The way most food is produced with heavy reliance on petrochemicals and the way it is distributed globally, contributes substantially to global warming. See my article: Agra Heat. Consider how far your food has traveled to get to you and look for more local alternatives. We don’t have to buy apples from New Zealand, zucchini from Mexico, tomatoes from Chile or eggplant from Ecuador! For those items you must have that are not locally produced, look for Fair Trade or organic labels which tell you that at least the item is produced in a sustainable way and the workers are paid fairly – even if the coffee, chocolate or bananas come from far away.

1. Choose organic products whenever you can. Organic production does not use Genetically modified seeds that require more petrochemical use. Organic farming practices integrated land management that secures carbon in the soil.
2. Support your Local Farmers. Make a point to shop for your produce at a local farmers market and be aware of where your food comes from. Search out local producers of things like honey, meat even milk!
3. If you consume meat, buy organic. If you eat a lot of meat, consider buying a freezer and buying locally raised animals that are grass fed and humanely treated. If you go to the producer directly, you can reduce your cost for organic meat dramatically.
4. Eat less of your meals in restaurants – particularly fast food chains, where the meat comes from animals that are crowded into vast feed lots and live unnatural lives, sustained on antibiotics and genetically modified grain.
5. Reduce your meat intake. If you are eating meat protein every day, try eating lower on the chain every other day. Grains, beans, lentils, local nuts and free range eggs can supply all your protein needs. Look to Asian style meals where meat or seafood is mixed with lots of veggies for flavor packed and nutritious meals but with a fraction of the meat most Americans consume.
6. Reduce your food waste. Most American families throw away about 40% of the food they buy. Think of the quantity of food you need and buy only what you will use. Stocking up on loads of fresh produce only to see it rot in your fridge because you’re too busy to prepare it is simply not facing facts. If you use a freezer, have a checklist of what’s inside with dates to use by of every item. When you make a large meal, plan several meals using the leftovers or freeze it for later. You’ll save a ton of money and the planet will thank you.
7. Grow your own food if  you have space or join a community garden if you live in a city. In some places, people have been able to use rooftops to grow small gardens. With a little ingenuity, even a small plot can yield big nutrition. Even having a few planter pots with some fresh herbs, and greens can be managed by most apartment dwellers and will reward you with the taste of freshness.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Producing fertilizer alone emits over 41 million metric tons of CO2 a year, which releases toxic nitrous oxide with nearly 300 times the global warming effect of CO2! Our continually increasing demand for animal products and the resultant waste products and methane gas that their manufacture produces, is another huge factor in climate change. As more of the world’s population is becoming able to afford a meat based diet, this figure will only go up. Finally, in the last 50 years, there has been a complete transformation of how food gets to our table. Large corporations have cornered the market on producing and distributing food across the globe and now food travels thousands of miles on average before it reaches your local store. Even if apples are grown in your state, they may be transported thousands of miles to a distribution center, before they are reshipped to your local store – adding a big carbon foot print to even some ‘local’ foods.

Sadly, scientists have long known that we are depending on an unsustainable system of producing food. The IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has advised that we must cut GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels if we are to avoid climate catastropy. However, there is currently no legislation that comes close to those recommendations and the non-binding Accord signed at the end of the Copenhagen Climate Summit was disgracefully inadequate. Our government seems set on a course that will instead allow ‘business as usual’ and if anything, is increasing massive fossil fuel dependent projects around the world. If there’s going to be a change. It’s going to have to literally be grass roots. Start to eat locally produced food and consider where and how your food is produced. It does make a difference.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Ok, I have to admit, that got to me as I realized I was engaging in a conversation that was finished before it was started. This person was not going to change his mind no matter what facts I offered. It was a position based on long held political beliefs that bore no relation to the available facts – which do in fact, mightily refute his convictions.

Organic farming is fundamentally different from modern agribusiness virtually in every possible way. An

organic versus chemically treated soil

organic farm begins with the premise that if the soil is healthy, the crop will be healthy. For the organic farmer the ruling principle is all about nurturing the soil. In agribusiness, “yield” is the ruling principle and whatever chemicals can force a higher yield from depleted and dead soil, they will use – no matter what the cost to the environment, the workers and the consumers.

