running out of oil, have you heard? PVC is also considered one of the most environmentally damaging plastics on the market.

PVC is a plastic that keeps on giving. The trail of destruction begins in production, where dioxin, dichloride, ethylene and vinyl chloride are all generated by the making of PVC. These chemicals pollute neighborhoods around PVC factories — many of which are located in China, where there is the added factor of no environmental controls, and poor and unregulated (read: unsafe) conditions for factory workers handling hazardous chemicals.

Lead: not just for toys!

Lead is used to stabilize PVC products, to make them more rigid — like your child’s brain will be if she inhales any dust from your lovely faux tree that might happen to settle on her lead-painted toys as they lay wrapped under the Christmas tree. You’ll actually see a warning label on fake Christmas trees that warns you not to inhale or eat any of the tree (kinda funny if it wasn’t so sad). And hey, don’t forget the lead on the strings of PVC-coated holiday lights! They have warnings too.

The chemicals used to make PVC, and the added lead, have been linked to neurological, reproductive, liver and kidney damage, and yes, cancer. And they’re not just bad for you, they’re toxic to the environment, too!

Although these faux trees can last for centuries, they rarely become family heirlooms passed down thorough the generations. Statistics show most people discard their tree after only about nine years. That means the last 291 years of your fake tree’s life is spent slowly leaching out nasty stuff in a landfill.

Option Two: A live tree.

There is the trendy, greenish option of buying a live tree, complete with root ball and all. The plan is after enjoying the tree indoors as your Christmas tree you plant the tree outside. And presto you have a new tree, producing life-giving oxygen — a beautiful and elegant solution to the real-or-fake dilemma.

Problem is, January’s not the time of year to plant trees. This activity is most successfully done in the fall or spring. Plus the tree you get for Christmas might not be suited to your locale. So in reality, this scheme which sounds so good is mostly doomed to failure and is just a ‘feel good’ kind of solution. That is, until you’re constantly aware of your ex-Xmas tree that now sits dead and brown along your driveway, and then you feel pretty crappy.

But if you want to try a live tree, here are some tips: Don’t keep the tree indoors for too long, as the warmth from your house will throw off its seasonal inner-clock. To plant, choose a site that’s well suited for your area. Look up the tree online, see how large it might get. Dig a wide and deep hole (and I mean deep) fill it completely with water; wait until the water’s absorbed into the ground. Make a small mound of dirt in the middle of the hole. Then look for a small ball-shaped growth near the base of the tree trunk, this should be placed in line with the ground (not underground). Hold the tree at this desired height and spread the tree roots about the earth mound. Hold on to the tree trunk, making sure the small ‘ball’ doesn’t go underground or too far above ground while you refill the hole with dirt. Water again. And continue to water weekly all through the first year.

The real deal: A tree from a tree farm.

Today, most Christmas trees are grown on tree farms. They’re not cut down from and depleting natural forests. And there are actually a lot of benefits to Christmas tree farms. An income-generating Christmas tree farm is likely to remain a farm, preserving land that might otherwise be turned into a new cul-de-sac or development of some creepy McMansions out in the country.

Preserving land and growing trees on it is a good way to combat global warming. Trees grow by taking in carbon dioxide (CO2) and releasing oxygen. This is the very same nasty CO2 formed when we burn fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal, that’s currently wrecking our environment. One acre of trees produces oxygen to support 18 people.

Trees are a renewable natural resource. For each tree a farmer harvests, up to three more are planted. This constant maintenance of the ‘forest’ provides wildlife habitats for birds and small animals. Trees promote good soil and soil stability (think mudslides). These hardy evergreen trees often grow in areas inhospitable to other plants. A tree farm is a very good use of land.

The down side to purchasing a tree from a farm is two-fold. On the average, a quarter-ounce of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides is sprayed on a Christmas tree over its life, and this is where the cancer part comes in. This number is way, way down from only a decade ago. So things are looking up. Many growers are trying to reduce their pesticide use as well as making the switch to less harmful chemicals. But still, chemicals like Simazine are being used, and their use is detected in ground water, wells and streams around tree farms. This is where the exposure to cancer-causing chemicals comes in with a live tree. These chemicals pollute the area, water and land around farms and also harm the health of farm workers.

