Unbossed and
unbought news and information you can use
Vol. 14 No. 44…Dedicated to the Dialogue on
Race…October 31, 2011
Bit of History
David Takayoshi
Suzuki
Born March 24, 1936 in 
Japanese-Canadian.
His maternal and paternal grandparents immigrated to
Like other Japanese
Canadians, after the war, Suzuki's family was forced to move east of the
In 1958, Suzuki
received his BA from Amherst College of Massachusetts and his Ph.D in zoology
from the
Since the 1970s,
Suzuki has been known for his TV and radio series and books about nature. He
credits his father for having interested him in and sensitized him to nature.
Ironically, his internment at Slocan, a beautiful natural setting that he
explored as a young boy, may have impressed him early on with the glory and
mystery of nature. With his weekly children's show, Suzuki on Science, he
sought to impart his love of nature onto another generation. He is best known
as host of the popular and long-running CBC Television science magazine, The
Nature of Things, which seeks to stimulate interest in nature, point out
threats to human well-being and wildlife habitat, and present alternatives for
achieving a more sustainable society.
His other television
credits include the critically acclaimed 1993 PBS series The Secret of Life.
Dr. Suzuki's 1985 hit series, A Planet for the Taking, earned him a UN
Environment Program Medal. His 1997 book The Sacred Balance was made into a
five hour mini-series for Canadian public television; it was broadcasted in
2002. For the Discovery Channel, he produced "Yellowstone to
From 1982-1987,
Suzuki served as a director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He
co-founded the David Suzuki Foundation with Tara Cullis in 1990. The foundation
aims to work "to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural
world that sustains us." An avid spokesperson on global climate change and
outspoken critic of governments' lack of action in protecting the environment,
he has stirred controversy. In 2008, he urged
Suzuki says that
despite a growing consensus, many in the public and media seemed doubtful about
the science of global climate change. He believes the reason for the confusion
is due to a well-organized campaign of disinformation. "A very small
number of critics" deny that climate change exists and that humans are the
cause. These climate change "skeptics" or "deniers" tend
not to be climate scientists and do not publish in peer-reviewed scientific
journals but rather target the media, the general public, and policy makers.
Their goal: "delaying action on climate change." According to Suzuki,
the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies,
including ExxonMobil. They are linked to "industry-funded lobby
groups," such as the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), whose
aim is to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Dr. Suzuki is the
author of more than 50 books (fifteen for children), including David Suzuki:
The Autobiography, Tree: A Life Story, The Sacred Balance, Genethics, Wisdom of
the Elders, Inventing the Future, and the best-selling Looking At series of
children's science books. He has written numerous publications, including
Sciencescape - The Nature of Canada (1986) - with Hans Blohm and Marjorie
Harris, Pebbles to Computers: The Thread (1986) - with Hans Blohm and Stafford
Beer; Metamorphosis: Stages in a life (1987), and The Big Picture: Reflections
on Science, Humanity, and a Quickly Changing Planet (2009) with David Taylor
In 2004, the CBC,
The twice married
father of five resides in
Food and Climate Change
It's not only how we choose to travel or heat our homes that determines our
carbon footprint. What we eat also has a climate impact. Understanding the
resources that go into producing our meals can make us more aware of the
relationship between food and climate change, and help us make better choices.
There
are several factors that contribute to food's climate impact, including: how
low on the food chain it is, how much energy is used to produce it (and whether
the food is grown organically or with chemical inputs), and how far it has to
travel before it gets to the table.
Meat production is a
major contributor to climate change. It is estimated that livestock production accounts
for 70 per cent of all agricultural land use and occupies 30 per cent of the
land surface of the planet. Because of their sheer numbers, livestock produce a
considerable volume of greenhouse gases (such as methane and nitrous oxide)
that contribute to climate change. In fact, the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that livestock production is
responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases.
The growing of
livestock and other animals for food is also an extremely inefficient process.
