Custom Search
|
Mind Foods
Reparations
and 3/5 Compromise Research
Archives
Dr. MLK, Jr
|
Unbossed and unbought news and information you can use Vol. 15 No. 18…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…May 15, 2012
At the Farmers' Market By Ilene Bauer
Flowers, waiting to be sold, Beckon, brilliant, bright and bold. Such a colorful array, Nature's palette on display.
Veggies also strut their stuff; One can never buy enough. Fruits compete to draw the eye; Hard to pass that freshness by.
Peasant bread and tangy cheese; Scones and muffins, sure to please. Home-made pretzels, farm-grown meat; Supermarkets can't compete.
Urban spaces seem to thrive Whenever farmers' trucks arrive. We city folk appreciate The bounty that their farms create.
It must take so much time to prep And oh, the crates they have to schlep! We love the peonies and phlox; The Farmers' Market really rocks! (Source: www.poetrysoup.com/poems_poets/poems_by_poet.aspx?ID )
By John Burl Smith
Further defining this concept, the USDA reports that about 23.5 million Americans currently live in food deserts, including 6.5 million children. Moreover, in food desert census districts at least 20% of the inhabitants live below the poverty line and 33% live more than a mile from the nearest supermarket (or in rural areas, more than 10 miles). Typically, food deserts are signified by high levels of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, which are associated with the consumption of high levels of fast foods and other processed eatables sold in corner stores. Underpinning the idea of denying the poor healthy food in order to reduce their chances of survival is land-use policies. Beginning in the late 1960s, local governments' land-use policies facilitated the development of wealthy, white suburban neighborhoods, which altered the distribution of food stores. In the interest of profitability, larger supermarket chains were encouraged to follow development to predominantly white suburbia. As a result, the food supply within inner cities declined, resulting in less variety of healthy food options at affordable prices. The remaining food retailers in inner-cities are gas stations, convenience and liquor stores. A diet based on foods from these merchants consist primarily of processed foods high in calories, sugars, salt, fat, and artificial ingredients. Research has shown that in areas where residents have limited access to food choice and tend to consume foods high in calories, sugars, salt, fat, and artificial ingredients health disparities result. Typically, these neighborhoods are deprived of resources, residents are segregated by race and they exist below the poverty level. Studies have shown that consuming huge quantities of fat, salt, and sugar that fast food delivers can be almost as addictive as alcoholic beverages and narcotics. If it sometimes seems that Americans are addicted to fast food, it might be that they actually are. Studies have repeatedly found that the consequences of binging on high-calorie, high-fat foods mimic the effects of drug addiction. A recent study by the Scripps Research Institute found that gorging on fast foods actually changes the brain's chemical makeup, making it more difficult to trigger the release of dopamine (a.k.a. "the pleasure chemical"). That means fast-food addicts need to eat more and more to feel happy - the same way users of cocaine and other drugs need to keep upping their dosages to get high. An earlier Princeton University study found that rats fed and then withdrawn from a high-fat, high-sugar diet exhibited similar symptoms - chattering teeth and the shakes - as junkies going cold turkey. "Drugs give a bigger effect," said study author Bart Hoebel, "but it's essentially the same process." Whether deliberate or not, research has shown that people of low socioeconomic status residing in low income communities saturated with fast food and convenient stores ultimately spend up to 37% more on their food purchases. When this occurs due primarily to smaller weekly food budgets and poorly stocked grocery stores, the "final solution" becomes a palatable hypothesis. Fringe food retailers in food deserts can routinely realize a 60-100% markup on prices, while stocking mainly cheap processed foods. Comparing prices that consumers pay for similar foods purchased at different outlets determines disparities in real food prices. Low-income consumers are more likely to purchase inexpensive fats and sugars rather then fresh fruits and vegetables that are more expensive on a per calorie basis. Nutritious foods such as whole grain products and fresh fruits and vegetables are more expensive than high calorie junk foods. "Energy-dense [junk foods] cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods." Researchers have found parallel trends between high obesity rates experienced by low socioeconomic status (SES) residents when compare to non-white ethnic groups, particularly in the case of women. Moreover, they found that areas with a majority of convenience stores have a higher prevalence of overweight and obese individuals, compared to areas with supermarkets. Often, the closest and cheapest food options in low-income and minority neighborhoods are fast food restaurants. Based on what we know, is there any wonder this disproportionate placement results in poor health among residents in such areas? "People living in the poorest SES areas have 2.5 times the exposure to fast-food restaurants as those living in the wealthiest areas" The lack of adequate food sources