Pesticide use also hurts the same birds and other wildlife that these tree farms lure back. It’s up to us as consumers to let tree farmers know we don’t want pesticides used on tree farms. If you can and want to make a family project out of it, locate an organic tree farm in your area. Or try to purchase your tree from a small family farmer who is probably as concerned about his family’s health as you are of your own.

The second way that real trees harm the environment is in the way they’re disposed of after Christmas. Most people just toss them out with the trash. And millions of other people illegally dump their trees on public property. It’s just plain dumb to discard trees in landfills or incinerate them. They take up space in the land fill, meaning we have to designate more and more land to landfills. And when you burn a tree it creates air pollution and creosote buildup.

But there’s an easy fix if you would just take a little extra care. Recycle your tree at a tree recycling center, or if you’ve got the tools for such things, grind up and mulch your own tree. This is really the corner stone to a guilt-free tree. Many suburban municipalities conduct special tree pickups, take them all to the local recycling center and create a pile of mulch residents can tap all year long. This can save your county some bread too, because it won’t have to spend money to buy mulch for public gardens and the mulch can even be used as erosion barriers for beaches. Mulch is also sunk into lakes and ponds to provide refuge for fish.

There are some cutesy little craft projects you can do with your tree before you recycle it, so get the kids involved. You could put the tree in your yard for the rest of the winter as a natural bird feeder and winter shelter for wildlife. Apply peanut butter to the branches, hang slices of oranges, suet and seeds for the birds and squirrels to munch on.

You can collect the pine needles, crumble them up, mix with cinnamon sticks and cloves for a winter potpourri. Add 1 cup of water to ¼ cup of Christmas Tree Potpourri and let it simmer on the stove for that lovely winter scent. Or, save it up and give it away for next year’s stocking stuffers.

It’s actually easy to recycle your tree in Philadelphia. The recycling center in Southwest Philly accepts trees in early January, 8am to 6pm. Remove all decorations from the tree before bring it over. Address: Citizens Drop Off Center: 3033 S. 63rd St. (near Passyunk Ave.).

Sources and for More Information:

Environment.about.com

Environmental Protection Agency

North Carolina State University

Bookmark to:

Source: Grist    Written by: by Stacy Mitchell     Posted by: Elizabeth Fiend

Over the last decade, Walmart has emerged as one of the country’s largest funders of political campaigns. Its dollars skew heavily in favor of candidates who routinely vote against the environment.

Walmart’s largest donations have gone to some of the nation’s most powerful climate-change deniers. Since 2005, Walmart’s PAC has given $25,000 to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio (“the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”); $30,000 to Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. (“there isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth”); and $29,500 to Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. (“you can look back at some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming”).

In 2006, Walmart made headlines when its vice president for corporate strategy and sustainability, Andrew Ruben, told a congressional committee that the company “would accept a well-designed mandatory cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.” Other major U.S. companies had spoken favorably of cap-and-trade, but Walmart made a bigger splash. Not only was it America’s second-largest corporation; it also had deep roots in the country’s coal-burning heartland.

But even as Ruben was delivering his testimony, Walmart’s political action committee (PAC) was funneling a river of campaign cash into the coffers of lawmakers who would ensure that the U.S. did absolutely nothing to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. During the 2007-2008 election cycle, 80 percent of Senate campaign contributions that came from Walmart’s PAC and large donors employed by the company went to senators who helped block the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill, according to data on political giving published by the Center for Responsive Politics. (When the bill arrived on the floor in 2008, it came up 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.)

Over the last decade, Walmart has emerged as one of the country’s largest funders of political campaigns. Its dollars skew heavily in favor of candidates who routinely vote against the environment. Since the company launched its sustainability campaign in 2005, 40 percent of the $3.9 million it has given to members of Congress went to those who have lifetime scores of 20 or less on the League of Conservation Voters’ National Environmental Scorecard — meaning they vote against the environment 80-100 percent of the time. Another 19 percent went to those who vote against the environment 50-79 percent of the time.