For example, it takes approximately five to seven kilograms of grain to produce
one kilogram of beef. Each of those kilograms of grain takes considerable
energy and water to produce, process, and transport. As meat consumption has
grown around the world, so has its climate impact.
Other agricultural
practices can impact the climate. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are
widely used in agriculture, and are often made from fossil fuels. Manufacturing
and transporting these chemicals uses significant quantities of energy and
produces greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that chemical
farming uses considerably more energy per unit of production than organic
farms, which do not use these chemical inputs. In addition, the use of
synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in soils produces nitrous oxide, a greenhouse
gas that is approximately 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at
trapping heat in the 
atmosphere.
Organic farms, on
the other hand -- which rely on natural manure and compost for fertilizer --
store much more carbon in the soil, keeping it out of the atmosphere.
Where your food
comes from is also a factor. Currently, the average meal travels 1200 km from
the farm to plate. Food that is grown closer to home will therefore have fewer
transportation emissions associated with it, and also be fresher and support
local farmers. And as the distance food travels decreases, so does the need for
processing and refrigeration to reduce spoilage.
While it's good to
buy locally grown food for many reasons, 'food miles' (the distance food is
transported from the time of its production until it reaches the consumer)
actually make up a relatively small percentage of the overall carbon footprint
of food -- approximately 11% on average, according to studies. How the food is
grown makes up a much larger percentage -- roughly 83%.
For example, one
study showed that lamb raised in
Choosing to buy food
that is organically grown can therefore be a better choice for the climate. But
if possible, buy food that is organic and local. (Source: http://www.davidsuzuki.org)
Corporate Crimes in the Cereal Aisle (Excerpts)
By Ida Hartmann
A trip to the supermarket is an adventure into a tempting and treacherous
jungle. The insatiable hunger for a ready-made breakfast that nourishes our
bodies and our social conscience has made our morning bowls of cereal a hiding
place for corporate charlatans. A new report, Cereal Crimes, by the Cornucopia
Institute discloses the toxic truth about "natural" products and
unmasks corporate faces like Kellogg's hiding behind supposedly "family-run"
businesses such as Kashi.
When
these breakfast barons forage for profit, we eaters are the prey. But what are
the laws of this jungle? And how do we avoid being ripped off by products that
are hazardous for our health and our environment? Let's have a look at some of
these corporations' sneaky strategies.
First, there is
intentional confusion. With so many different kinds of cereal lining the
shelves, figuring out which is the best requires detective work. Many make
claims about health, boasting "no trans fats,"
"gluten-free," and "a boost of omega three." Others play to
environmental concerns declaring "earthy harmony," "nature in
balance," and "sustainable soils." With the legion of labels,
separating wheat from chaff seems impossible, but the report offers one rule of
thumb: Don't confuse organic with "natural."
Organics, certified
and recognizable by the green USDA label, are required by federal law to be
produced without toxic inputs and genetically engineered ingredients.
"Natural," on the other hand, is defined by the producers themselves
to mislead shoppers and protect shareholders. Cornucopia's report found that,
"When determining their 'natural' standards, companies will consider their
profitability. Environmental concerns are unlikely to weigh heavily, if at all,
in this profitability equation."
Too bad we've been
falling for it. The report cites a 2009 poll showing 33 percent of the public
trusts the "natural" label while 45 percent trust the organic label.
Generally
"natural" is thought to imply the absence of pesticides and
genetically engineered organisms, but a closer look at the crunchy goodness
inside the boxes reveals the content of both. Tests run by the institute showed
as high as 100 percent genetically engineered (GE) contaminated ingredients in
popular products like Kashi GoLean, Mother's Bumpers, Nutritious Living Hi-Lo,
and General Mills Kix. Even the brands explicitly claiming to be
"non-GMO" failed the test, some of them containing more that 50
percent GE corn. Organic products, such as Nature's Path certified organic corn
flakes, were GMO and GE free when tested.
