Read about it here.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Why eat local food?
Even though it's more expensive?
"First, it’s better food. It tastes better. It handles better. And it’s safer: Anyone buying chemicalized, drug-infused food is engaging in risky behavior."
Gosh, I love his straighforwardness!
"Sixth—and this is where I wanted to head with this discussion—plenty of money already exists in our economic system to pay for good food. Can you think of anything people buy that they don’t need? Tobacco products, $100 designer jeans with holes already in the knees, KFC, soft drinks made with high fructose corn syrup, Disney vacations, large-screen TVs, jarred baby food? America spends more on veterinary care for pets than the entire continent of Africa spends on medical care for humans."
Read on. It's Joel!
"First, it’s better food. It tastes better. It handles better. And it’s safer: Anyone buying chemicalized, drug-infused food is engaging in risky behavior."
Gosh, I love his straighforwardness!
"Sixth—and this is where I wanted to head with this discussion—plenty of money already exists in our economic system to pay for good food. Can you think of anything people buy that they don’t need? Tobacco products, $100 designer jeans with holes already in the knees, KFC, soft drinks made with high fructose corn syrup, Disney vacations, large-screen TVs, jarred baby food? America spends more on veterinary care for pets than the entire continent of Africa spends on medical care for humans."
Read on. It's Joel!
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Have you ever considered becoming a delegate in the caucus process?
I haven't either, but here is how you do it.
It's a two-year term term, and you attend one state meeting each year. The first year to vote, and the second year to plan. Why am I only interested in this at age 41?
It's a two-year term term, and you attend one state meeting each year. The first year to vote, and the second year to plan. Why am I only interested in this at age 41?
Friday, January 6, 2012
White House response to raw milk petition
So a while back I signed a petition on the White House's petition page called "We the People" about raw milk. Wish I had kept my words, but I didn't. The gist of the petition was "leave raw milk alone." Like that will ever happen, but it's always worth your time to speak your mind to government. Don't let pessimism stop you from having a voice.
Here is the response from Doug McKalip, Senior Policy Advisor for Rural Affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council. In part it reads:
"As a science-based regulatory agency, the FDA looks to the scientific literature for information on benefits and risks associated with raw milk. While the nutritional and health benefits of raw milk consumption have not been scientifically substantiated, the health risks are clear. Since 1987, there have been 143 reported outbreaks of illness – some involving miscarriages, still births, kidney failure and deaths – associated with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products that were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. The FDA's position on raw milk is in concert with the Center for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatricians."
Flaws? Several.
"Science-based" is not iron-clad.
Sure, there's usually a current consensus, but we're all aware of "science-based" beliefs that have bit the dust in the past. "Smoking doesn't cause cancer." "Infant formula is as good as / better than breastmilk." "X-ray is a useful diagnostic tool during pregnancy." "Margarine is more heart-healthy than butter." There is practically nothing about typical obstetric care that is evidence-based, which partly explains our nation's c-section rate and the fact that American babies fare worse than babies in twenty-something other countries. So, "science-based" is a useful benchmark or guide, but not concrete-reliable by any means.
Secondly, "science" is often bankrolled by the industry that profits most from certain "results." I'm not saying science is corrupt, but sometimes science is limited by funding, and funds most readily come from large corporations, and there is a slight amount of bias that occurs at all levels. See these articles for more information on this idea. I'm not saying that all science is untrustworthy, but that every claim aught to be judged against common sense and intuition, until it is very well-established.
What I'm getting to is that most people are intelligent enough to judge what they believe to be good and bad, and in fact should take on the responsibility of studying things out and making those decisions for themselves. We abdicate too much of our personal responsibility onto others.
The reference to raw milk-caused illnesses is meant to imply that raw milk is inherently dangerous.
One hundred forty-three outbreaks, involving miscarriage, kidney failure and death is nothing to sneeze at. But it's hard to find the numbers showing the number of people that got sick over the last 24 years from raw milk compared to the people who got sick from other outbreaks, including pasteurized dairy products. One reason is that the FDA only tracks and investigates multiple-state outbreaks; each state is supposed to track its own in-state outbreaks.
Mentioning the number of raw milk-caused illnesses was meant to scare. ANY food can carry food-borne illnesses, depending on how it is handled. Is spinach inherently dangerous? (3 dead, 198 sick 6 years ago) Cantaloupe? (30 deaths) Jalapeños? (1442 sick, suspected peppers, never confirmed) Turkey? (1 dead, 228 sick in 5 years) Peanut butter product? (9 dead, 22,000 sick) No, obviously. But those foods have caused over 30 deaths and 22,000 illnesses over the past 6 years. We're not banning spinach, cantaloupe, jalapeños, turkey and peanut butter. We, as a people, expect the government and industry to keep us safe. And that's a great idea; we should be able to trust them to an extent.
I'm suggesting that individuals should also have the authority to make their own food safety decisions. If I want to buy milk from a cow owner, and I deem the situation to be food-safe, why is that not my choice?