Walmart gets political

Walmart wasn’t always a big political donor. Sam Walton, the company’s founder and leader until his death in 1992, didn’t believe in supporting campaigns. That view largely held through the 1990s, when Walmart’s donations at the federal level never exceeded $250,000 during an election cycle. Then, in the early 2000s, facing increasing opposition and a spate of state and federal bills that could affect its bottom line, Walmart decided it had to curry favor. It sharply increased both its political donations and its lobbying. Over the last five election cycles, Walmart has contributed over $8.5 million to federal candidates and political parties, making it one of the largest corporate donors in the country.

Between 2000 and 2006, Walmart gave nearly 80 percent of its federal contributions to Republicans, but by 2008, that figure had dropped to 55 percent. Still, the company pushed hard to defeat Barack Obama, as revealed in an embarrassing front-page Wall Street Journal story in August 2008. The article described how the company was holding mandatory meetings for store managers and department heads to make it clear that voting for Obama was tantamount to welcoming unions into Walmart.

The exposé came at a bad time. Walmart had launched a sophisticated PR operation to persuade liberals in the Northeast and West Coast, where its expansion plans had run into roadblocks, that it was a changed company and had come to embrace their green and community-minded values. Turning out the vote against their preferred presidential candidate did not fit the script.

Since then, Walmart has made even more of a point of giving to Democrats. The Washington Post has reported that the company now provides as much support to Democrats as Republicans. In the 2010 cycle, 53 percent of Walmart’s federal-level donations went to Democrats.

But a closer look reveals that Walmart’s giving is not so even-handed. In the Senate, Walmart has continued to favor Republicans, helping them turn the chamber into a major roadblock preventing federal action on climate change and other pressing issues. More than two-thirds of Walmart’s Senate donations in 2009-2010 went to Republicans.

In the House, more than half of Walmart’s contributions went to Democrats in 2009-2010, but the company favored those who tend to vote more like Republicans on environmental issues. Walmart made donations to 46 percent of all House Democrats in 2010, but it funded nearly 70 percent of those who voted against the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2009. Conversely, Walmart supported only 18 percent of the 119 House Democrats who had a perfect score on the LCV’s 2010 scorecard.

Lopsided at the state level

Less noticed has been Walmart’s campaign funding at the state level, which remains sharply skewed. In 2009-2010, 77 percent of Walmart’s donations to state candidates and parties went to Republicans, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Since 2003, the company has given a total of $9.9 million at the state level, with almost 80 percent flowing to Republicans.

Among the top 10 state-level recipients of Walmart’s cash during this period are three prominent climate-change-denying governors: Rick Perry (R-Texas), Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.), and Bob McDonnell (R-Va.). Also on the list are Pennsylvania’s Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley (R), both of whom have been waging a veritable crusade on behalf of the natural-gas fracking industry.

One state attorney general also made Walmart’s top-10 list: Wisconsin’s J.B. Van Hollen. His biggest environmental claim to fame came shortly after he took office in 2007, when he unilaterally decided to withdraw Wisconsin from a multi-state lawsuit challenging a Bush administration directive that relaxed rules on coal-burning power plants.

Walmart talks big about sustainability, but doesn’t put its campaign money anywhere near where its mouth is. Whatever the company may say about the importance of legislative action on climate change or other environmental issues, its money is signaling the opposite, telling lawmakers that it’s perfectly fine to vote against environmental protection.

Bookmark to:

High levels of a dangerous chemical, BPA, are being found in the urine and blood of people who eat canned food. BPA is used as an epoxy to line cans. As of now there’s only one brand of canned foods, Eden, that doesn’t contain this hormone-mimicking, possibly cancer causing chemical.

See two articles below, the first about the dangerous of canned foods the second from the company Eden detailing how they’ve solved the BPA problem. Posted By Elizabeth Fiend

Source: My Health Daily News.com and Eden Foods

Soaring BPA Levels Found in People Who Eat Canned Foods

Eating canned food every day may raise the levels of the compound bisphenol A (BPA) in a person’s urine more than previously suspected, a new study suggests.

People who ate a serving of canned soup every day for five days had BPA levels of 20.8 micrograms per liter of urine, whereas people who instead ate fresh soup had levels of 1.1 micrograms per liter, according to the study. BPA is found in many canned foods — it is a byproduct of the chemicals used to prevent corrosion.