and limited transportation available to low-income communities are contributing factors to malnutrition among those living in low SES neighborhoods. Design or happenstance, the result is the same. The hits just keep on coming! When researchers looked at access to supermarkets in poor vs non-poor areas, they found that mixed-race areas were significantly less likely to have access to foods that adhere to a healthful diet compared to predominantly white, high income areas. Mari Gallagher found that African Americans are farther from healthful foods than other racial groups. The availability of supermarkets in African American neighborhoods was 52% less than in white neighborhoods. Moreover, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study revealed that predominantly white populations had five times more supermarkets than neighborhoods with a dominantly non-white population. African Americans who lived in the same census tract with access to a supermarket were more likely to meet dietary guidelines for fruit and vegetable consumption. For each additional supermarket, an increase of 32% in fruit and vegetable intake was found. Following WWII, Nazi Germany was excoriated by the world for implementing its "final solution" to rid it of Jews. Many Germans claimed they were only doing their jobs, that they did not hate Jews, and that they had no idea what was going on. Reading such statistics makes it easy to believe that it is all about making money. Fast food is what people want, or if SES poor people could not buy fast food, they would starve to death. What must be understood is that placement of fast food and convenient stores are conscious business and government policies that create food deserts for particular people in particular communities. A food desert is not something that just happens. The wealthy white people in America are like Nazis because they look the other way. Whether people are put in concentration camps then sent to gas chambers or white people create the economic conditions that force certain people to live in particular areas then flood it with food that cause deadly diseases, the pattern is clear. The statistics are there. You may not want to believe the evidence; Jews didn't want to believe it either! (Sources: http://newsone.com,www.thegrio.com, http://theweek.com, www.economist.com, and http://en.wikipedia.org)
Obesity in the United States The United States of America is home to the most obese people in the world. According to the CDC, within the past 20 years, obesity in adults has increased by 60 % and has tripled in the past 30 years for children. A third (33%) of all Americans is obese.
Prior to the 1900s, being fat was a mark of wealth and health; it indicated that one possessed the resources to acquire lots of food. In the 1990s and 2000s, though, obesity is more an indicator of current and future health problems. While many industrialized countries have experienced similar increases, obesity rates in the United States are among the highest in the world. Indeed, of all countries, the United States has attained the dubious status of being the capital of obesity. Estimates have steadily increased, from 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004 to 26.6% in 2007, to 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008. In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children. Obesity rates have increased for all population groups in the US over the last several decades. Between 1986 and 2000, the prevalence of severe obesity (BMI = 40 kg/m2) quadrupled from one in two hundred Americans to one in fifty. Extreme obesity (BMI = 50 kg/m2) in adults increased by a factor of five, from one in two thousand to one in four hundred. Historically, obesity primarily afflicted adults, but this has changed in the last 2 decades. 15-25 percent of American children and adolescents are now obese. From 1980 to 2008, the prevalence of obesity in children aged 6 to 11 years tripled from 6.5% to 19.6%. The prevalence of obesity in teenagers more than tripled from 5% to 18.1% in the same time frame. Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese in adulthood and to develop obesity-related health problems. There has been an increase in obesity-related medical problems, including type II diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and disability. Obesity has been cited as a contributing factor to approximately 100,000-400,000 deaths in the United States per year and has increased health care use and expenditures, costing society an estimated $117 billion in direct (preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to weight) and indirect (absenteeism, loss of future earnings due to premature death) costs. This exceeds health-care costs associated with smoking or problem drinking and accounts for 6% to 12% of national health care expenditures in the United States. Researchers have cited a number of reasons for the increased obesity rates. Americans live on the go. Within the past 30 years, fast food restaurants have become mainstream, with practically all Americans taking advantage of the low prices, quick service, and tasty meals. And, while they are convenient, the fast foods contain almost no nutrients. Instead they are packed with saturated fats, highly refined carbohydrates and extreme amounts of sodium and sugar. How our food is produced also plays an important role in the increase in obesity over the past decades. Among the culprits are portion sizes, which the US Department of Agriculture says have increased substantially, more than 200 calories per day in 1996 compared to the 1970s. The lack of physical activity from reduced physical education classes in schools to doing little but sitting in front of electronic devices all day has reduced the number of calories people expend. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org, http://auct150obesity.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-obesity.html, and www.livestrong.com/article/359624-obesity-history-in-america/#ixzz1un4t87KM) Who Are Animal Scientists Serving? By Melody Petersen