David and Goliath
Lastly, it's become clear to me that the FDA chooses to pick on David because they are good friends with Goliath. In fact "revolving door" is a commonly used phrase used to describe the relationship between food regulators and the food industry. It makes sense that folks with lots of experience in an industry will someday become involved in the regulatory end of things, and the other way around. But, I am suggesting that it is possible that our FDA has become more beholden to the industry it is supposed to regulate, because it is run by former food industry people. At any rate, the FDA has too much power, if it can not only ban interstate sales of a food that is no more dangerous than peanut butter, and exert its powerful influence on state lawmakers to do the same in-state. Just my two cents.
Here is the response from Doug McKalip, Senior Policy Advisor for Rural Affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council. In part it reads:
"As a science-based regulatory agency, the FDA looks to the scientific literature for information on benefits and risks associated with raw milk. While the nutritional and health benefits of raw milk consumption have not been scientifically substantiated, the health risks are clear. Since 1987, there have been 143 reported outbreaks of illness – some involving miscarriages, still births, kidney failure and deaths – associated with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products that were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. The FDA's position on raw milk is in concert with the Center for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatricians."
Flaws? Several.
"Science-based" is not iron-clad.
Sure, there's usually a current consensus, but we're all aware of "science-based" beliefs that have bit the dust in the past. "Smoking doesn't cause cancer." "Infant formula is as good as / better than breastmilk." "X-ray is a useful diagnostic tool during pregnancy." "Margarine is more heart-healthy than butter." There is practically nothing about typical obstetric care that is evidence-based, which partly explains our nation's c-section rate and the fact that American babies fare worse than babies in twenty-something other countries. So, "science-based" is a useful benchmark or guide, but not concrete-reliable by any means.
Secondly, "science" is often bankrolled by the industry that profits most from certain "results." I'm not saying science is corrupt, but sometimes science is limited by funding, and funds most readily come from large corporations, and there is a slight amount of bias that occurs at all levels. See these articles for more information on this idea. I'm not saying that all science is untrustworthy, but that every claim aught to be judged against common sense and intuition, until it is very well-established.
What I'm getting to is that most people are intelligent enough to judge what they believe to be good and bad, and in fact should take on the responsibility of studying things out and making those decisions for themselves. We abdicate too much of our personal responsibility onto others.
The reference to raw milk-caused illnesses is meant to imply that raw milk is inherently dangerous.
One hundred forty-three outbreaks, involving miscarriage, kidney failure and death is nothing to sneeze at. But it's hard to find the numbers showing the number of people that got sick over the last 24 years from raw milk compared to the people who got sick from other outbreaks, including pasteurized dairy products. One reason is that the FDA only tracks and investigates multiple-state outbreaks; each state is supposed to track its own in-state outbreaks.
Mentioning the number of raw milk-caused illnesses was meant to scare. ANY food can carry food-borne illnesses, depending on how it is handled. Is spinach inherently dangerous? (3 dead, 198 sick 6 years ago) Cantaloupe? (30 deaths) Jalapeños? (1442 sick, suspected peppers, never confirmed) Turkey? (1 dead, 228 sick in 5 years) Peanut butter product? (9 dead, 22,000 sick) No, obviously. But those foods have caused over 30 deaths and 22,000 illnesses over the past 6 years. We're not banning spinach, cantaloupe, jalapeños, turkey and peanut butter. We, as a people, expect the government and industry to keep us safe. And that's a great idea; we should be able to trust them to an extent.
I'm suggesting that individuals should also have the authority to make their own food safety decisions. If I want to buy milk from a cow owner, and I deem the situation to be food-safe, why is that not my choice?
David and Goliath
Lastly, it's become clear to me that the FDA chooses to pick on David because they are good friends with Goliath. In fact "revolving door" is a commonly used phrase used to describe the relationship between food regulators and the food industry. It makes sense that folks with lots of experience in an industry will someday become involved in the regulatory end of things, and the other way around. But, I am suggesting that it is possible that our FDA has become more beholden to the industry it is supposed to regulate, because it is run by former food industry people. At any rate, the FDA has too much power, if it can not only ban interstate sales of a food that is no more dangerous than peanut butter, and exert its powerful influence on state lawmakers to do the same in-state. Just my two cents.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Is all meat the same?
I've been reading Folks, This Ain't Normal, by Joel Salatin, and last night's pages were partly about just this: that not all meat is created equal(ly). Basically, there is feedlot meat, which is the vast majority of meat produced and used in this country, and pastured meat, which is traditional, sustainable, healthy for the animal, environment and consumers, and hardly practiced anywhere.
Read a little more about it here.
Says pastured-cow rancher Seth Nitschke of Open Space Meats:
“The way I raise my cattle is more expensive and takes longer (his cows go to slaughter at between 18 and 24 months of age versus 14 months for a feedlot animal), but grass is a wonderful thing. Cows eat it. They get fat, and I produce a better product. They aren’t maxed out to all their livers can handle. We don’t need hormones or antibiotics.”
Read a little more about it here.
Says pastured-cow rancher Seth Nitschke of Open Space Meats:
“The way I raise my cattle is more expensive and takes longer (his cows go to slaughter at between 18 and 24 months of age versus 14 months for a feedlot animal), but grass is a wonderful thing. Cows eat it. They get fat, and I produce a better product. They aren’t maxed out to all their livers can handle. We don’t need hormones or antibiotics.”