When the researchers looked at the rise in BPA levels seen in the average participant who ate canned soup compared with those who ate fresh soup, they found a 1,221 percent jump.

“To see an increase in this magnitude was quite surprising,” said study leader Karin Michels, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The levels of BPA seen in the study participants “are among the most extreme reported in a nonoccupational setting,” the researchers wrote in their study. In the general population, levels have been found to be around 1 to 2 micrograms per liter, Michels said.

The study noted that levels higher than 13 micrograms per liter were found in only the top 5 percent of participants in the National Health and Examination Survey, which is an ongoing study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We are concerned about the influence of [hormone-disrupting] chemicals on health in general, and BPA is one of them,” Michels told MyHealthNewsDaily.

The study is published online (Nov. 22) in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Soup for lunch

The study included 75 people, whose average age was 27. One group of participants ate 12 ounces of fresh soup every day at lunchtime, while the other ate the same amount of canned soup each day. Urine samples were collected from the participants on the fourth and fifth days of the study.

BPA was detected in 77 percent of people who ate the fresh soup, and all of the people who ate the canned soup, according to the study.

Only a few studies had previously looked at BPA levels from eating canned foods, and those relied on asking people how much of the food they usually eat comes from cans, Michels said. The new study was the first in which researchers randomized participants to eat a small serving of canned food or fresh food, and measured the resulting difference in their urine BPA levels, she said.

“We’ve known for a while that drinking beverages that have been stored in certain hard plastics can increase the amount of BPA in your body. This study suggests that canned foods may be an even greater concern, especially given their wide use,” said study researcher Jenny Carwile, a doctoral student at Harvard.

BPA and health

A 2008 study of 1,455 people showed that higher urinary BPA levels were linked with higher risks of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and abnormal concentrations of certain liver enzymes, even after factors such as age, body mass index and smoking were taken into account.

And other studies have linked BPA levels in a woman’s urine during her pregnancy to health problems in her child.

It is not known how long the levels of BPA might remain high, according to the study. However, it is also not known whether such a spike, even if it isn’t sustained for very long, may affect health, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited in that all of the participants were students or staff at one school, and a single soup brand (Progresso) was tested, but the researchers wrote that they expected the results to apply to canned foods with a similar BPA content.

“Reducing canned food consumption may be a good idea, especially for people consuming foods from cans regularly,” Michels said. “Maybe manufacturers can take the step of taking BPA out of the lining of cans — some have already done this, but only a few.”

The study was funded by the Allen Foundation, which advocates nutrition research.

Pass it on: Cutting down on the amount of canned food you eat might be a good idea, researchers say. (end article)

Only ONE Brand of Canned Foods is Free of BPA

article from Eden Foods

All Eden Organic Beans, Refried Beans, Chilies and Rice & Beans are cooked in steel cans coated with a baked on oleoresinous c-enamel that does not contain the endocrine disrupter chemical, bisphenol-A (BPA). Oleoresin is a non-toxic mixture of an oil and a resin extracted from various plants, such as pine or balsam fir. These cans cost 14% more than the industry standard cans that do contain BPA. The Ball Corporation tells us that Eden is the only U.S. food maker to date to use these BPA free cans and we have been since April 1999.

How Eden Foods Pioneered BPA-Free Cans
Interview with Eden Foods President, Michael Potter by Investigative journalist
Nena Baker, author of The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of
Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being (enviroblog.org)

No one is more pleased to see the hazards of bisphenol A in the spotlight than Mike Potter, father of six, grandfather of four, and founder and president of Eden Foods. His company began using BPA-free cans in 1999, after two years of frustrating negotiations with his can suppliers. “It’s regrettable that the use of BPA has gone on so long,” Potter told me. “I’ve been flabbergasted as I’ve observed the lack of will on the part of the rest of the food industry to take advantage of an option we created.”

Here’s the back story on Eden Foods’ switch to BPA-free cans for its bean products: In 1997, Potter learned that new research was raising questions about the safety of bisphenol A and that one of BPA’s many applications was in the linings of cans. “Being a canner, it got my attention,” said Potter.