"This is thicker, and it's plumper," said Lawrence, an associate professor of animal science, pointing at the beast's rib-eye. "This animal right here," he said, waving his hand at the pharmaceutically enhanced meat, "doesn't look like a Holstein anymore." Convincing ranchers that Zilmax will transform their cattle into bovine Schwarzeneggers has been part of Lawrence's work ever since the drug was introduced by Intervet, a subsidiary of Merck, the global pharmaceutical company. The tour he led of the carcasses in his lab was just one of many events where he has helped Intervet sell Zilmax. He's given speeches to ranchers and written an article for a beef-industry magazine to promote the drug. He's repeatedly let Intervet include his comments in news releases, including one in which he said the drug could "revolutionize the beef production system." Lawrence is hardly alone. Scores of animal scientists employed by public universities have helped pharmaceutical companies persuade farmers and ranchers to use antibiotics, hormones, and drugs like Zilmax to make their cattle grow bigger ever faster. With the use of these products, the average weight of a fattened steer sold to a packing plant is now roughly 1,300 pounds--up from 1,000 pounds in 1975. It's been a profitable venture for the drug companies, as well as for the professors and their universities. Agriculture schools increasingly depend on the industry for research grants, a sizable portion of which cover overhead and administrative costs. And many professors now add to their personal bank accounts by working for the companies as consultants and speakers. More than two-thirds of animal scientists reported in a 2005 survey that they had received money from industry in the previous five years. Yet unlike a growing number of medical schools around the country, where administrators have recently tightened rules to better police their faculty's ties to pharmaceutical companies, the schools of agriculture have largely rejected critics' concerns about industry cash. Administrators have set few limits on how much corporate money agricultural professors can accept. Faculty work with industry is governed by confidentiality rules that veil it from public view. In certain ways, the close relationship between animal scientists and pharmaceutical companies has never served the public well. Few animal scientists have been interested in looking at what harm the livestock drugs may be causing to the cattle, the environment, or the people eating the meat. They've left most of that work to scientists outside of agriculture, consumer groups, and others who take interest. But with the introduction of Zilmax, the situation may have reached a tipping point. Critics say some academic animal scientists have become so closely tied to the drug companies that they may be working more in the companies' interests than in those of farmers and ranchers--the very groups that land-grant universities were created to serve. As the cattle trucked to the packing plants have grown into bulky, lumbering giants, the quality of the beef has plummeted. Meat from the most pharmaceutically enhanced cattle--especially those given Zilmax--can be so tough that some packing plants are refusing to buy cattle fed the drug. Some cattlemen and beef-industry executives have also begun to speak out. They warn that continued use of the drug may make ranchers' herds difficult to sell, and end up hurting the image of American beef. As Zilmax and other drugs have generated rib-eyes that hang over the plate and made beef tougher and less tasty, a whole new area of research has opened for university meat scientists. However, just as with medicines for human health, drugs for cattle come with both benefits and risks. Yet in the academic publications about Zilmax, there has been little discussion of its potential hazards, including how it can harm cattle and, perhaps, even the humans eating the meat. One problem, says Allen Williams, is that the studies companies pay universities to perform are short-term trials needed to get products approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But to determine whether it is safe to eat pharmaceutically treated beef over a human lifetime, he explains, studies would have to last for years. "Nobody is doing those studies," he says. "We don't know the long-term side effects of these drugs, and I don't want my grandchildren to find them out." About Me: A former New York Times reporter, Petersen is author of Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drug. This entire article can be read at http://chronicle.com/article/As-Beef-Cattle-Become/131480/) Making Chemical Giants Happy at Our Expense By Jim Hightower
Thanks to the blessings of nature and good farmers, you
and I can enjoy such scrumptious delights as fresh corn-on-the-cob, popcorn
and many other variations of this truly great grain. And now, thanks to Dow
Chemical and federal regulators, we can look forward to "Agent Orange Corn."