In a world where everyone will eventually have to face that resources are diminishing in relation to a population approaching 9 billion, we need to look at which of these systems is factually more efficient in it’s use of those resources. Organic farming uses less water, no synthetic chemicals, no toxic sludge, herbicides, pesticides or genetically modified seed while increasing both the health and the depth of topsoil every year. Conventional farming uses up to 10 x’s the water, tons of petro chemicals, genetically modified seed, depletes top soil and pollutes ground water. If they both produce the same amount of food – shouldn’t this be a no brainer?

The Rodale Institute conducts long running, scientifically objective studies comparing ‘organic’ and ‘non-organic’ farming methods, often collaborating with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. Their latest report concludes that organic farming consistently produces an equivalent yield to commercial agribusiness without the toxic environmental impact of chemical agents. In fact, in years of drought, the organically produced harvest was superior to the chemically produced harvest (31 percent higher). Considering that we are entering a time of global warming, the fact that the healthier soil could withstand harsher and more extreme conditions better than the most modified and enhanced crops – is a dramatic victory for organic farming.

“Moreover, while conventional ag struggles with the “superweed” problem, brought on by Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant GMO crops, organic ag is showing it can coexist with weed pressure without sacrificing yield: “Corn and soybean crops in the organic systems tolerated much higher levels of weed competition than their conventional counterparts, while producing equivalent yields.”

I’m praying for the day when our representatives in Washington can stand up to the special interests of the global oil industry and end the overwhelming financial support for an inefficient and unnatural agricultural system. Maybe then, organic farmers would have a chance to be just as competitive in price while restoring our planet to health. The choice is really up to us, each time we buy groceries. Choosing organic is choosing a safer and healthier world for your children.

Share or Bookmark this Article

According to Emily Barrett at Environmental Health News: “[A new] study suggests that the problems go far beyond just one culprit or one health effect. Among the many toxic chemicals that can migrate from packaging into food are the endocrine disrupting phthalates and organotins and the carcinogen benzophenone. These compounds are heavily used in food packaging and have known health effects, yet are not routinely tested or regulated in food.”

This lack of regulation when it comes to chemicals that we are exposed to through packaging, is a cause for real concern –especially for our children who are most vulnerable to the endocrine and hormone disruption they can cause. Exposure is cumulative and virtually no studies have been done to measure cumulative effects over a lifetime. What we do see is a steady rise in the disorders that these chemicals are known to cause, including: auto immune dysfunction, metabolic disorders such as diabetes and thyroid imbalance and reproductive dysfunction or mutation.

To complicate matters further, studies are not done on the combined effect of chemicals commonly used in food packaging, which can magnify or have a synergistic effect in terms of toxicity. Chemicals also degrade over time to form new compounds and the sheer breadth of variables makes it near impossible to do adequate testing on the chemicals that are getting into our bodies. Fetal cord blood shows some 200 potentially toxic chemicals being fed to infants via their mother – even before they are born. Isn’t it long past time to limit the use of plastics in our food supply?

How to Protect Your family?

One of the most common way that plastics enter our body is through packaging, but we also get toxic chemicals through produce that has been grown with chemical fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides and weed killers. Your safest bet to avoid all chemicals is to buy only certified organic produce, grains, legumes, milk products and meat.

* Avoid any processed food which will contain synthetic additives and preservatives including artificial coloring, flavoring and sweeteners.

* If you buy cheese that is packaged in plastic, take a butter knife and scrape off the shiny plastic coating that has leached from the plastic onto the cheese.

* Buy whole grains, nuts and flours in bulk and store in glass containers.

* Use safe plastic containers or glass ones for storing leftovers.

* Never warm up food in the microwave in a plastic container.

* Discard plastic storage items that have become damaged by chemicals or heat or age – these will leach.

* Switch from canned goods to glass jars whenever possible.

