"me" is Jonah. Rian is an ex of his who thinks it's funny to send him pictures of her without any clothes on, barely covering her breasts with her arm, to "show him her sunburn." The more I stare at this conversation, the more annoyed I am. He doesn't say "Yeah, you probably shouldn't then" or "Hey, that was inappropriate" after she sent them. He laughs. And says "ow!"
She obviously knows it was an inappropriate thing to do.
Rian: I would you a picture of my sunburn but I don't want your wife to get upset ;)
me: heh
4:16 PM
good one?
4:17 PM
Rian: In places
me: i haven't used sunscreen all year and i havn't seen nearly enough sun to burn
4:18 PM
Rian: I used quite a bit of sunscreen, just not enough
4:19 PM
me: where were you?
what lake?
Rian: Lake Washington
4:21 PM
PICTURES SENT HERE
me: ouch!
4:22 PM
Rian: thankfully it is only in sections and my face was well screened
but my bra is not too comfy right now
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Marriage Equality
Today I went to a party. It was a combination house-warming/marriage equality party and there was an organizer there videotaping people talking about what marriage means to them, and why marriage equality is important. They're ramping up to put a measure on the ballot in 2012 to give same sex couples the same marriage rights that are given opposite sex couples. I didn't make a video, and I feel bad about that because people might think it means I don't support same sex marriage or something, which is not at all the case. I just hate being videotaped. Or photographed. Also, I wasn't sure what to say.
People think marriage is such a big deal - and I do too, but I don't know why. Mostly it feels like the princess thing to me, society putting pressure on people to buy rings and white dresses and spend stupid amounts of money on flowers and cakes and invitations and get stressed out about how they can't sit Great-Aunt Esther next to Cousin Jimmy because 14 years ago he called her a stupid old woman in front of her sister Annabelle and they never forgave him. Why would anyone want any part of that?
My commitment to Jonah has nothing to do with the ring on my finger or that I changed my last name. If I weren't committed to him, I wouldn't have married him and I wouldn't have changed my last name. It's a chicken before the egg thing. Does marriage mean commitment, or does commitment mean marriage? Am I missing something? I certainly benefit legally from being married to Jonah: in terms of taxes, rights I have were he to be hospitalized, etc. And I think it's ridiculous to deny those rights to any other committed adult couple. It seems Neanderthal. There shouldn't be a question when it comes to love, and isn't that supposed to be the foundation for marriage?
Marriage can be about convenience or power instead of love and companionship, I guess. But the big opponents of same sex marriage seem to be religious folks, and while many of them still enjoy the idea that man is more powerful than woman, they generally seem into the marrying for love thing. So who are they, or any of us, to question love? Or deny a couple the right to pronounce themselves legally in a committed relationship? It just seems so silly. So silly that I don't really know what to say about it because there shouldn't even be a discussion. Same sex couples shouldn't be "fighting" for this right. I'm sorry that they have to.
People think marriage is such a big deal - and I do too, but I don't know why. Mostly it feels like the princess thing to me, society putting pressure on people to buy rings and white dresses and spend stupid amounts of money on flowers and cakes and invitations and get stressed out about how they can't sit Great-Aunt Esther next to Cousin Jimmy because 14 years ago he called her a stupid old woman in front of her sister Annabelle and they never forgave him. Why would anyone want any part of that?
My commitment to Jonah has nothing to do with the ring on my finger or that I changed my last name. If I weren't committed to him, I wouldn't have married him and I wouldn't have changed my last name. It's a chicken before the egg thing. Does marriage mean commitment, or does commitment mean marriage? Am I missing something? I certainly benefit legally from being married to Jonah: in terms of taxes, rights I have were he to be hospitalized, etc. And I think it's ridiculous to deny those rights to any other committed adult couple. It seems Neanderthal. There shouldn't be a question when it comes to love, and isn't that supposed to be the foundation for marriage?
Marriage can be about convenience or power instead of love and companionship, I guess. But the big opponents of same sex marriage seem to be religious folks, and while many of them still enjoy the idea that man is more powerful than woman, they generally seem into the marrying for love thing. So who are they, or any of us, to question love? Or deny a couple the right to pronounce themselves legally in a committed relationship? It just seems so silly. So silly that I don't really know what to say about it because there shouldn't even be a discussion. Same sex couples shouldn't be "fighting" for this right. I'm sorry that they have to.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Compost Made Easier
I can't say enough about the Endurance compost pail I shelled $40 out for at my local gardening shop. It sits on my counter and doesn't look ugly (most importantly) and since it's convenient and easy to use, I'm actually composting again!
I tried using an old cat litter pail under the sink, but that smelled awful after a while. I tried using tupperware. I tried just making myself go outside to the compost bin every day with the pile of scraps I'd accumulate on the counter (do you know how often it rains here? Most of the time my pile ended up in the trash, or getting thrown to the chickens. Because, yes, I'm lazy). I stuck with none of it, and drooled over this pail for over a year before I finally caved and bought it.
This comes with two replaceable charcoal filters that get stuffed in the lid to keep it from stinking up your kitchen. If you take the filters out, you can run it through your dishwasher. What's not to love? Verdict: completely worth the $40.