Moreover,
conventional ingredients, which "natural" products contain, have been
found to hold traces of pesticides. The USDA found detectable neurotoxins in
popular breakfast ingredients like oats, wheat, soybeans, corn, almonds,
raisins, blueberries, honey and cranberries. New studies are constantly finding
new health risks associated with exposure to pesticides. One such study found
that 
exposure
during pregnancy increased the risk of a pervasive developmental disorder and
delays of mental development at 2 to 3 years of age, while another found
postnatal exposure to be associated with behavioral problems, poorer short-term
memory and motor skills, and longer reaction times among children. Adding to
the picture, a recent study by
It is time for us to
reconsider what we associate with the term "natural." In his book, In
Defense of Food, Michael Pollan sends out a warning against health claims on
food: "As a general rule it's a whole lot easier to slap a health claim on
a box of sugary cereal than on a raw potato or a carrot, with the perverse
result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in
the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over the
Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming their new found 'whole-grain
goodness' to the rafters."
So next time you
find yourself with a box of organic cereal in your right hand, and a box of
natural cereal in your left, remember to read the fine print. Don't be fooled
by labels that are meant to sell products, not look after your health or the
environment.
About Me: Ida Hartmann is a student of
anthropology at the
Why the Food Movement Should Occupy Wall Street
By
On Saturday, Occupy Against Big Food converged on 
justice
delegation. The baskets of local vegetables we carried attracted a lot of
attention, but we were surprised by all of the puzzled looks. "What's the
connection here with food?" people kept asking us.
The connections of
the protests with food, of course, are many. Locally, many food justice
advocates are connecting with Occupy sites to donate food or kitchen space.
More broadly, as Mark Bittman observes, "Whether we're talking about food,
politics… or banking, the big question remains the same: How do we bring about
fundamental change?" In the
The Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy recently wrote about the clearest connection:
"Wall Street deregulation has… increased prices and price volatility in
agricultural markets." The relationship between government and Wall Street
firms has turned food into commodity like any other, subject to the whims of
the market. For decades, only people directly involved in agriculture (e.g.,
farmers) could freely trade futures of agricultural commodities (e.g., corn,
soy, wheat); outside speculators were subject to strict limits on
participation. Futures trading gave farmers a guaranteed price for future
harvests, and prices stayed relatively stable for all sides.
But in 2000, a wave
of industry-backed deregulation removed these limits on speculation, opening
commodity markets to new players--including funds controlled by some of the
biggest Wall Street firms looking for new investments after the housing bubble
burst. Flooded with new money, in 2008, the commodity markets exploded, driving
up grain prices worldwide, with catastrophic results for millions of people. In
2008 and 2009, the UN estimated that an additional 130 million people were
driven into hunger by the food price bubble. Food riots broke out around the
world. Today's protests have echoes of those riots-the effects of food and
energy speculation continue in 2011. One recent study estimates that
Alerted to the
potential market in agriculture, Wall Street investors have also begun buying
up huge parcels of farmland all over the world, displacing the occupants, and
converting subsistence production to cash crops-or, worse, simply leaving the
land fallow and waiting for its value to increase. According to international
NGO GRAIN, more than 50 million hectares of land have been transferred from
farmers to corporations since 2009. "Land grabs" have affected tens
of thousands of people around the world who have been driven off their
land-often violently-with little or no compensation, given no say in the
process, and left with no recourse. For most of them, land is their livelihood;
without it, the future is bleak.
Land grabs are
perpetrated by governments, private sector corporations, pension funds, and
university endowments-as well as by banks and international finance groups.
Some of these deals have a stated agenda of food security in the buyer
country-at the expense of food security of those moved off the land-but many
others are purely business deals, seeking to profit off of land on which
millions of people are merely trying to feed themselves.
Meanwhile,
The level of
consolidation all along the food chain has reached such an extreme degree that
last year the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the USDA conducted an
investigation into antitrust issues in agriculture and food. A year of
workshops included expert testimony and thousands of personal stories about
farm foreclosures, workers' rights abuses, unfair contracts, poor access to
healthy food, and corporate propaganda; much of it demonstrating that antitrust
laws are not protecting citizens from powerful corporations. Seven months after
the investigation concluded, the departments issued a letter saying that their
study is ongoing. In the face of significant public pressure, including
petitions from Care2 members and almost a quarter of a million others requesting
immediate action, the promise of nothing more than further study makes it seem
that the voices of big business have been louder than those of the people.
Many food justice
advocates are well aware that to truly create a healthy and just food system,
we must also address issues larger than food. At an
To change the food
system, we need systemic change in financial institutions, regulation,
corporate influence; we need a shift in power. For a movement that has long been
waiting for its moment, uniting in common cause with Occupy Wall
Street-Occupying Against Big Food- may be the way to finally build enough power
to create the change we need. (Source: www.care2.com/causes/why-the-food-movement-should-occupy-wall-street.html#ixzz1cHVUP317)
Label GM Food!
"Any politician
or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or 
lying.
The hazards of these foods are uncertain. In view of our enormous ignorance,
the premature application of biotechnology is downright dangerous." David
Suzuki
People living in the
The following
reasons to require food labels are provided at www.gmoawareness.org:
Polls prove most
people would not choose to buy GM food, because they are concerned about the
health and environmental risks. Independent animal studies show GM food is not
safe, and consumption carries significant long-term health risks.
The
potential for genetically modified organisms to escape into wild areas, pollute
and damage fragile ecosystems is simply too great. GM crops cross-pollinate and
contaminate non-GM crops. Once GMOs get into the wild, they cannot be recalled.
The ecological damage is irreversible.
It is highly
irresponsible and short-sighted to put genes from an animal, bacteria, or virus
into a plant, or vice-versa. Putting genes from one species into another
violates the laws of nature, with unpredictable and potentially disastrous
consequences.
Without labels,
people have no choice and no say in what they consume. You can join the push
for labeling by following the easy steps provided at www.gmoawareness.org. The
first step is to print and distribute the "Let's Label Genetically
Modified Food" poster at www.gmoawareness.org/poster.pdf.
You can put up the poster wherever you hang out with your friends -- parent
groups, church groups, workplace, health clubs and so-on. Your kitchen is a
good place. Step two is the GMO awareness letter at www.gmoawareness.org/letter.pdf
that you can mail or give to the checkout clerk where you shop for groceries.
Finally, demand government give consumers the freedom to choose what they eat
by requiring producers to label GM foods.
Corn Syrup Lawsuit
Did you ever wonder about those slick high-fructose corn syrup ads claiming
there is no difference in the way the body processes it and sugar? The ads,
sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), are designed to minimize the
fallout from studies linking the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup with
increased weight gain, insulin resistance, type II diabetes, and cardiovascular
disease. Compounding the negative health impact, 
weight
than those with access to basic table sugar, even though their caloric intake
was the same.
Concerned about their health, Americans' consumption of high fructose corn
syrup fell to a 20-year low last year, hence the drive by the CRA to reverse
the slide. As it turns out, high-fructose corn syrup is used as a sweetener in
virtually everything on grocery store shelves from bread to soft drinks.
Last year, the CRA
asked the FDA for permission to use the name "corn sugar" on food
labels instead of high-fructose corn syrup. It could take years for the FDA to
grant or deny its approval. In the meantime, the CRA is running those ads to
sway public opinion.
A lawsuit filed by
sugar farmers and refiners in the US District Court in
The defendants,
which include global agri-giants Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Corn Products
International, Penford Products, Roquette America, Inc., Tate & Lyle
Ingredients Americas Inc., and the companies' marketing and lobbying
organization, the CRA, requested a dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it
"attempt (s) to stifle a national conversation about the merits of high
fructose corn syrup versus sugar, and claimed educational campaigns from the
Corn Refiners Association, which does not directly sell any products, cannot be
branded advertising."
Recently, US
District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, who presides over the lawsuit, issued a
ruling that allows the case to proceed. (Source: www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Corn-sugar-lawsuit-attempts-to-shut-down-free-speech-claims-CRA)
Disgruntled says: Let
me be clear. I am honestly at a loss as to why, under this president, the 
distant
places. Foolishly, I thought Mr. Obama would be more like me than his
predecessor. Nothing could be farther from reality! I am opposed to the
Disgruntled feels: Rewards! Seriously, it
is time humans demanded corporate accountability. People are expected to accept
personal responsibility for their actions. "You 
do
the crime, you do the time" is a law enforcement mantra. If corporations
are people, it is time to demand corporate responsibility for the executive and
boardroom decisions that result in fraud and abuse, grocery and pharmacy
shelves stocked with poisons, and the pollutants that threaten our environment.
For example, Citigroup recently settled civil complaints charging the
corporation with fraud by paying a fine; no criminal charge was filed and no
one was incarcerated. Allowing corporations to get away with crime is a crime.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, like the US Supreme Court, has declared
corporations are people, so when they maim, kill and ruin countless lives, they
should take personal responsibility for those actions. Allowing these
"people" to simply pay a paltry fine for their crimes rewards their
irresponsibility. After all, it just allows them to rake in more profits with
which to buy our government, which then passes laws that allow them to pay
fewer taxes and operate without regulation or environmental consideration to
the detriment of future generations.
Disgruntled wants to know: On Sunday, October
16, 2011, to mark the end of a 
16-day,
504-km trek from the UN in New York City to the White House in Washington DC,
hundreds of people from around the country rallied in front of the White House.
The vocal group called on our government to require compulsory labeling of food
made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). According to Katherine
DiMatteo of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, who
coordinated the march and rally, "Most Americans agree they have a right
to know what is in the food they put in their own and their children's bodies,
but current federal policy favors the pesticide industry and hides the facts.
It's time to reset
Mailbox: Faxes, E-Mails and Telephone
Calls
Email www.care2.com...School in 
Health...By
Mhaire Fraser...
Email www.care2.com...Is Processed Fast Food Really Food?...By Dr. 
Mercola....McDonald's
is the poster child for the modern Western diet, and I'm pleased that people
are finally starting to wake up and ask some questions. Such as: Is processed
fast food really food? I would argue that anything processed to the point of
being everlasting is NOT actually food and should not be consumed. What is
"Food" Anyway? As a general rule, "food" equals "live
nutrients." Nutrients, in turn, feed your cells, optimize your health, and
sustain life. Six years ago, film maker Morgan Spurlock vividly demonstrated
the consequences of trying to sustain yourself on a diet of fast food. After
just four weeks, Spurlock's health had deteriorated to the point that his
physician warned him he was putting his life in serious jeopardy if he
continued the experiment. His cholesterol had soared and he started suffering
from depression, lack of attention, and sexual dysfunction, just to name a few
of the health problems that surfaced once he traded in his normal diet for
three square meals a day from McDonald's. His remarkable documentary, Super
Size Me, ended up earning the Writers Guild of America award for Best Documentary
Screenplay in 2005.
Email www.care2.com...4 Ways to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods...By 
Margaret
Badore for DietsInReview.com...The FDA says that the health and environmental
risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are still up for debate, but
many people prefer to avoid them whenever possible. Many plants have been
genetically engineered to have specific traits, such as frost resistance, a
higher yield, or even to produce pesticide. This final trait is perhaps the
most upsetting, because this means that the plant essentially produces its own
toxins. One study published in Environmental Sciences Europe found that animals
fed GM corn and soybeans were significantly more likely to experience organ
malfunctions. In Europe, GMOs either require labeling or in some places are
banned, but in the
Email http://blog.friendseat.com...5,000 Pounds of Pine Nuts Recalled, 42
Sick...Wegmans 
Food
Markets, Inc. is recalling approximately 5,000 lbs. of Turkish Pine Nuts sold
in the Bulk Foods department of most Wegmans stores in