He asked his can suppliers — three of them at the time — if bisphenol A was in the cans they were selling to Eden Foods. “I made hundreds of phone calls to these three manufacturers,” he said. “Remarkably, I couldn’t find out if it was in the cans I was using or not.” The can companies didn’t have to disclose what chemicals they were using as long as they claimed it was a trade secret.

“I was flabbergasted that legally, it was none of my business. I had no right to know, as a consumer, a food manufacturer, a parent or grandparent.” Two of his can suppliers (who he declined to name) gave Potter “half information and half answers.” One can supplier, Ball Corp., “ascertained that I wasn’t going to go away. They weren’t going to disclose specifically what was in the linings of their cans, but they did help me understand the complex chemistry that goes on to make the linings and how that process leads to bisphenol A.”

So Potter asked what he describes as the “high-school question.” What did Ball Corp. use before the days of the formulation that results in bisphenol A leaching into canned food?

“They told me they used an enamel made from vegetable resins. So I asked: Can I get my cans with that on it, please?”

The answer was yes, if Eden Foods paid 14 percent more for the BPA-free cans. “That’s hundred of thousands of dollars a year for us, ” which is a big deal for a small company in a very competitive canned food business.

Potter felt he had no choice but to switch to BPA-free cans. “It was the right thing to do. I didn’t want BPA in food I was serving to my kids, my grandkids, or my customers.”

Eden Foods did not promote its switch to BPA-free cans 10 years ago. “At the time, consumers hadn’t heard about bisphenol A. The name itself was like Swahili.”

But with growing awareness about BPA’s laboratory links to recent trends in human diseases — a chilling list including breast and prostate cancers, increases in urogenital abnormalities in male babies, a decline in semen quality in men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders including Type 2 diabetes and obesity, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder — Eden Foods recently began labeling its bean cans “BPA-free.”

For the moment, Eden Foods tomato products are packaged in industry-standard BPA-containing cans. “The FDA hasn’t approved any other type of can lining for highly acidic foods,” Potter said.

But Potter, who is also involved in the Non-GMO Project, is convinced that “today’s modern chemists can solve this problem” — especially if consumers demand it. “It’s not fun dealing with this stuff, ” said Potter. “But where there’s a will there’s a way.”

Bookmark to:

A Guide to Get You Through the Holidays

Source: WebMD                                 Posted by: Elizabeth Fiend

One of the key ways to lose weight and maintain a healthy weight is through portion control. Research has shown that Americans often underestimate how many calories they are consuming each day by as much as 25%.

What Is a Serving Size?

Use the list below to gain a perspective on how much food a recommended serving size really is; it may be much smaller than you realize.

According to the USDA, one serving equals:

one slice of whole-grain bread
1/2 cup of cooked rice or pasta
1/2 cup of mashed potatoes
three to four small crackers
one small pancake or waffle
two medium-sized cookies
1/2 cup cooked vegetables
1 cup (four leaves) lettuce
one small baked potato
3/4 cup vegetable juice
one medium apple
1/2 grapefruit or mango
1/2 cup berries
1 cup yogurt or milk
1 1/2 ounces of cheddar cheese
one chicken breast
one medium pork chop
1/4 pound hamburger patty

A good guideline to help you understand portion sizes is to translate the abstract information represented by the serving size into something visual that’s easily remembered. So instead of trying to memorize lists of ounces, cups, and tablespoons, simply compare the serving sizes of particular foods to familiar physical objects. For example, a single serving of:

Vegetables or fruit is about the size of your fist.
Pasta is about the size of one scoop of ice cream.
Meat, fish, or poultry is the size of a deck of cards or the size of your palm (minus the fingers).
Snacks such as pretzels and chips is about the size of a cupped handful.
Apple is the size of a baseball.
Potato is the size of a computer mouse.
Bagel is the size of a hockey puck.
Pancake is the size of a compact disc.
Steamed rice is the size of a cupcake wrapper.
Cheese is the size of a pair of dice or the size of your whole thumb (from the tip to the base).

The best way to determine the amount of food in a given serving is to look at the Nutrition Facts label and measure it out. Although this may not be practical or that much fun, if you are able to take the time, you will soon be able to “eyeball” the amount of food and know whether there is too much or too little.