The chemical giant is in line to gain approval for putting a
This potent pesticide was an ingredient in Dow's notorious Agent Orange defoliant, which did such extensive and horrific damage to soldiers and civilians in the Vietnam War. However, the corporation and the feds claim that 2,4-D was not the deadliest ingredient of the killer defoliant and has not yet been proven to cause cancer in humans, so they're pressing ahead to let this corporate-constructed seed be planted across America. Dow now sells 2,4-D to help kill various weeds, but the herbicide is so strong that it also kills nature's own version of corn plants. Thus, Dow's genetic engineers went into the corporate lab and manufactured a new corn that's immune to the weed-killer. This would let the chemical maker profit from selling the patented seed, plus enjoying a huge increase in sales of its 2,4-D herbicide. How happy for Dow! Not so happy, though, for consumers worried about the untested long-term health consequences of the altered corn and the carcinogenic possibilities of ingesting more 2,4- D. Also, when sprayed, this herbicide can vaporize and spread for miles, killing crops that are not immune, poisoning the surrounding environment, and endangering the health of farmers and townspeople throughout the area. Dow is hardly alone in pursuing its happiness at the expense of others. Indeed, rather than finding ways to cooperate with the natural world, America's agribusiness giants generally reach for the quick, high-tech fix in a futile effort to overpower nature. Their attitude is that if brute force isn't working, they're probably not using enough of it. Monsanto, for example, has banked a fortune by selling a corn seed that it genetically manipulated to produce corn plants that won't die when sprayed with a toxic weed-killer called "Roundup." Not coincidentally, Monsanto also happens to be the maker of Roundup, so it has profited from the seed and from the surge in Roundup sales that the seed generated. But Mother Nature, damn her, has rebelled. So much of Monsanto's poison was spread across America in the past decade that weeds naturally and rather rapidly developed a resistance to it. As a Dow Chemical agronomist put it, "The real need here is to diversify our weed management systems." We need non-chemical, non-GMO, sustainable systems that work with nature. But, no, the Dow man didn't mean that at all. He was calling for more brute force in the form of his corporation's altered corn seed -- the one that can withstand being doused with Dow's super-potent 2,4-D weedkiller. Use this, he promises, and this time nature will surely be defeated. Wrong. Nature doesn't quit. The weeds will keep evolving and will adapt to Dow's high-tech fix, too. By pushing the same old thing relentlessly, says an independent crop scientist, agribusiness interests "ratchet up (America's) dependence on the use of herbicides, which is very much a treadmill." So much unhappiness for so many just to make one corporation happy by getting much richer at our expense. It's time to start listening to the weeds -- and cooperating with Mother Nature. To advance this common sense approach, a national coalition is backing a California "Right to Know" initiative requiring GMO-altered foods to be labeled. To help, visit the Organic Consumers Association and get involved in the coalition's Money Bomb Monsanto Campaign. House Bill Offers Aid Cuts to Save Military Spending By Jonathan Weisman
Neither of the measures will pass the Senate, but the final House vote amounts to a GOP bet that voters will reward the party for its tough-love priorities. "We are here to meet our legal and our moral obligations to lead," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R- WIS), chairman of the House Budget Committee. Rep. Kathy Castor (D - FL), accused Republicans of "socking it to children, older Americans and disabled Americans," and going "for the jugular." The showdown in the House was set up by last summer's protracted crisis over the debt ceiling, when Republicans agreed to raise the nation's statutory borrowing limit in exchange for guaranteed deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which was supposed to come out of a special select committee on the deficit. When that committee failed to reach agreement in November, the debt ceiling deal's backup kicked in -- more than $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to military and domestic programs. Both parties agree the $55 billion cut to the military coming Jan. 1 -- the first installment of a half trillion in cuts over 10 years -- could be damaging. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta called the cuts "devastating" and predicted they would yield "the smallest ground force since 1940" and the smallest naval fleet since 1915. But while Democrats want to mitigate the cuts with some tax increases, Republicans want to eliminate them altogether without raising taxes. The new legislation starkly lays out the costs of that pledge. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would push 1.8 million people off food stamps and could cost 280,000 children their school lunch and 300,000 children their health insurance coverage through the federal and state Children's Health Insurance Program. Eliminating social services block grants to state and local governments would hit child abuse prevention programs, Meals on Wheels and child care. A quarter of the cuts in the bill would come from programs for the poor. Cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and subsidized insurance premiums under the health care law make up more than a third of the package's savings. The bill would also eliminate a fund set up by the 2010 Wall Street regulation law and financed by the big banks that would be used in the event of future bailouts. Republicans say that would save $22.4 billion over 10 years because a bailout within that window could exceed the size of the fund. And caps on medical malpractice lawsuits would save the government $40 billion to $56 billion over a decade, according to the legislation. "We talk about values. Deficit spending is not a value," said Representative Bill Flores (R-TX). "Deficit spending is what's going to bankrupt our children." But the legislation in question is not aimed largely at deficit reduction. It is aimed at shifting cuts from military to domestic programs. Democratic leaders in the Senate made it clear they would not come to the table until Republicans put taxes up for negotiation. (Source: www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/house-bill-offers-aid-cuts-to-save-military-spending.html) Report: Schools Key to Fighting America's Obesity By Lauran Neergaard
Fighting obesity will require changes everywhere Americans live, work, play and learn, says a major new report that outlines options - from building more walkable neighborhoods to zoning limits on fast-food restaurants to selling healthier snacks in sports arenas.
Among the most controversial of its recommendations: Communities could consider a tax on sugary sodas and offering price breaks for healthier beverage choices. That prompted outrage from the American Beverage Association. "Advocating discriminatory policies that uniquely focus on sugar-sweetened beverages is the wrong approach," said an association statement that added those drinks account for just 7 percent of calories in the average person's diet. Most of us know we should eat less and move more. But the institute makes clear this isn't just an individual but a societal problem: For a host of reasons, sedentary lives have become the norm and we're surrounded by cheap, high-calorie foods. The report offers a roadmap of promising strategies to change that - and argues that the solutions can't be implemented piecemeal. "Each of us has this role. We can't sit back and let the schools do it, or let a mayor do it or think somehow the federal government's going to solve it," said report co-author William Purcell III, former mayor of Nashville, TN "These recommendations require concerted effort among all." For schools, it recommended that students get at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day - a combination of physical education, recess and other activities. Many schools have slashed P.E. and cut into recess in recent years in an effort to increase learning time amid tighter budgets. The report also says schools should serve healthier foods, backing national school nutrition standards, and teach nutrition. Restaurants should ensure that at least half of kids' meals comply with federal dietary guidelines, without charging more for the healthier options. Healthier foods should be routinely available everywhere, from shopping malls to sports arenas. More food companies should improve how they market to children - and if they don't, the government should step in and mandate changes. Physical activity should be routine. Communities should be designed with safe places to walk and exercise. Public and private insurers should ensure better access to obesity screening, preventive services and treatments. Employers should expand workplace wellness programs. The president should appoint a task force to evaluate the impact of US agriculture policies on obesity. The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is an independent organization that advises the government. For the full report, Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation, see www.iom.edu/Reports/2012/Accelerating-Progress-in-Obesity-Prevention.aspx.
Mailbox: E-Mails, Faxes and Telephone Calls
|
Side Orders
Desserts
Irvin Grice, Photographer
|
|
|
The DISH is based on T.H.I.N.C. (Teaching Humanity In New Consciousness) Send comments/inquiries or questions about making a donation to thedish@thedish.org
|
The DISH© 2011
discussion
concerning "food deserts." A "food desert" is defined by the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) as 1) the lack or absence of large grocery stores and
supermarkets that sell fresh produce and healthy food options; and 2) where
low-income populations live on tight budgets. 
Obesity
in the US has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent
decades. It is alternately defined as weighing at least 20 percent more than
what you should or having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more. The BMI
compares your height and weight. However, it is not an accurate measure for
everyone. 
Texas
A&M University, where bloody sides of beef, still covered with a slick layer
of ivory-colored fat, hung from steel hooks. Dressed in a white lab coat, a
hard hat on his head, Lawrence pointed to the carcass of a Holstein that had
been fed a new drug called Zilmax. He noted its larger size compared with the
nearby body of a steer never given the drug.
genetically
altered corn seed on the market that will produce corn plants that won't die
when doused with high levels of 2,4-D.
On
Monday, the House Budget Committee passed budget bills that passed six
different committees last month, packaged them and sent them to the full House
as one bill on a party-line vote. A separate bill, also approved by the
committee, would formally lift the threat of automatic Pentagon cuts next
year. 
But
schools should be a national focus because that is where children spend most
of their day, eat a lot of their daily calories- and should be better taught
how to eat healthy and stay fit, the influential Institute of Medicine said
Tuesday.
Kelly,
a 37-year-old homeless man died from facial injuries, including blood in his
nose, and mechanical compression to his chest that made it difficult for him
to breathe and deprived his brain of vital oxygen. Dr. Singhania said she
reached her conclusion after performing an autopsy, reviewing medical records
and tests and watching surveillance audio and video of a group of police
officers pummeling and pinning down the man as he screamed. When I read this
news account, I thought, this is the kind of senseless death at the hands of
police that members of the black community have come to expect. Unfortunately,
the police get away with murder simply by saying they felt threatened at the
sight of an unarmed black man, even when his back is turned. Kelly Thomas'
death should be a wake-up call to all those people who think it is okay for
this kind of thing to happen to a black person, because "he probably deserved
it," and feel like it can never happen to them, because they are basically
law-abiding citizens with rights. Thomas had committed no crime and he was
white!
staunchest
proponents. The best propaganda machine money can buy cannot erase every lie,
particularly those ugly imagines of US soldiers behaving badly, torture,
targeted assassinations that routinely murder innocent men, women and children
and brush those deaths aside as acceptable collateral damage, because the
drone took out the "bad guys," and, in general, a foreign policy known for its
naked aggression and support for dictators, while touting democracy and
respect for human rights and dignity. Released just in time for Mothers Day,
Save the Children's 13th State of the World's Mothers Report ranked the US
25th out of 165 countries as the overall best country for raising children.
This is certainly an unexceptional rank for the world's wealthiest country.
Top that off with efforts by GOP legislators to kill programs that keep
millions of children out of grinding poverty to maintain current funding for
the US' mighty military, which outspends the rest of the world, that notion of
American exceptionalism is further tarnished! 
controversy
has focused on whether overweight or obese people should be required to
purchase two seats if they can't fit comfortably in one, or whether airlines
should include some "extra wide" seats for a premium price. These are largely
comfort issues, both for larger people and for the folks sitting near them.
But are traditional airplane seats actually safe for overweight passengers?
Perhaps not. Airplane seats and seat belts are tested with crash dummies
designed 20 years ago that project the weight of the average person at 170
pounds. Today, however, the average weight for men is 194 pounds and is 165
pounds for women. The ability of safety implements in airplanes to protect
heavier passengers is largely unknown. Many have begun to recognize the issues
associated with outdated safety requirements and propose testing airline
safety mechanisms with heavier dummies that more accurately reflect the size
and weight of today's airline passengers.