{photo from stores.homestead.com}
I tried using an old cat litter pail under the sink, but that smelled awful after a while. I tried using tupperware. I tried just making myself go outside to the compost bin every day with the pile of scraps I'd accumulate on the counter (do you know how often it rains here? Most of the time my pile ended up in the trash, or getting thrown to the chickens. Because, yes, I'm lazy). I stuck with none of it, and drooled over this pail for over a year before I finally caved and bought it.
This comes with two replaceable charcoal filters that get stuffed in the lid to keep it from stinking up your kitchen. If you take the filters out, you can run it through your dishwasher. What's not to love? Verdict: completely worth the $40.
{photo from stores.homestead.com}
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Dark Side of Meat
1977 a government study identified meat consumption as a potential health risk and advised people to limit their meat intake. The findings were quickly rewritten upon pressure from the meat industry: instead of recommending that people cut down on meat, the study now advised choosing ‘meats… that will reduce saturated fat intake.’ Thus began the habit of speaking about nutrients instead of actual food, making it easier for companies to tout untested (or poorly tested) nutritional benefits while downplaying hazards. Consumers were encouraged to focus on the value (or danger) of nutrients like saturated fat and antioxidants instead of on actual food, like beef or chicken.
In 2006 the United Nations published a report identifying the ‘very substantial contribution of animal agriculture to climate change and air pollution, to land, soil, and water degradation and to the reduction of biodiversity.’ Over 250 pages long, ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ (thus named to ‘help raise attention’) examines the impact of meat consumption not only on our environment, but also on our health. Nothing really changed in the 29 years between these two studies. The meat lobby pours money and energy into repressing the facts, and the government does little to oppose it. Disease, waste and pollution still plague the meat industry, and most people turn a blind eye.
Eating meat contributes to higher levels of cancer, cholesterol, heart disease, and obesity. Dr. Neal Barnard, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, claims that “The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all the natural disasters, and all the automobile accidents combined.” People who exclude meat from their diets have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”
Additives approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and common in meat products include: monosodium glutamate (MSG) for flavor enhancement, propyl gallate as a preservative, sodium chloride (salt) for flavor and as a preservative, and sodium nitrite as a preservative and for color and flavor. These additives are linked to symptoms ranging from headaches, nausea and weakness to high blood pressure and cancer. At least 29 different additives once approved by the FDA for consumption are now banned after studies showed them to be harmful.
Antibiotics are given to livestock mostly to hasten weight gain but also to stave off infection. Many animals are at-risk for disease due to their cramped and unsanitary living conditions. Although the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Preventative Medicine are all on record against administering antibiotics to animals that aren’t sick, the practice continues. Not only do these antibiotics end up contaminating water and land (through manure), they also encourage the development of drug-resistant bacteria, a threat to both animals and humans. It is estimated that close to 80% of the antibiotics produced in the United States are given to farm animals.
In addition to the health risks posed by meat consumption, the meat industry wastes resources and significantly contributes to pollution. Using an estimated 80% of the available agricultural land (for both the animals and growing the food to feed them), animals raised for human consumption in the U.S. alone eat more than enough grain and soybeans to feed one-fifth of the world’s population. A 2004 study claims that “the world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of… more than the entire human population on Earth.” When one considers that it can take up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat, this claim doesn’t seem farfetched. Add to that the fact more water is saved by forgoing just one pound of beef than by not showering for an entire year, and one can’t help but wonder if all this meat production is really worth the effort.
Global warming, the depletion of the rain forest, and animal suffering are other negative effects of the meat industry. The previously mentioned United Nations’ 2006 study showed that animal farming creates more greenhouse gases than all the vehicles in the world combined. Rain forests are routinely cut down to make room for more agricultural land (most used for meat production) – it is estimated that we lose 33.8 million acres of tropical forest every year. Not only does this affect the people who live on the land being razed, but about 100 species become extinct every day as a result. Animals suffer, forced to live in squalor. Often housed in spaces too crowded for them to move and with no access to the outside, they have shockingly short lives, are force-fed hormones and antibiotics to make them grow quickly (often faster than is physically healthy for them), and are slaughtered and/or castrated with nothing to minimize the pain.
Buying responsibly raised meat is not as simple as reading a label or choosing something stocked in the ‘organic’ section of the grocery store. Packaging labels like ‘sustainable,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘free-range’ can’t always be trusted. Companies and consumers argue about the definitions of these terms and how they should be regulated. Standards and regulations vary from state to state, and there is ample opportunity for companies to label their products in a misleading fashion.
Perhaps the most easily misused label is ‘sustainable.’ Sustainable farming is supposed to focus on raising food without harming the surrounding environment. It should provide safe conditions for workers and promote safe, healthy, and sanitary conditions for animals. But there is no certification for sustainability, and while it seems logical to assume that things labeled ‘organic’ are sustainably grown, that’s not necessarily the case.
Organic food is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as independently certified. Almost all fertilizers and pesticides are forbidden, and so are genetic engineering and the use of antibiotics. Animals must be fed organically and have access to the outdoors. But in terms of being sustainable, there are definitely some ways this label can fail. Large companies selling organic food usually don’t employ sustainable practices, particularly when it comes to how their animals are treated. ‘Access to the outdoors’ doesn’t necessarily mean the animals get to go outside. It could simply be that there is a door that could be opened to let them out. Also, organic food can travel extensively before reaching your table. The greenhouse gases emitted in transportation are not environmentally responsible. Truly sustainable meat is raised as close to home as possible.
‘Free-range’ is a label not regulated by the USDA. To earn the label, animals are supposed to be fed a natural diet and have access to the outdoors. However, just like with the ‘organic’ regulation, that doesn’t mean they all roam freely. Even if they do get to leave their pen, the outside area’s size is unregulated and could be only big enough for a few crowded animals at a time. Truly free-range animals require more land, which can be a drain on resources. There is also no guarantee that the livestock are not treated with antibiotics and/or injected with hormones. Free-range animals are also often victim to the same painful methods of castration and slaughter as factory-farmed animals.
Higher levels of Omega 3s and cancer-fighting CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) are found in free-range, grass-fed beef. CLA levels in cattle raised on a natural diet are up to 40% higher than in grain-fed cattle. Free-range, grass-fed beef is also leaner, lower in calories, and can be cooked at lower temperatures. The biggest advantage to feeding cows grass is simply that they don’t consume grain. Growing corn takes more land and water than grass, and has to be transported, which emits greenhouse gases. Cows are fed corn because it makes them gain weight faster than usual. Since corn is not their natural diet, it also means they need to be given antibiotics, protein supplements and growth hormones. Allowing cattle to eat grass decreases the need for supplements and avoids the waste associated with corn farming. A downside to grass-fed beef is that some people find the taste unpleasant. Also, it isn’t guaranteed that beef labeled ‘free-range’ or ‘grass-fed’ hasn’t been given antibiotics or hormones.
The issues with free-range and cage-free poultry are much the same. Legally the terms don’t mean very much, and while farms are supposed to self-regulate it’s impossible to say how many follow the rules. Most people assume the birds have a natural diet and are allowed access to a large and pleasant outdoor area. While there are certainly some farms where this is the case, there are many where birds have little or no outside access and are given antibiotics and hormones to make them grow faster.
When it comes to pork, the terminology and potential problems are similar to those with poultry and beef. Free-range pork is said to have better taste and texture than factory-farmed pork. It also costs $3-$4 more per pound. But like anything labeled ‘free-range,’ these animals may be subject to crowding and other poor living conditions, along with painful tooth-grinding and slaughtering methods. At least one study shows that free-range pigs are more likely to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites, because they aren’t given antibiotics.
The problems with marine life consumption are just as complicated as those with other kinds of meat. Between waste, animal suffering, and the effect on the environment, fishing and fish farming are just as bad as meat farming on land. For instance, a 2009 United Nations report estimates that almost 25% of sea animals caught while fishing are discarded – usually dead or dying. The reasons for discard vary: too small, wrong species, lack of permits, no value, no more room on the boat, etc. Birds can be harmed as well, when caught in fishing lines or nets. Between 2 and 10 pounds of “waste” are discarded for every pound of shrimp caught by trawling. Not only are the discarded fish potential food for other fish that will now go hungry, they are often young fish that could be rebuilding the species’ population.
Between population growth and harmful fishing methods, humans are taking quite a toll on the ocean. Bottom fishing such as trawling and dredging significantly damages the ocean floor and the effects can take centuries to reverse. Pollution from fertilizer, sewage and chemicals destroys marine habitats. Over-fishing has sent several fish species, like bluefin tuna, to the endangered species list as well as forced thousands of people out of jobs. Species that used to be discarded if caught by accident are now being over-fished as other varieties no longer meet the demand.
About half of the world’s consumed fish are raised in fish farms. Often these farms depend on wild sea life for feed or to provide eggs or young, so when the ocean environment fails the wild population, the farms suffer too. Salmon and most other farmed fish are grown in net pens, where crowded conditions pollute the water and allow disease to spread quickly, sometimes into the surrounding wild fish population. Because disease can be so prevalent, they are often fed antibiotics and other drugs. These fish can take over the surrounding environment if they escape. Shrimp farming has devastated coastal mangrove forests in several tropical countries. Forests are cut down so shrimp farms can take over, but the pollution from their own waste forces the farms to move after just a few years.
There are responsible ways to catch sea life, and fishermen and scientists are constantly improving current methods and researching new ones. Catching shrimp in traps, for instance, allows fishermen to release 98% of unwanted animals unscathed. Other devices are being developed to help reduce unnecessary deaths. Fishermen can use electronic beepers to send animals like porpoises and whales away from their nets, and in some places these devices are required by law. Trap doors in nets are required by law on US shrimp boats to let turtles swim free if caught. Replacing methods like trawling and dragging with trap fishing and hook-and-line fishing helps preserve the sea floor. One solution to the damage caused by ocean-farmed fish is to move the farms inland, where waste is easier to manage and doesn’t affect ocean life. Plant-eating fish such as tilapia are easy to raise inland because they require no wild fish for feed.
Choosing responsibly farmed meat is hard. The factory-farming industry has made it near impossible to discern farms that practice responsible, sustainable farming from their own. As far as seafood goes, ocean-farmed oysters, clams, and mussels are good choices, as they have little impact on the environment and need no supplemental feeding. There are claims that sustainable fish can be cost-competitive, but in most cases the more sustainable choice is going to cost more money. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has a list on their website that includes advice on how to choose sustainably farmed and/or caught fish by species. They also have a ‘Seafood Watch’ that is available on both Facebook and Twitter.
As for meat raised on land, the ‘organic’ label means more in terms of definition and regulation than others. But organic farms, while certified by the USDA, are mostly self-regulated and therefore subject to some skepticism. Organic, free-range meat is also almost always more expensive. It seems the only truly informed way to responsibly buy meat is to find a local farm and develop a relationship with the owners. Visit it to make sure the methods it uses are ones you want to support, and buy from them. The most important step to shedding light on the dark side of eating meat is staying informed enough to make responsible decisions. You can’t just trust the packaging.
1.Pollan, Michael. “In Defense of Food.” New York: The Penguin Press. 2008.
2.Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. p
3.“Eating for Life.” http://www.goveg.com. Retrieved 8/1/2009
4.“Long-Term Effects of Meat Eating.” www.innvista.com. Retrieved 7/31/2009.
5.“Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 8/1/2009.
6.“Food Additives.” http://www.cspinet.org. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
7.“Antibiotics in Meat: What You Need to Know.” http://www.babycenter.com. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
8.“Antibiotics in Your Meat: What’s the Big Deal?” http://www.princeton.edu. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
9.Gold, Mark and Porritt, Jonathon. “The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat.” 2004, p. 22. Retrieved from www.wellfedworld.org 8/11/2009.
10.“Wasted Resources.” http://www.goveg.com. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
11.“Cows and Climate Change.” http://www.treehugger.com. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
12.“Rainforest Destruction.” http://www.csupomona.edu. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
13.“Animal Suffering.” .” http://www.goveg.com. Retrieved 8/1/2009.
14.“At the Table – What are Sustainable and Organic?” http://www.sustainabletable.org. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
15.“How Free Is “Free-Range”?” http://www.cok.net. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
“Meat-Eating Environmentalist: A Contradiction in Terms?” http://earthfirst.com. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
16.“Health Benefit.” http://www.grasslandbeef.com. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
17.“Organic and Free-Range Meat.” http://liberationbc.org. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
18.“Putting flavor back into pork.” http://boston.com. Retrieved 7/31/2009.
19.“How Free Is “Free-Range”?” http://www.cok.net. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
20.Wondwossen A. Gebreyes, Peter B. Bahnson, Julie A. Funk, James McKean, Prapas Patchanee. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. April 2008, 5(2): 199-203. doi:10.1089/fpd.2007.0071. http://www.liebertonline.com. Retrieved 8/14/09.
21.“Is Free-Range Pork Really Riskier?” http://food.theatlantic.com. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
22.“The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009.
23.“Seafood Guide.” http://research.calacademy.org. Retrieved 8/14/2009.
24.“What’s Troubling Our Waters.” http://montereybayaquarium.org. Retrieved 8/5/2009
25.“Sustainable Seafood is Good for Business.” http://www.umassdining.com. Retrieved 8/14/09.
26.“What’s Troubling Our Waters.” http://montereybayaquarium.org. Retrieved 8/5/2009
In 2006 the United Nations published a report identifying the ‘very substantial contribution of animal agriculture to climate change and air pollution, to land, soil, and water degradation and to the reduction of biodiversity.’ Over 250 pages long, ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ (thus named to ‘help raise attention’) examines the impact of meat consumption not only on our environment, but also on our health. Nothing really changed in the 29 years between these two studies. The meat lobby pours money and energy into repressing the facts, and the government does little to oppose it. Disease, waste and pollution still plague the meat industry, and most people turn a blind eye.
Eating meat contributes to higher levels of cancer, cholesterol, heart disease, and obesity. Dr. Neal Barnard, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, claims that “The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all the natural disasters, and all the automobile accidents combined.” People who exclude meat from their diets have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”
Additives approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and common in meat products include: monosodium glutamate (MSG) for flavor enhancement, propyl gallate as a preservative, sodium chloride (salt) for flavor and as a preservative, and sodium nitrite as a preservative and for color and flavor. These additives are linked to symptoms ranging from headaches, nausea and weakness to high blood pressure and cancer. At least 29 different additives once approved by the FDA for consumption are now banned after studies showed them to be harmful.
Antibiotics are given to livestock mostly to hasten weight gain but also to stave off infection. Many animals are at-risk for disease due to their cramped and unsanitary living conditions. Although the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Preventative Medicine are all on record against administering antibiotics to animals that aren’t sick, the practice continues. Not only do these antibiotics end up contaminating water and land (through manure), they also encourage the development of drug-resistant bacteria, a threat to both animals and humans. It is estimated that close to 80% of the antibiotics produced in the United States are given to farm animals.
In addition to the health risks posed by meat consumption, the meat industry wastes resources and significantly contributes to pollution. Using an estimated 80% of the available agricultural land (for both the animals and growing the food to feed them), animals raised for human consumption in the U.S. alone eat more than enough grain and soybeans to feed one-fifth of the world’s population. A 2004 study claims that “the world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of… more than the entire human population on Earth.” When one considers that it can take up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat, this claim doesn’t seem farfetched. Add to that the fact more water is saved by forgoing just one pound of beef than by not showering for an entire year, and one can’t help but wonder if all this meat production is really worth the effort.
Global warming, the depletion of the rain forest, and animal suffering are other negative effects of the meat industry. The previously mentioned United Nations’ 2006 study showed that animal farming creates more greenhouse gases than all the vehicles in the world combined. Rain forests are routinely cut down to make room for more agricultural land (most used for meat production) – it is estimated that we lose 33.8 million acres of tropical forest every year. Not only does this affect the people who live on the land being razed, but about 100 species become extinct every day as a result. Animals suffer, forced to live in squalor. Often housed in spaces too crowded for them to move and with no access to the outside, they have shockingly short lives, are force-fed hormones and antibiotics to make them grow quickly (often faster than is physically healthy for them), and are slaughtered and/or castrated with nothing to minimize the pain.
Buying responsibly raised meat is not as simple as reading a label or choosing something stocked in the ‘organic’ section of the grocery store. Packaging labels like ‘sustainable,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘free-range’ can’t always be trusted. Companies and consumers argue about the definitions of these terms and how they should be regulated. Standards and regulations vary from state to state, and there is ample opportunity for companies to label their products in a misleading fashion.
Perhaps the most easily misused label is ‘sustainable.’ Sustainable farming is supposed to focus on raising food without harming the surrounding environment. It should provide safe conditions for workers and promote safe, healthy, and sanitary conditions for animals. But there is no certification for sustainability, and while it seems logical to assume that things labeled ‘organic’ are sustainably grown, that’s not necessarily the case.
Organic food is approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as independently certified. Almost all fertilizers and pesticides are forbidden, and so are genetic engineering and the use of antibiotics. Animals must be fed organically and have access to the outdoors. But in terms of being sustainable, there are definitely some ways this label can fail. Large companies selling organic food usually don’t employ sustainable practices, particularly when it comes to how their animals are treated. ‘Access to the outdoors’ doesn’t necessarily mean the animals get to go outside. It could simply be that there is a door that could be opened to let them out. Also, organic food can travel extensively before reaching your table. The greenhouse gases emitted in transportation are not environmentally responsible. Truly sustainable meat is raised as close to home as possible.
‘Free-range’ is a label not regulated by the USDA. To earn the label, animals are supposed to be fed a natural diet and have access to the outdoors. However, just like with the ‘organic’ regulation, that doesn’t mean they all roam freely. Even if they do get to leave their pen, the outside area’s size is unregulated and could be only big enough for a few crowded animals at a time. Truly free-range animals require more land, which can be a drain on resources. There is also no guarantee that the livestock are not treated with antibiotics and/or injected with hormones. Free-range animals are also often victim to the same painful methods of castration and slaughter as factory-farmed animals.
Higher levels of Omega 3s and cancer-fighting CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) are found in free-range, grass-fed beef. CLA levels in cattle raised on a natural diet are up to 40% higher than in grain-fed cattle. Free-range, grass-fed beef is also leaner, lower in calories, and can be cooked at lower temperatures. The biggest advantage to feeding cows grass is simply that they don’t consume grain. Growing corn takes more land and water than grass, and has to be transported, which emits greenhouse gases. Cows are fed corn because it makes them gain weight faster than usual. Since corn is not their natural diet, it also means they need to be given antibiotics, protein supplements and growth hormones. Allowing cattle to eat grass decreases the need for supplements and avoids the waste associated with corn farming. A downside to grass-fed beef is that some people find the taste unpleasant. Also, it isn’t guaranteed that beef labeled ‘free-range’ or ‘grass-fed’ hasn’t been given antibiotics or hormones.
The issues with free-range and cage-free poultry are much the same. Legally the terms don’t mean very much, and while farms are supposed to self-regulate it’s impossible to say how many follow the rules. Most people assume the birds have a natural diet and are allowed access to a large and pleasant outdoor area. While there are certainly some farms where this is the case, there are many where birds have little or no outside access and are given antibiotics and hormones to make them grow faster.
When it comes to pork, the terminology and potential problems are similar to those with poultry and beef. Free-range pork is said to have better taste and texture than factory-farmed pork. It also costs $3-$4 more per pound. But like anything labeled ‘free-range,’ these animals may be subject to crowding and other poor living conditions, along with painful tooth-grinding and slaughtering methods. At least one study shows that free-range pigs are more likely to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites, because they aren’t given antibiotics.
The problems with marine life consumption are just as complicated as those with other kinds of meat. Between waste, animal suffering, and the effect on the environment, fishing and fish farming are just as bad as meat farming on land. For instance, a 2009 United Nations report estimates that almost 25% of sea animals caught while fishing are discarded – usually dead or dying. The reasons for discard vary: too small, wrong species, lack of permits, no value, no more room on the boat, etc. Birds can be harmed as well, when caught in fishing lines or nets. Between 2 and 10 pounds of “waste” are discarded for every pound of shrimp caught by trawling. Not only are the discarded fish potential food for other fish that will now go hungry, they are often young fish that could be rebuilding the species’ population.
Between population growth and harmful fishing methods, humans are taking quite a toll on the ocean. Bottom fishing such as trawling and dredging significantly damages the ocean floor and the effects can take centuries to reverse. Pollution from fertilizer, sewage and chemicals destroys marine habitats. Over-fishing has sent several fish species, like bluefin tuna, to the endangered species list as well as forced thousands of people out of jobs. Species that used to be discarded if caught by accident are now being over-fished as other varieties no longer meet the demand.
About half of the world’s consumed fish are raised in fish farms. Often these farms depend on wild sea life for feed or to provide eggs or young, so when the ocean environment fails the wild population, the farms suffer too. Salmon and most other farmed fish are grown in net pens, where crowded conditions pollute the water and allow disease to spread quickly, sometimes into the surrounding wild fish population. Because disease can be so prevalent, they are often fed antibiotics and other drugs. These fish can take over the surrounding environment if they escape. Shrimp farming has devastated coastal mangrove forests in several tropical countries. Forests are cut down so shrimp farms can take over, but the pollution from their own waste forces the farms to move after just a few years.
There are responsible ways to catch sea life, and fishermen and scientists are constantly improving current methods and researching new ones. Catching shrimp in traps, for instance, allows fishermen to release 98% of unwanted animals unscathed. Other devices are being developed to help reduce unnecessary deaths. Fishermen can use electronic beepers to send animals like porpoises and whales away from their nets, and in some places these devices are required by law. Trap doors in nets are required by law on US shrimp boats to let turtles swim free if caught. Replacing methods like trawling and dragging with trap fishing and hook-and-line fishing helps preserve the sea floor. One solution to the damage caused by ocean-farmed fish is to move the farms inland, where waste is easier to manage and doesn’t affect ocean life. Plant-eating fish such as tilapia are easy to raise inland because they require no wild fish for feed.
Choosing responsibly farmed meat is hard. The factory-farming industry has made it near impossible to discern farms that practice responsible, sustainable farming from their own. As far as seafood goes, ocean-farmed oysters, clams, and mussels are good choices, as they have little impact on the environment and need no supplemental feeding. There are claims that sustainable fish can be cost-competitive, but in most cases the more sustainable choice is going to cost more money. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has a list on their website that includes advice on how to choose sustainably farmed and/or caught fish by species. They also have a ‘Seafood Watch’ that is available on both Facebook and Twitter.
As for meat raised on land, the ‘organic’ label means more in terms of definition and regulation than others. But organic farms, while certified by the USDA, are mostly self-regulated and therefore subject to some skepticism. Organic, free-range meat is also almost always more expensive. It seems the only truly informed way to responsibly buy meat is to find a local farm and develop a relationship with the owners. Visit it to make sure the methods it uses are ones you want to support, and buy from them. The most important step to shedding light on the dark side of eating meat is staying informed enough to make responsible decisions. You can’t just trust the packaging.
1.Pollan, Michael. “In Defense of Food.” New York: The Penguin Press. 2008.
2.Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006. p
3.“Eating for Life.” http://www.goveg.com. Retrieved 8/1/2009
4.“Long-Term Effects of Meat Eating.” www.innvista.com. Retrieved 7/31/2009.
5.“Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 8/1/2009.
6.“Food Additives.” http://www.cspinet.org. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
7.“Antibiotics in Meat: What You Need to Know.” http://www.babycenter.com. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
8.“Antibiotics in Your Meat: What’s the Big Deal?” http://www.princeton.edu. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
9.Gold, Mark and Porritt, Jonathon. “The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat.” 2004, p. 22. Retrieved from www.wellfedworld.org 8/11/2009.
10.“Wasted Resources.” http://www.goveg.com. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
11.“Cows and Climate Change.” http://www.treehugger.com. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
12.“Rainforest Destruction.” http://www.csupomona.edu. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
13.“Animal Suffering.” .” http://www.goveg.com. Retrieved 8/1/2009.
14.“At the Table – What are Sustainable and Organic?” http://www.sustainabletable.org. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
15.“How Free Is “Free-Range”?” http://www.cok.net. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
“Meat-Eating Environmentalist: A Contradiction in Terms?” http://earthfirst.com. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
16.“Health Benefit.” http://www.grasslandbeef.com. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
17.“Organic and Free-Range Meat.” http://liberationbc.org. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
18.“Putting flavor back into pork.” http://boston.com. Retrieved 7/31/2009.
19.“How Free Is “Free-Range”?” http://www.cok.net. Retrieved 8/3/2009.
20.Wondwossen A. Gebreyes, Peter B. Bahnson, Julie A. Funk, James McKean, Prapas Patchanee. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. April 2008, 5(2): 199-203. doi:10.1089/fpd.2007.0071. http://www.liebertonline.com. Retrieved 8/14/09.
21.“Is Free-Range Pork Really Riskier?” http://food.theatlantic.com. Retrieved 8/4/2009.
22.“The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009.
23.“Seafood Guide.” http://research.calacademy.org. Retrieved 8/14/2009.
24.“What’s Troubling Our Waters.” http://montereybayaquarium.org. Retrieved 8/5/2009
25.“Sustainable Seafood is Good for Business.” http://www.umassdining.com. Retrieved 8/14/09.
26.“What’s Troubling Our Waters.” http://montereybayaquarium.org. Retrieved 8/5/2009
Ani Concert
I want to thank three people in particular for making the concert I went to Friday night a memorable occasion.
First: knee-surgery-girl. You were sitting on a bench (there were very few) and there was an empty spot next to you. I, being seven months pregnant and quite uncomfortable on my feet, went to sit down. You said 'my friends are actually sitting there' and shooed me away. A couple minutes later you noticed how pregnant I was and apologized but said you were having knee surgery soon so you couldn't get up. Jonah said 'thanks for feeling guilty'. I wonder, were your friends having knee surgery too, that they couldn't give a pregnant lady their seat? And later, you miraculously managed to stand for the entire concert! Congratulations on your speedy recovery. I hate you.
Second: offensively smelly hippie guy who was obviously high as a kite and hadn't showered in at least a week. At first you were a tolerable distance in front of us. As you did your strange, claw-like grab (were you dancing?) at the stage, sometimes you got close enough for us to catch a whiff and see the back of your oily head. The guttural yell you randomly let out during/after songs struck us all as odd but we tried not to laugh. Somehow you ended up uncomfortably close and we asked you nicely to move. You said something about 'maintaining a path' and proceeded to back up even more, tensing your back against our attempts to move you farther away. You yelled at Jonah to 'back off' even though he wasn't touching you, and then asked if the people in front of us were too close to each other. Valid point, except they aren't seven months pregnant and when I said this and pointed to my belly you practically ran to the side away from me, like I was contagious. You stood a little too close to my friends for as long as you could muster, then made the 'I'm watching you' hand motion at us as you staggered away. I hope you O.D.
And last but not least: frat guy who spilled beer on me. You were so busy texting you had to hold your beer in your teeth. I guess I should be impressed, but then someone asked you a question and when you responded with an emphatic head shake, your beer spilled all over your phone and my leg. You didn't even notice until I started wiping my clothes off, at which point you apologized. Which was nice, but come on. Then you made some comment to one of your friends about how you're like cancer, you keep coming back. I love that line. I hope it worked on the hot chick you came there to pick up.
First: knee-surgery-girl. You were sitting on a bench (there were very few) and there was an empty spot next to you. I, being seven months pregnant and quite uncomfortable on my feet, went to sit down. You said 'my friends are actually sitting there' and shooed me away. A couple minutes later you noticed how pregnant I was and apologized but said you were having knee surgery soon so you couldn't get up. Jonah said 'thanks for feeling guilty'. I wonder, were your friends having knee surgery too, that they couldn't give a pregnant lady their seat? And later, you miraculously managed to stand for the entire concert! Congratulations on your speedy recovery. I hate you.
Second: offensively smelly hippie guy who was obviously high as a kite and hadn't showered in at least a week. At first you were a tolerable distance in front of us. As you did your strange, claw-like grab (were you dancing?) at the stage, sometimes you got close enough for us to catch a whiff and see the back of your oily head. The guttural yell you randomly let out during/after songs struck us all as odd but we tried not to laugh. Somehow you ended up uncomfortably close and we asked you nicely to move. You said something about 'maintaining a path' and proceeded to back up even more, tensing your back against our attempts to move you farther away. You yelled at Jonah to 'back off' even though he wasn't touching you, and then asked if the people in front of us were too close to each other. Valid point, except they aren't seven months pregnant and when I said this and pointed to my belly you practically ran to the side away from me, like I was contagious. You stood a little too close to my friends for as long as you could muster, then made the 'I'm watching you' hand motion at us as you staggered away. I hope you O.D.
And last but not least: frat guy who spilled beer on me. You were so busy texting you had to hold your beer in your teeth. I guess I should be impressed, but then someone asked you a question and when you responded with an emphatic head shake, your beer spilled all over your phone and my leg. You didn't even notice until I started wiping my clothes off, at which point you apologized. Which was nice, but come on. Then you made some comment to one of your friends about how you're like cancer, you keep coming back. I love that line. I hope it worked on the hot chick you came there to pick up.
Monday, April 27, 2009
My Square Foot Garden
It's starting to rain. I went outside to check on the garden and couldn't figure out what was making that noise. A pitter patter - exactly like rain - but I couldn't see any. I looked for worms popping up through the dirt, weird bugs in the air, someone throwing very small rocks. Eventually I saw the rain. The noise was from hitting the plastic I cover the unused leaf compost with.
We got a truckload of leaf compost from a local recycling facility for $14. I drove the truck up to a one story high, football field length pile and a bulldozer came up behind us and dumped the back full of rich black soil. Elliot was fascinated but scared - the noise and the way the truck lurched when the dirt started to hit was pretty powerful. I mixed the compost with vermiculite and peat moss in a 1-1-1 ratio and filled three 4.5' x 8', 6 inch deep beds with the result. I used 'fake' peat moss for one of the beds, to see how it compares to the real stuff. Since peat moss isn't a sustainable product, it isn't very popular with local gardeners. In fact, when I asked a local shop if they had any in stock, I got a half-lecture about it!
Elliot's day care provider got this book called 'Square Foot Gardening' and she raved about it so much I bought and read a copy. It talks about how inefficient row gardening is. According to the author (who used to be an efficiency engineer before he retired and got into gardening), gardening by his square foot method is something like 80% more efficient than gardening by the row. You never have to till the soil, because you don't walk on it. The beds are never more than 4 feet wide, so if you have access to all sides you should be able to reach anything you plant. And he claims that if you use the mix of vermiculite, peat moss, and compost he suggests, all you will ever need to enrich your soil is a cup or so of compost per square foot one or two times a year (depending on how often you re-plant the square foot).
In a row garden, you could till and fertilize 100 square feet but over half of that work is pointless because you have to leave room for walking between the rows, etc. You also have to constantly modify the soil, since you never really know the quality you're starting with. Adding fertilizer, etc. can get expensive and time-consuming, especially if you're adding it to the places you walk!
I love having an 'organized' garden. It makes it much more logical, which I appreciate, and - for me at least - easier to wrap my head around where stuff goes, because I can put it anywhere I want! Right now we have lettuce, broccoli, radishes, beans, tomatoes, corn, leeks, onions, sage, basil, parsley, chives, and some other stuff I'm sure I'm forgetting poking through the ground. Now I just have to get rid of the weeds around my garden beds and put down some nicer ground cover....
We got a truckload of leaf compost from a local recycling facility for $14. I drove the truck up to a one story high, football field length pile and a bulldozer came up behind us and dumped the back full of rich black soil. Elliot was fascinated but scared - the noise and the way the truck lurched when the dirt started to hit was pretty powerful. I mixed the compost with vermiculite and peat moss in a 1-1-1 ratio and filled three 4.5' x 8', 6 inch deep beds with the result. I used 'fake' peat moss for one of the beds, to see how it compares to the real stuff. Since peat moss isn't a sustainable product, it isn't very popular with local gardeners. In fact, when I asked a local shop if they had any in stock, I got a half-lecture about it!
Elliot's day care provider got this book called 'Square Foot Gardening' and she raved about it so much I bought and read a copy. It talks about how inefficient row gardening is. According to the author (who used to be an efficiency engineer before he retired and got into gardening), gardening by his square foot method is something like 80% more efficient than gardening by the row. You never have to till the soil, because you don't walk on it. The beds are never more than 4 feet wide, so if you have access to all sides you should be able to reach anything you plant. And he claims that if you use the mix of vermiculite, peat moss, and compost he suggests, all you will ever need to enrich your soil is a cup or so of compost per square foot one or two times a year (depending on how often you re-plant the square foot).
In a row garden, you could till and fertilize 100 square feet but over half of that work is pointless because you have to leave room for walking between the rows, etc. You also have to constantly modify the soil, since you never really know the quality you're starting with. Adding fertilizer, etc. can get expensive and time-consuming, especially if you're adding it to the places you walk!
I love having an 'organized' garden. It makes it much more logical, which I appreciate, and - for me at least - easier to wrap my head around where stuff goes, because I can put it anywhere I want! Right now we have lettuce, broccoli, radishes, beans, tomatoes, corn, leeks, onions, sage, basil, parsley, chives, and some other stuff I'm sure I'm forgetting poking through the ground. Now I just have to get rid of the weeds around my garden beds and put down some nicer ground cover....
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The other morning I was taking Elliot to day care on my bicycle. I had a stop sign, so I stopped. Cross traffic has no stop sign at that intersection, so when I saw a car coming from the left I prepared to wait. I can't do the 'stop and wobble on your pedals without putting your feet down' thing, so this means I put one leg down and came to a complete stop. An obvious stop.
The driver was a woman, on her cell phone, and she rolled slowly up to the intersection and stopped about a quarter of the way through. She didn't wave at me or make any indication with a blinker or otherwise about what she was doing, so I kept waiting. She kept talking on her cell phone, sitting there. Finally, I yelled 'you don't have a stop sign!' and she made some motion with her hand that could have been interpreted as 'go on in front of me' but when the teams are: my son and I on a bicycle vs. an obviously-not-paying-good-attention-to-anything woman in a vehicle that weighs at least a ton, I'm going to err on the side of caution.
So I waited some more. And then I said again 'you don't have a stop sign!' She stuck her head out the window and yelled 'I KNOW I was just trying to be NICE'.
#$%$%^$#&!!!! Are you kidding me? There is NOTHING nice about that. It's just CONFUSING and DANGEROUS. I have to be the first to say that I do not follow the rules about everything. But when it comes to driving? The rules are there to keep people from dying. Bicycles are supposed to follow the same rules as cars to keep things safe. There shouldn't be any gray areas. I hate when bicycles roll through red lights or careen across crosswalks expecting traffic to stop for them. It's not safe! Follow the damn rules! Arg!
The driver was a woman, on her cell phone, and she rolled slowly up to the intersection and stopped about a quarter of the way through. She didn't wave at me or make any indication with a blinker or otherwise about what she was doing, so I kept waiting. She kept talking on her cell phone, sitting there. Finally, I yelled 'you don't have a stop sign!' and she made some motion with her hand that could have been interpreted as 'go on in front of me' but when the teams are: my son and I on a bicycle vs. an obviously-not-paying-good-attention-to-anything woman in a vehicle that weighs at least a ton, I'm going to err on the side of caution.
So I waited some more. And then I said again 'you don't have a stop sign!' She stuck her head out the window and yelled 'I KNOW I was just trying to be NICE'.
#$%$%^$#&!!!! Are you kidding me? There is NOTHING nice about that. It's just CONFUSING and DANGEROUS. I have to be the first to say that I do not follow the rules about everything. But when it comes to driving? The rules are there to keep people from dying. Bicycles are supposed to follow the same rules as cars to keep things safe. There shouldn't be any gray areas. I hate when bicycles roll through red lights or careen across crosswalks expecting traffic to stop for them. It's not safe! Follow the damn rules! Arg!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