* Make your own home preserved foods by canning or freezing items in season.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Simple Homemade Baby Wipes

Buy a roll of the paper towels that come perforated for a half size sheet.

Cut the roll in half and remove center cardboard support. 
Find a secure Tupperware type container that is tall enough to fit the half roll of toweling standing up in it. Once you have the right size container, pour about 1/4 cup mild castile soap and 1/4 cup good quality vegetable oil, like a blend of olive or almond with some calendula. Then add about 2 cups of warm water and mix gently. You can add a couple of drops of lavender essential oil for extra soothing and fragrance if desired.

Place the half roll in the container with the cut side down in the liquid. Make sure the lid is sealed tightly before you tip the container upside down to distribute the liquid. When you’re ready to use the wipes, pull from the center of the roll.

If you’re just going to be out for a few hours and don’t have your container ready, you can simply tear off a few of the half size paper towels and cut them in half . Stack them and lay them in a plastic baggie with a secure zip lock. Then add a smaller amount of the same solution. The solution should be absorbed by the towels and not leave much excess fluid. Simply toss in your diaper bag and you’re prepared for any mess, on face or bottom!

Share or Bookmark this Article

But the TSCA came with an enormous loophole negotiated by the all-powerful chemical industry. Any chemical already on the market before 1979 was excluded from either screening or restriction. In effect, this clause ‘grandfathered in’ over 62,000 industrial chemicals, among which were thousands of highly toxic substances with evidence of being carcinogenic, neuro-toxic and unquestionably bad for the environment. Now, over thirty years later, 95 percent of all chemicals in circulation have never undergone any testing for toxicity or their impact on the environment.

It’s clear that the TSCA, has acted more to protect the profits of the chemical industry then the American public or the environment. Efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require testing of some 200 chemicals in response to public outcry, has only resulted in some slight degree of regulation on five chemicals.

Asbestos was determined to be a ‘known carcinogen’ by the EPA – Environmental Protection Agency, and they tried to severely restrict it’s use.  But the chemical industry challenged the EPA’s ruling and a federal court supported their claim that asbestos didn’t meet the TSCA’s requirements. Those requirements included:

1. that the dangers of the chemical should exceed its perceived usefulness.
2. That the EPA heavily weigh the ‘costs to industry’ and any regulation should constitute the “least burdensome alternative” for eliminating the “unreasonable risk” of exposure.

With this wording in place, and the federal courts support of the TSCA contract, the EPA has been unable to ban a single chemical since that decision. A year later, asbestos was back in business.

Another little known slight of hand that the TSCA uses to get chemicals into production without testing, is the fact that exposure and toxicity testing is supposed to be done by the manufacturer themselves and delivered to the EPA for approval 90 days before it goes into the consumers hands. Theoretically, this data would enable the EPA to determine whether regulation is warranted before a chemical hits the market. But according to the EPA’s own figures, 85 percent of the data submitted contain no evaluation of public health impact whatsoever and toxicity reports are routinely inaccurate.

In fact, our real government policy regarding toxic industrial chemicals has been to support their promulgation and wide spread use without regard to their impact on human health or the environment. The inaction of both the TSCA and EPA have allowed a veritable epidemic of diseases and toxic pollution  to explode in America.  In recent years, scientific reviews independent of the chemical industry, show overwhelming data linking various chemicals to cancers, neurologic, reproductive, auto immune disease and developmental abnormalities.

It is time for a fundamental reform of these agencies.

However, overhaul is going to be hotly contested by the corporations linked to the chemical industry. They also have more leverage now then ever since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can essentially contribute an unlimited amount to political campaigns to protect their ‘pro-business’ agenda.

Yet, there is a ray of hope in this battle. The European Union has been working on a new chemical regulation policy called REACH—Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals. REACH promises a radical change in how chemicals are evaluated, and how production decisions around the world will be made from now on.

Under REACH, all industrial chemicals will have to be registered, evaluated for toxicity and authorized before being permitted to remain in use. Toxins, which are known to cause cancer, alter genes and affect fertility, will be the first to be removed from the market unless producers are able to prove that they can be “adequately controlled.”

REACH also extends its influence to the consumer goods that utilize these chemicals; thus “downstream users,” from the building industry to cosmetics and car manufacturers, will be forced to find out and report what chemicals are in their products and what effects they have on human health and the environment. The plastics and petrochemical industry is likely to be very hard hit as many of their plastics have already been identified as toxic for both humans and the environment and their chemicals are in everything we use. If they want to continue to export their products into the E.U. market (which now exceeds the US market both in population and wealth) they will have to conform to a much higher standard.

Unfortunately, the flip side to the new regulations in Europe is that America will become the dumping ground for all the toxic products no longer allowed in the E.U. Like we exported our DDT to countries where it wasn’t regulated, our lax standards will make us the world’s premier market for toxic products.

The TSCA has successfully argued that the cost of finding alternatives to toxic chemicals is far too great a burden for their super rich industry to bear. However, the E.U. estimates that REACH would cost European chemical manufacturers a mere $4 billion over fourteen years, or less than 1% of their combined yearly revenue. The E.U. further calculated that these expenses would be repaid many times over by the resulting health benefits. According to E.U. estimates, compliance with REACH would prevent some 4,500 occupational cancers each year and reduce European health-care costs from ailments related to chemical exposure by $70 billion over the next thirty years.

Also, by giving consumers honest information about the health risks associated with various products, it has already begun to generate new research to produce safer chemicals. E.U. chemists have already come up with alternatives to some of the most toxic chemicals currently in use, and its environmental initiatives have spawned billions of dollars in green technology. Oh that Obama would live up to his promises and do likewise here and regenerate a vibrant and safe chemical industry with millions of new jobs that can grow into the next century. One can hope, and one can write to one’s Congressperson. It really is time for change.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Occasionally, I talk to someone who firmly believes that organic food is just another marketing scheme to get people to pay more for essentially the same things. These are mostly people who don’t consume organic food and probably never will. But there is enough research that shows that even a week of eating all organic foods drops the level of toxic pesticide residues in our blood stream radically. What all these foreign chemicals do to us is a subject that is still under study, but clearly, our bodies were not designed to consume these chemicals and we now know they have a profound effect, especially on babies and children. Organic production methods do cost more due to numerous factors, deciding whether it’s worth it to you and your family is a personal decision.

Reasons why organic costs more:

1. Organic farming is substantially more labor intensive. It relies on crop rotation, mixed planting, composting, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation.
2. Organic farming is also more intelligence intensive. An organic farmer has to continually evaluate the needs of his soil and plants and cannot rely on simple, quick fix, chemical solutions.
3. Organic farming requires integrated land management which means that the same crops cannot be produced repeatedly on the same soil. Manure, essential for the production of adequate compost means that farmers must typically include livestock as an integrated part of their operation.
4. Organic farming is generally more suited to smaller scale operations with multiple and diverse crops and therefore cannot benefit from the economies available to large scale monoculture agribusiness or government subsidies.
5. Costs of Regulation. In 2002 the U.S. created the National Organic Program (NOP) It sets standards of practice and requirements which farmers have to meet in order to be approved as a USDA Organic Provider. It takes a minimum of 7 years of exclusively organic cultivation before a farmer can apply for certification and begin to recoup his higher costs. The application is complicated, expensive and requires an intimidating amount of record keeping. There is little funding available to help a small farmer make the transition to Organic cultivation.

Clearly there is a blatant disparity in the funding of  “chemi-culture” versus organic agriculture. The majority of government farm subsidies originally developed to help small, depression era farmers survive, now go to large commercial farms, with average incomes in excess of $200,000 and a net worth of nearly $2 million. Approximately 90% of farm subsidies support production of only 5 crops (wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice) none of which are grown organically and most of which use genetically modified seed. These crops and their method of cultivation require larger amounts of water, an increasingly dear resource, and contaminate both land and ground water with nitrate runoff and toxic herbicides and pesticides. The cost to the environment is huge compared to the lower resource use of organic agriculture which remains virtually unsupported.

Additionally, these subsidies indirectly encourage poorer diets by reducing the real cost of corn syrup and cheap oils used in almost all highly processed foods. Making these relatively unhealthy foods so cheap leads to parents making choices that it’s cheaper to buy soda and processed snacks than the much healthier whole fruit or vegetables, which are not subsidized. Farm subsidies are a hotly contested issue with far reaching implications for our way of life and I don’t pretend to have any solutions, but it is a factor that definitely affects the cost of organic foods in America.

Originally designed to safeguard small farms, farm subsidies now promote over production of the most commercially advantageous crops. This overproduction brings down prices which are then balanced with expensive programs to restrict planting to bring prices back up to normal levels. This artificial deflation and inflation of prices comes with a heavy price for the American consumer who pays some $25 billion in taxes and another $12 billion in higher food prices annually for programs that distribute most of their benefits to an elite group of wealthy producers.

Because of the vast imbalance with subsidies given to large scale agribusiness only a tiny portion of available farm land is devoted to organic methods. According to Wikipedia, only 0.8 percent of total world farmland is under organic standards for cultivation. Surprisingly, much of that production is in China, the EU and Australia where organic farming is subsidized and the smallest percentage relative to arable land is in America. While this percentage has risen significantly in recent years, organic farmers are not a well represented lobby in Congress to further their interests. When you choose to buy organic products, you send a message to farmers and hopefully to our politicians, that this is something that consumers are willing to pay for and gradually, this should increase the number of American farmers willing to take the risk and make the investment to produce foods using recognized organic standards.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Some figures:

• Up to 25% of all fresh fruits and vegetables in the US is lost between field and table.

• In Australia, food waste makes up half of that country’s landfill.

• In the United Kingdom 30% of all food purchased every year is not eaten.

• Losses in the field between planting and harvesting are around 40% of the potential harvest in developing countries due to pests and pathogens.

• In Africa, 30% of landed fish is lost through discards and spoilage.

• Approximately 30 million metric tons of fish are discarded at sea every year.

• India looses up to 50% of it’s fresh food because of inadequate storage and distribution.

• In South East Asia 37% of rice is lost between field and table. In China, the figure is up to 45%, in Vietnam, it’s estimated to be 80%!

Another factor that accentuates the waste factor in America and Great Britain is the draconian penalties on food suppliers for failing to deliver agreed upon quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the year. To avoid these crippling penalties, farmers are required to produce a much larger crop than can actually be sold or processed as a form of insurance against poor weather or other factors that might reduce their yield. In some instances, up to 30% of a crop is left to rot. Another 30% of that crop never reaches the supermarket because it is ‘sub standard’ or substantially trimmed for packaging purposes. Of the final produce that reaches our supermarkets, up to 50% is then thrown away.

While it is impossible to calculate the wastage of food from restaurants and all other places where food is served, the final figures of how much food is consumed, compared to how much is produced, must be an astonishingly small percentage. This system of putting incredible pressure on our food producers only so that at least half of what is produced can be thrown away, is clearly unsustainable.

This same study indicates that up to 25% of the world’s current food production capacity may be lost due to “environmental breakdowns” by 2050. Already, cereal yields have stagnated worldwide and fish landings are steadily declining. As the world’s population presses towards 9.5 billion by the year 2050 the demand on the world’s limited resources will reach a breaking point. We cannot ‘produce’ our way out of the next crisis, we must ‘conserve’ our way out.

What can you do?

1. Plan more carefully the amount of fresh fruit and vegetables that your family will consume on a weekly basis and limit your purchases to that amount.
2. When food is on the verge of going bad, cook it and freeze it. This works well with excess veggies that can be made into a soup and frozen, or apples which can be made into applesauce and kept longer.
3. Encourage your family to take smaller portions and go back for more if still hungry rather than filling your plate and throwing half away.
4. Learn to be creative with leftovers.  Most meals can be recycled easily the next day into another meal or added to a soup or packed for lunches.
5. Feed your pet table scraps. In most cases, your animal will be healthier and that last piece of something that is too small to save will not be wasted.
6. If you shop at a store with large packs of produce or meat, consider shopping with a friend so you can divide the packages and not have excess food in your frige.
7. At restaurants, bring a Tupperware to take home leftovers or opt to share a meal if the servings are particularly large, or simply eat an appetizer and soup or desert.
8. If you find you’ve made more than your family can eat of something, bring the leftovers in to your office to share. Maybe have a potluck Thursday when leftovers can be pooled for a fun meal.
9. Shop at your local farmers market to help small scale farmers and get your produce days after harvest instead of weeks at the supermarket.

Share or Bookmark this Article

Genetically Modified foods have not been tested for safety.

Genetically Modified food has been in development for over 20 years and has been in widespread commercial use for about 15 years. Most Americans mistakenly believe that GM foods have gone through rigorous, in-depth, long-term, independent studies. In reality, the FDA has required absolutely no safety testing but instead relied upon research from companies like Monsanto, which produces the products. This is like Phillip Morris doing the research to decide if cigarette smoking is safe for your children!

The FDA’s extremely lax policy on regulation of GM foods only makes sense when you notice the revolving door between agency regulators and the companies they regulate. The first George Bush mandated that GM food be actively promoted and put Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto attorney, in charge of developing the agency’s policy. Taylor later returned to Monsanto as their vice president.

While the FDA has claimed it was unaware of any information showing that GM crops were different from non-GMO crops and therefore didn’t require testing; 44,000 internal FDA documents made public by a lawsuit prove this to be a complete lie. The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods could lead to dangerous and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. Unfortunately, the FDA scientists who urged their superiors to require long-term studies had their work discredited and the results suppressed.

GM foods are not needed to solve the food crisis

Since GM crops have been in wide spread use, there has been no evidence that they significantly increase crop yields. According to former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman – when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.” Similarly, the claims that GM crops will produce plants with greater drought resistance, will reduce fertilizer use and pollution or save soil have also been proven utterly false. In fact, many studies have shown that GM yields are less than traditional and in drought or stressed growing conditions, organic farming methods had the highest production rates. If these companies were truly interested in providing

GM crops increase the use of toxic pesticides

It was widely publicized that GM crops would require fewer pesticides and herbicides because these ingredients were already being genetically added to the plant. But in fact, reducing pesticide and herbicide use when that is what your company makes is not good business. So, what they do provide is ‘Round-up Ready’ crops. High herbicide tolerance is found in over 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide. These crops are genetically designed to survive normally lethal doses of pesticides.

The increased use of pesticides is part of the package that farmers buy when they opt to cultivate GM seeds. In fact, GM crops have caused an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and boosted sales of even more toxic pesticides – including ones banned in some European countries. GM plants therefore have extremely high pesticide residue which when ingested by humans can cause serious health problems.

Genetic Modification is not a well controlled science

There are eight GM food crops. The five major ones are: soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets. Bacterial genes are forcibly transferred across natural species barriers using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding to allow the plants to survive an otherwise lethal dose of weed killer. The process creates massive collateral damage:

• Mutations are produced in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA.

• Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off.

• Hundreds of genes may change their behavior.

• Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged, and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.

A second GM trait is a built-in pesticide, primarily used in GM corn and cotton. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into the plant’s DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. There is evidence that these genes continue to be active in the human gut, reproducing and mutating the normal bacteria found there into a virtual pesticide factory. These altered genes have a tendency to migrate and have been found in virtually every organ system in lab animals who were fed the altered food with devastating and deadly effect. No human testing has been done but the evidence is that genetic migration is extensive and poses serious risks to our biosphere and human life.

GM foods are not safe

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice and people who are not allergic to regular soy are commonly allergic to GM soy and it’s derivatives. GM products also seems to cause people to become allergic to a variety of non-GM foods. Animal tests have shown damage to the reproductive system causing infertility, mutations, damaged liver, decreased immunity, and toxic responses that resulted in the animals death.

The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function there. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins reproducing inside us. If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics. If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it could turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories. Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into a fetus. Further research into these risks has been suppressed but anecdotal evidence is growing that consuming GM foods or animal products from animals fed GM foods may well be hazardous not only to your health, but the health of your entire genetic line. Even if there were no risks involved in the forced genetic mutation of cells, the heavy pesticide residue is an established health risk, especially to children. As a parent, I don’t want to give my children anything that is even remotely suspect, much less a food that has only been tested by the companies that profit from it’s proliferation. It’s time we all learned more about this and I encourage you to stay tuned as I explore this issue further.

In my next article I will talk more about the impact of GM agribusiness around the world and what we can do about it. For more information please contact: The Institute for Responsible Technology – Your Consumer Safety Partner

Share or Bookmark this Article

* Eartheasy

This well researched and diverse blog always gives me something meaty to chew on – including the pros and cons of tempeh protein! It has a wide range of well written articles on subjects ranging from back to the land practicalities to environmental warnings to personal tips to living off the grid. It’s multiple writers contribute in categories of: healthy homes, organic gardening, food and health, science & transportation, connect with nature and preparedness.

* Big Green Purse

This well recognized blog is still my source for great tips on how to take care of my family and my planet at the same time. The theme is that women spend 85% of every dollar and our choices have power to transform the world. As we choose more responsible, green products – we lighten the load on mother earth. Great site to find new products, ideas and practices to solve daily problems.

* Enviromom – raising green kids

This is another favorite for ideas for products and practices for us Green Striving moms. Learn how to cut down on your energy bill, cook meatless meals even your husband will enjoy and find alternative products that will make your life easier. Written by one mom in an upbeat, friendly, sometimes funny tone – this blog is a frequent stop on my daily internet jog.

* It’s Frugal Being Green

This blog is serious about saving money without compromising your values. There are tips and tactics in every category from food shopping, to financial planning, to saving on a wedding or vacation – and still having a blast. Full of insightful, creative and surprising ways to recycle, organize, shop, clean, meal plan and generally get on top of the thousand choices moms need to make that affect their family and their financial health.

* Mindfully.org

This is a very broad ranging site that includes postings on Home, Air, Energy, Farm, Food, Genetic Engineering, Health, Industry, Nuclear, Pesticides, Plastic, Political, Sustainability, Technology and Water. The broad range gives a full perspective on how decisions being made by our government and large corporations affect us. The perspective of their many talented writers seems to be exceptionally fair and not green tainted as an assumed prejudice. For instance, their article on ‘the Diaper Decision’ fully elucidated the pros and cons of plastic versus cloth without taking sides.

* Smart Family Tips – save a little time, save a little money, save a little planet!

This blog is a one woman blog that really helps me to sort through the overwhelming amount of information out there and get some perspective on choices that are going to be sustainable for our families and our planet. Her posts are entertaining, easy to read and provide valuable insights. I especially like her link to ‘take action’ which allows you to add your voice to issues of concern. Helpful product reviews and recommendations.

* The Greenest Dollar

This is another site that I subscribe to because the tips are always unique and helpful. Today’s post of 10 Household uses for Vodka has inspired me to start considering the bottle in my cupboard for a lot more uses than mixed drinks! Her theme of save money, save the planet, be happy, is well served by all the articles, posts and products reviewed.

* Tree Hugger

With over 30 new posts a day and over 35,000 articles archived, you could literally get lost in the trees of Tree Hugger. Extremely broad range of subjects covered with intelligence and perspective, this site is a must for the informed green consumer and the active citizen of our world.

* Z Recommends

When Z recommends, I listen. I also listen and read carefully the warnings, product recalls and hazards exposed in common products to which our family may be exposed. A great resource for the young family with product reviews, giveaways and helpful information for raising kids safe and green.

* The Daily Reviewer

While this isn’t a blog per se, it is a great resource for links to top Organic Blogs. These blogs cover everything from organic food to organic farming to organic beauty care products. All well written, informative blogs for the organic consumer.

Share or Bookmark this Article