For example, filling a measuring cup with the proper sized portion of vegetables, rice, etc. and then emptying it onto a plate will help you learn what these serving sizes look like. Take note of how much of the plate is covered; this will help you in the future, even if you only do it once. Simply by having and implementing this knowledge, you will have taken an important step in managing your weight.

Other ways of developing and maintaining proper portion control include:

At home

Use smaller dishes at meals.
Serve food in the appropriate portion amounts and don’t go back for seconds.
Put away any leftovers in separate, portion-controlled amounts. Consider freezing the portions you likely won’t eat for a while.
Never eat out of the bag or carton.
Don’t keep platters of food on the table; you are more likely to “pick” at it or have a second serving without even realizing it.

At restaurants

Ask for half or smaller portions.
Eyeball your appropriate portion, set the rest aside, and ask for a doggie bag right away. Servings at many restaurants are often big enough to provide meals for two days.
If you have dessert, share.

At the supermarket

Beware of “mini-snacks” — tiny crackers, cookies, and pretzels. Most people end up eating more than they realize, and the calories add up.
Choose foods packaged in individual serving sizes.
If you’re the type who eats ice cream out of the carton, pick up ice cream sandwiches or other individual size servings.

Bookmark to:

and BIG TEA PARTY ARTIST TALK with ELIZABETH FIEND

ARTIST TALK: Wed. Nov. 9th, 6-8pm: Elizabeth Fiend, Anula Shetty, and Michelle Myers –FREE

AT: Leeway Foundation, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 832, Philly

ELIZABETH FIEND: GONZO HEALTH and ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST
Elizabeth is an educator, filmmaker, author, musician and artist. She currently specializes in film making, writing and motivational speaking and aspires to be an agent of social change who uses artistic expression combined with extensive research and reliable information to improve the health of individuals, the community and the planet. Elizabeth conceives, writes, produces and hosts how-to videos that encourage people to use their own imagination, skill and energy to advance not only their lives but the community around them and ultimately the planet. Elizabeth’s goal is to promote a sustainable living trinity – good health, environmentalism and community activism, a practical, rewarding lifestyle where ones actions won’t have a negative effect on future generations.
Click here for more on Elizabeth

COME MEET and  TALK with this  INTERESTING WOMAN!

Facebook event info click here

The Leeway Foundation supports women and transgender artists who create social change. Our fall exhibit, Tongue-in-Cheek, features works by ten artists—the majority of whom are previous recipients of Leeway grant and award programs—exploring playful, whimsical images and concepts through diverse mediums such as painting, photography, screenprinting, puppetry and video.

The exhibition opens October 14, 2011 in conjunction with the annual Philadelphia Open Studio Tours (POST). Featuring Anula Shetty (LTA ‘07, WOO ‘04, HG ’02) & Michelle Myers (ACG ’11), Beth Nixon (LTA ’10), bex* (LTA ’09), Candy Depew (WOO ’04, EAA ’99), Elizabeth Fiend (WOO ’03), Judy Gelles (WOO ‘99), Naima Lowe & Emmy Bean, and Nannette Acker Clark (BBA’99), it will remain on view through December 16, 2011.

As part of POST, visitors can meet the artists in person October 15-16, 2011 from 12:00pm-6:00pm.

The PHILADELPHIA OPEN STUDIO TOURS is the largest tour of artist studios and creative workspaces in the region, and one of the premier open studio tour events in the country. The 2011 Tours will take place Saturday and Sunday OCTOBER 1-2 for venues WEST of Broad Street and OCTOBER 15-16 for venues EAST of Broad Street. All Tours are free and run from 12 noon – 6pm.

Exhibition Dates: October 14-December 16, 2011

OPEN HOUSE: Sat. Oct. 15 and Sun. Oct 16, Noon-6pm — FREE

ARTIST TALK: Wed. Nov. 9th, 6-8pm: Elizabeth Fiend, Anula Shetty, and Michelle Myers –FREE

AT: Leeway Foundation, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 832, Philly

More Info: Leeway Foundation

Philadelphia Open Studio Tours

Bookmark to: