(NaturalNews) If the Hippocrates maxim that “food should be considered as our first medicine” is right, we are on the brink of some really bad medicine. Recently, Obama selected as his “Food Czar”, a former Monsanto executive and FDA manipulator, Michael Taylor. More recently, the Orwellian labeled Food Safety Enhancement Bill (HR 2749) was passed easily by the House of Representatives.

The bill is on a fast track for Senate and Presidential approval. If it becomes law as written, this combination of a corrupt Food Czar and misleadingly named Food Safety Bill threatens to take out the food that is medicine and leave us with the food that is poison.

The Food Safety Bill Threatens Safe Food

Before you consider most of this bill as benign or even helpful, as many main stream outlets are promoting, read on and do your own research on the ambiguity of the bill, of which interpretation and enforcement will be left to the discretion of The Food Czar.

The Food Safety Bill does next to nothing to protect consumers from the industrial foods of agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and their ilk. It has the potential to be an instrument of legal oppression for small farmers, organic farming, even farmers’ markets and food co-ops. Some indicate the Bill’s language is broad enough to even include home vegetable gardens!

Setting a uniform fee of $500 annual, regardless of company or farm size, for the privilege of being policed by the FDA is a relatively minor inequity. This bill, when passed into law, gives the FDA the power to have random inspections on any food producing or storage group without probable cause. There have already been raids on food co-ops, such as the Ohio Department of Agriculture La Grange co-op raid in December of 2008, where all the food was seized without testing.

According to Gunny G Online: “This astounding control will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.”

HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation. Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”? Not even. The so called Food Safety Bill hands carte blanch enforcement to the whims of Obama’s Food Czar.

Introducing Obama’s Food Czar

“The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US Food Safety Czar. This is no joke”, says Jeffrey Smith about Michael Taylor’s appointment in a recent Huffington Post article. Jeffrey Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette. Perhaps that is exaggerated, but Michael Taylor’s history with Monsanto and the FDA through the corporate/government revolving door is scary enough to provoke such an assertion.

In the early 1990′s, Michael Taylor was an attorney for Monsanto. He was parsing legalese and loopholes for the wonderful group that has brought the world DDT, PCB’s, Agent Orange, NutraSweet (aspartame), bovine growth hormone, GMO foods, toxic pesticides and weed killers (Round Up), and terminator seeds.

Michael passed through the revolving door connecting the corporate world and government more than once to ensure Monsanto’s unabated success with pushing profitable poisons into the world’s food supply.

After functioning as a lead attorney with Monsanto, he managed to be appointed as the FDA Policy Chief. From that position he wrote a “white paper” (an authoritative official declaration) on the safety of bovine growth hormones. He ensured that dairy farmers using Monsanto’s rbGH would not be required to label its milk products with the bovine growth hormone, which passes puss and toxins into the cow’s milk.

This white paper also gave Monsanto the ability to sue dairy farmers who labeled their products rbGH or growth hormone free, which Monsanto zealously pursued to financially destroy small dairy farmers. Monsanto Mike also oversaw the FDA ruling that dairy farmers who labeled their products as non rbGH needed to include that the FDA has determined there is no difference between milk from rbGH cows and non rbGH cows, which is a complete lie.

Author/journalist Jeffrey Smith was tipped from a former Monsanto scientist that three colleagues at Monsanto, upon discovering the hazards of milk from rbGH injected cows, switched to organic dairy products. Some FDA scientists also knew of the dangers and the improper testing by Monsanto. But they don’t make the final decisions. That’s a function of the FDA Policy Chief, and that was Michael Taylor.

The revolving door swooshed around and Michael Taylor landed back in Monsanto as vice president and chief lobbyist. Only months ago the door spun around once again and Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the FDA commissioner. Good timing. From that position he could easily be promoted into Obama’s cabinet as the Food Safety Czar.

In case you may still doubt USA government collusion with Monsanto, here’s an interesting item from “Monsanto Buys Terminator Seeds Company” by F. William Engdahl. “In March 1998 the US Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to Delta & Pine Land for a patent titled, Control of Plant Gene Expression. The patent is owned jointly, according to Delta & Pine’s Security & Exchange Commission 10K filing, by D&PL and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

The title “Control of Plant Gene Expression” refers to terminator seeds. These seeds make it impossible to save seeds from a harvest for replanting the next crop, an age old tradition for most farmers. This is a nail in the coffin of independent farming world wide, as once farmers begin using GMO seeds, they have to come back to buy again and again. Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land (D & PL) in 2008, and now the USDA shares the terminator seed patent rights for royalties with Monsanto.

When Big Business owns Government, it is called fascism. When Government owns Big Business, it is called communism. Does this mean we will now have both for our food supply?

What This Means to Consumers

It means this bill will have the FDA, along with the USDA, to act as minions directly instead of indirectly for Monsanto and other literally unhealthy corporations. The FDA would be linking up with other World Trade Organization (WTO) efforts to control farming world wide, while catering to the greedy ambitions of International Agribusiness, its related industries, and Processed Food Manufacturers. FDA, USDA, and WTO bureaucrats are sponsored and headed by the enemies of organic and wholesome food farming.

The WTO is capable of legally levying ridiculous fines or mandating trade sanctions, including food sanctions, on regions that don’t comply with WTO governed organizations, such as WHO (World Health Organization), the organization that is ushering in dangerous forced vaccinations for 195 member nations. The WTO is planning severe farming regulations that are expected to be world wide.

Setting up a Food Czar from Monsanto with FDA connections via his revolving door career means that rbGH dairy, GMO’s, terminator seeds and pesticides for crops will dominate in our food supply and prosper as “safe” while organic and wholesome foods will be declared dangerous and become a threatened species. The main stream media is already publicizing propaganda against organic food.

You may want to start your own organic garden by yourself or with others soon. This is what the Cubans did in defense of all the trade sanctions imposed on them. And most of Cuba’s crops are now organic!

Activists don’t seem to feel confident about the bill losing steam on its fast track to becoming law. They have decided the best that can be done is petitioning for rewording of key passages with the Senate to soften HR 2749 before it gets to the president for ratification.

They need your help. Perhaps you may be able to start with the first three sources in bold below.

Sources:

Organic Consumers Association action page
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18709.cfm

Communist Takeover Of All Food Production From Farm To Fork Almost Complete!
http://www.healthtruthrevealed.com/articles/10443121107/article

The Farm Blog – GMO Real Story
http://polyfaceyum.blogspot.com/2009/02/gmo-real-story.html

Monsanto Buys Terminator Seed Company by F. William Engdahl
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082

HR 2479: Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/hr-2749-totalitarian-control-of-the-food-supply/

Jeffrey Smith article on Obama’s Food Czar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html
and http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

NSSM 200 “Food as a weapon”
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html

List of Obama Czars (before most recent selections)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_czars_of_the_Obama_administration

Ohio ODA raid on organic food co-op
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/02/Unconscionable-Police-Raid-on-Familys-Home-and-Organic-Food-CoOp.aspx

Reposted from NaturalNews.

At first blush, global warming seems to be a great hook for those of us promoting animal-friendly eating, but there are two problems:

1. Offering accurate information. Many people say that meat is the leading cause of global warming. But this is not true; the production of meat is not the leading cause of greenhouse gases — only more than transportation. From:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607612562
Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health

Although the main human source of greenhouse-gas emissions is combustion of fossil fuels for energy generation, non-energy emissions (including from agriculture and land-use changes) contribute more than a third of the total greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide.

And elsewhere:

Greenhouse-gas emissions from the agriculture sector account for about 22% of global total emissions; this contribution is similar to that of industry and greater than that of transport. Livestock production (including transport of livestock and feed) accounts for nearly 80% of the sector’s emissions.

So livestock comes after energy generation and industry. And that is only globally; from the Salon article referenced below:

Here in the U.S., livestock’s impact is not quite so extreme: Six percent of our greenhouse gases come from livestock production, compared with 19 percent from cars, light trucks and airplanes.

See more here (scroll down to the update).

As we’ve said elsewhere, no meat eater is actively seeking to be a vegetarian; rather, people are looking for a reason to dismiss us. When we exaggerate or lie, that is all that is remembered — not the underlying reality. That worldwide meat production contributes more to global warming than all of transportation is accurate and striking; there is no reason to exaggerate.

2. The expected impact in the public mind, and how it thus actually affects animals. When the public hears “livestock” (as in “livestock causes more global warming than transportation”), they think cattle, and the conclusion is that they should eat less beef. Even when people hear “meat … global warming,” they think burping (or flatulent) cows. (Of course, the news is written by, and the media run by, meat eaters. So they will always choose the side that is least challenging to their habits / the status quo.)

For those that look into the science and aren’t already vegan, concern for global warming leads almost inevitably to more chickens being eaten (it takes about 190 chickens to provide the same number of meals as one steer; see “Suffering per Kilogram” and “Farm Animal Welfare, Legislation, and Trade” (pdf).

For example, from:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/22/peta/index.html

“Astonishingly enough,” says study coauthor Gidon Eshel, a Bard College geophysicist, “the poultry diet is actually better than lacto-ovo vegetarian.” In other words, a roast chicken dinner is better for the planet than a cheese pizza.

How about going vegan?

The average American is responsible for about 26 tons annually, so if the entire U.S. population went vegan, we’d reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by only 6 percent.

The vast majority of that 6 percent is from cutting out beef and dairy. (The entire article is worth reading for how “informed” opinion plays this out.)

Similarly:

Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States
Environ. Sci. Technol. In press

Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.

The LA Times shows “replace beef with chicken” in action:

“No hamburger patties?” asked an incredulous football player, repeating the words of the grill cook. He glowered at the posted sign: ‘Cows or cars? Worldwide, livestock emits 18% of greenhouse gases, more than the transportation sector! Today we’re offering great-tasting vegetarian choices.’ “Just give me three chicken breasts, please,” he said….

Here is another example. A final data point is that if Al Gore — who believes global warming is an existential risk — won’t change, it would appear that global warming/veg isn’t an incredibly compelling argument for veganism (see here, and comments).
My general impression (and I know there are exceptions to this and all arguments) is that global warming is another argument that makes sense to us, and makes us think, “Here is a great, self-interested hook I can use to convince others of veganism’s superiority!” But it isn’t a question of whether veganism is the best diet for addressing global warming (as far as I can tell, it is). The bottom line has to be the actual impact of the message we choose to present. In other words: we shouldn’t seek out and use arguments that seem to support veganism — veganism isn’t the point. If we take suffering seriously, we must seek to present a message that reduces the most suffering.

As Nobel Laureate Herb Simon discovered, human psychology / decision making is often determined by ‘good enough.’ People don’t hear about a concern (especially a relatively abstract issue like global warming) and take it to the fullest extent — e.g., stop driving at all — but rather, those motivated enough will do something (drive a bit less, drive a more fuel-efficient car) and feel good that they are doing something. (The same has held true for “the health argument“)

In this case, though, doing “something” means eating a lot more chickens. We can say, “But being vegan is even better!” till we’re blue in the face, but experience shows that this is effective only in the rarest of cases; the vast majority of people who will be moved at all about global warming are happy to be ‘taking action’ by eating a lot more chickens. (And it is the cattle industry that is worried about the global warming / diet argument, not the poultry industry — the latter loves anything that badmouths beef.)

Although the global warming / food connection seems clear to us and appears to justify our veganism, the bottom line is how it actually plays out in people’s minds via the actual media. When used on its own, I fear that the diet / global warming angle does significantly more harm (more chickens eaten) than good (people actually going veg who otherwise wouldn’t have if exposed to the realities of modern agribusiness).

For this reason, I think that we should be very careful how we use global warming. It is a hot topic, so it gives us an “in” with the media and environmental groups. But if we present it on its own, given human psychology, the case is almost always going to have the bottom line of eating more chickens. In my opinion, the global warming / diet connection does more harm than good when presented on its own, but can work as a hook to capture attention and allow us to draw attention to the horrors of modern agribusiness, with a special focus on cruelty to chickens.

PS On a related topic, there is growing recognition that increased usage of certain biofuels will exacerbate global hunger (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/5wmh3y). Of course, the same argument of resource usage can be made regarding using crops as animals feed (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/2lvbww) — according to the FAO, only 100m tonnes of cereal crops go to biofuel, while 760m tonnes go to animal feed — and the latter figure isn’t even counting soy. As pointed out here:

There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the 2.13bn tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, will feed people…. But there is a bigger reason for global hunger, which is attracting less attention only because it has been there for longer. While 100m tonnes of food will be diverted this year to feed cars, 760m tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals — which could cover the global food deficit 14 times. If you care about hunger, eat less meat.

Keep in mind, however, that beef is much, much less efficient than chicken (and eggs) — see, again, the Salon article:

Welcome, then, the savior of environmentally concerned carnivores everywhere: the chicken. Unlike cattle, chickens don’t burp methane. They also have an amazing ability to turn a relatively small amount of grain into a large amount of protein. A chicken requires 2 pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat, compared with about 6 pounds of grain for a feedlot cow and 3 pounds for a pig. Poultry waste produces only about one-tenth of the methane of hog and cattle manure.

Like thousands of activists over the past decades, I’d love to think there is some perfect, logical, self-interested argument that won’t just vindicate my veganism, but will convince large numbers of people to go vegan, while not leading others to eat more chickens. But this is not the case — there just aren’t lots of people out there who secretly want to be vegan but just need that one statistic. For nearly everyone, any change away from the status quo is difficult and resisted. As much as we’d love to argue otherwise, in response to health or environmental arguments, the first, easiest, most convenient, and socially acceptable step is to eat more chickens.

It is worth briefly considering why health and environmental arguments seem to be more easily “accepted” by people, and why most individuals are resistant and defensive when faced with the cruelty argument. Much of this could well be that health choices are personal (and easily overridden by habit, convenience, etc, even in the face of severe health issues), while environmental concerns are abstract and easily assuaged by taking some action (new lightbulbs, recycling) from the laundry list of suggested actions (“No one’s perfect!”).

The obvious cruelty and vicious brutality of factory farms, however, is both real, immediate, undeniable, and clearly an ethical challenge to our view of ourselves. For these reasons, the animals’ suffering can’t be easily dismissed and forgotten; thus it is important for meat eaters to avoid the issue as much as possible (and to make the messenger the issue, whenever possible). For the same reason, it is incumbent on us, as animal advocates, to actually advocate the animals’ case, so that no one can avoid facing the hidden reality.

As I’ve written elsewhere:

I’m not fooling myself – I know that exposing what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses isn’t going to reach everyone. But feel-good arguments that avoid the horrors of meat production are easily dismissed, and thus simply not compelling enough. We don’t want people to nod in agreement and continue on as before. It is far better if 95% of people turn away revolted and 5% open their minds to change, than if everyone smiles politely and continues on to McDonald’s for a chicken sandwich.

Let me repeat: Trying to appeal to everyone hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. It is well past time to give up the fantasy that there is some perfect self-centered argument that will magically compel everyone to change.

In deciding what to present to the public, our criteria shouldn’t be, “Does this seem to denigrate (some) meat and/or support veganism?” We shouldn’t be trying to justify our diet — we need to stand up for the animals. We don’t get to determine how people should react; we must consider how our chosen argument will actually play out to the general public and through the media. We must set aside our personal biases and needs, and honestly ask, “Is this the argument that will alleviate as much suffering as possible?” The animals are counting on us.

Reprinted from Vegan Outreach.

With April being a cold month in Toronto so far, it is hard to feel too concerned about global warming. But it is worth noting that the greenhouse effect can cause weather extremes in both directions.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar for best documentary in 2006. The clear message in this ground-breaking movie is that governments, industry and people must cut down on fossil fuel use, and soon.

We can also play a powerful role for positive change by adjusting what we eat. Global climate change is directly related to agriculture through the loss of wilderness to farmland, methane released from animals, and energy-intensive fertilizers, pesticides, food processing and transportation.

By eating low on the food chain, locally-grown and organic, you can make a significant difference.

Why didn’t Gore mention anything about agriculture in the movie? 

Likely Gore wanted to keep the message focused, and targeted to the political situation in the U.S.

The more in-depth book version of An Inconvenient Truth, does suggest buying local and eating less meat. On page 317 it says:

Americans consume almost a quarter of all the beef produced in the world. Aside from health issues associated with eating lots of meat, a high-meat diet translates into a tremendous amount of carbon emissions. It takes far more fossil-fuel energy to produce and transport meat than to deliver equivalent amounts of protein from plant sources.

In addition, much of the world’s deforestation is a result of clearing and burning to create grazing land for livestock. This creates further damage by destroying trees that would otherwise absorb carbon dioxide. Fruits, vegetables, and grains, on the other hand, require 95% less raw materials to produce and, when combined properly, can provide a complete and nutritious diet. If more Americans shifted to a less meat-intensive diet, we could greatly reduce CO2 emissions and also save vast quantities of water and other precious natural resources.”

When the movie was made, the role of diet may not have been as well known as it is now. An important report released in Nov. 2006 by the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization shows that livestock production is responsible for an incredible 18 percent of human induced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide – more than all of the world’s motor vehicles.

Agriculture plays a significant role

Agriculture emits carbon dioxide through transportation, fertilizer production and the energy used for factory farming.

Deforestation (partly to clear land for agriculture) is responsible for 13% of climate change through the release of stored carbon dioxide. Methane causes 17.3% of climate change due to livestock digestion, animal manure, rice paddies, dams, fossil fuel extraction, and landfills. Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) accounts for 5.4% mostly due to fertilizers.

Surprisingly, the actual burning of fossil fuels accounts for only 39% of climate change mostly from cars, industry and heating homes. (This accounts for 75% of CO₂ emissions. The rest is due to deforestation.)

Figures are from Story Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Warming, by Guy Dauncey, 2001

Deforestation

At least 13% of climate change is due to cutting down or burning forests. A lot of forest is cleared for agriculture, especially in rainforest regions.

The photo to the right is a satellite image of the Brazilian State of Rondonia. Intact wilderness is dark green. Farms and recently deforested areas are lighter colours.

Satellite data shows that 600 fires were started each day on average during 2004 to clear land for farming. The rate of destruction has doubled in the last decade. Rainforests are home to one third of land species.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7547087 (picture 5)

Burning of fossil fuel

About 39% of climate change is due to using oil, natural gas and other fuels. Some of this energy is used for the processing, packaging, refrigeration, and transportation of food, factory farms, and the production of fertilizers and pesticides.

A 2002 Worldwatch report says that a typical meal made with ingredients from a supermarket takes four to 17 times more petroleum consumption in transport than the same meal made from local ingredients. And a head of lettuce grown in California and shipped nearly 3,000 miles to Washington, D.C., requires about 36 times as much fossil fuel energy in transport as it provides in food energy when it arrives.

In terms of production, animal foods demand a lot more energy than plant foods. According to one study, meat production requires 10 to 20 times more energy per edible tonne than grain production. Growing feed crops requires extensive energy for ploughing, harvesting, pumping irrigation water, transportation, and producing fertilizer and pesticides. Once grown, the crops are dried and processed using additional energy.

Furthermore, the housing of pigs and chickens in huge windowless sheds requires energy for artificial ventilation, conveyor belts and electric lighting. Slaughterhouses are also energy intensive.

For harvesting fish, extensive energy and resources go into building, maintaining and fueling fleets of trawlers.

Methane

Methane is responsible for 17.3% of climate change. The high percentage is due to the fact that methane is 23 times more potent than CO₂. The good news is that its warming effect only lasts 10 years compared to 100 years for carbon dioxide. Scaling back methane emissions will lead to a quicker reduction in climate change due to the shorter lag time.

Livestock digestion (i.e. burps and farts from cows and sheep) accounts for 18% of total global methane emissions, and factory farm waste lagoons account for a further 7% of emissions. Combined, these two sources equal 4.3% of total climate change. Other sources include dams (accounting for 20% of emissions), fossil fuel extraction (20%) and landfills (10%). Rice paddies account for around 10%, but rice is a staple food for a lot more people (half the world’s population) than cow meat is, and BBC reports that there are varieties of rice being developed that emit much less methane.

Dams are often built to hold water for irrigating crops – especially feed crops such as corn and soy. In Alberta, most large rivers have been dammed for the main purpose of collecting water for irrigation.

Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) is a powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for 5.4% of climate change. It has one of the longest atmosphere lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, lasting for up to 150 years. Since the Industrial Revolution, the level of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere has increased by 16%.

About 70% of human induced N₂0 emissions is due to the widespread use of nitrogen-based fertilizers. Tilling soil, transportation and industry make up much of the rest.

Farming practices and the loss of CO₂ from soil

In Canada and United States, farming practices amount to 8% of climate change due to the release of methane, CO₂, and N₂O. This figure doesn’t include deforestation when new farms are created. In the rest of the world, where there are fewer cars and industry, farming accounts for a much higher percentage of climate change.

Tilling soil causes carbon dioxide to be released. There are roughly 44 tons of C0₂ in an acre of healthy soil. Tilling a field releases up to 4 tons of CO₂ per acre. The United States has lost a third of the original topsoil since settlement.

Every year, the planet’s soils absorb roughly 50 billion tonnes of carbon from decaying vegetation and release 50 billion tonnes through decomposition. But forest destruction and farming weakens the soil, causing 1.5 billion tonnes to be lost to the atmosphere. It is estimated that about 7% of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from carbon that has been lost from soil.

Photo: Healthy soil is full of life and capable of absorbing carbon dioxide.

What you can do

Eat low on the food chain

Moving toward a vegetarian diet is the most powerful food choice you can make to reduce climate change. A meat-based diet uses far more agricultural land than a vegetarian diet because domesticated animals must also be fed. Taking individual weights into account, food animals outweigh people in North America by a factor of four to one! All these animals need food, water and transportation. Most of our farmland is dedicated to feeding them.

By curtailing our meat consumption we could free up millions of acres of agricultural land that could be returned to forest and wild prairie, absorbing tons of CO₂ in the process.

Using less farmland also means less soil erosion, less irrigation water, less pesticide, less N₂O emissions, and less fossil fuel for farm machinery and fertilizer production.

The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization issued a stunning report on global warming in Nov. 2006. Livestock production is responsible for more climate change gasses than all the motor vehicles in the world. In total, it is responsible for 18 percent of human induced greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

A recent study at the University of Chicago, found that a vegan diet is the most efficient, saving a ton and a half of CO₂ or equivalents per year when compared to a standard North American diet. By comparison, the average American car driver emits 1.9 to 4.7 tons of carbon dioxide, depending on the vehicle model and fuel efficiency. The study found that red meat and, surprisingly, fish were responsible for the highest emissions. Most seafood undergoes energy-intensive long-distance travel from ocean to market. Energy used for food production accounts for about 17 percent of all fossil fuel used in the United States. Furthermore, livestock production emits greenhouse gases not associated with fossil-fuel combustion, primarily methane and nitrous oxide.

Also see Meat production’s environmental toll,
and Fish & seafood – the environmental costs

Eat locally grown and organic

Buying locally grown food greatly reduces the energy and resources necessary to transport and store foods. Typically, produce from Mexico or California is shipped in refrigerated trucks. When you buy long-distance food part of the price you pay is for fuel and the truck. Fresh food from other continents is typically flown in by airplanes. Planes require staggering amounts of fuel to lift produce and meat into the air and across oceans.

Buying organic foods supports farmers that are using alternatives to nitrogen-based and petroleum-based fertilizers. Organic farming methods also tend to be more gentle on the soil, helping to reduce soil erosion and CO2 emissions from soil.

See Eating Local and Organic

Reduce food and packaging waste

A 2004 study, from the University of Arizona, found that half of all food ready for harvest never gets eaten. The average family of four throws out $600 worth of good food every year.

There is a huge opportunity to reduce this wastage by adjusting shopping, storage and eating habits. For example, eating leftovers is a great way to reduce the amount of garbage that ends up being trucked to landfill sites. Landfills emit methane, and food wastage requires more agricultural land.

Look for foods that require little or no packaging, such as whole fruits, vegetables, and bulk dry goods. By eating vegetarian meals, you can avoid animal products that tend to require more energy for processing, packaging, and refrigeration than plant-based foods.

See Minimizing wastage for simple ways to reduce waste.

Story Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Warming, by Guy Dauncey, 2001

In July 4, 2006, Guy Dauncey (earthfuture.com) informed us that “all emissions related to food, including CO2, methane from cattle, and nitrous oxides from fertilizing, are included in both Kyoto and national greenhouse gas emissions figures.”

Reprinted from the Toronto Vegetarian Association.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommerical-No Derivative Works 2.l5 License.

Environmental Health Perspectives Article Implicates Role of Animal Agriculture in Climate Change

An article in the current issue of Environmental Health Perspectives highlights the connection between animal agriculture and the most pressing environmental issue of our time-climate change. Published in the peer-reviewed journal of the U.S. government’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a subdivision of the National Institutes of Health, the piece written by staff members of The Humane Society of the United States will reach public health and environmental experts and policy makers worldwide.

In their article, Gowri Koneswaran, Esq., director of animal agricultural impacts, and Danielle Nierenberg, M.S., animal agriculture and climate change specialist, detail how the farm animal production sector contributes to climate change and global warming during nearly every stage of production-from the greenhouse gases emitted by fertilizer and feed production to the fossil fuels required to operate factory farms and to slaughter and process animals. Koneswaran and Nierenberg discuss a variety of mitigation strategies not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to improve the welfare of billions of farm animals. These strategies include encouraging more pasture-raised and organic animal agriculture and reducing consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products to make production more sustainable.

“Although factory farming’s impacts on the environment, public health, and animal welfare are increasingly well-documented, only recently has the animal agriculture sector’s role in climate change been evaluated, and the preliminary findings are staggering,” says Nierenberg. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, meat, egg, and dairy production accounts for an estimated 18 percent, nearly one-fifth, of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions-a larger share than all transportation combined.

According to Koneswaran, “There is already a growing list of critical reasons to shun industrial animal agribusiness, and that sector’s starring role in climate change is yet another. Choosing non-factory farmed products and reducing consumption of meat, eggs, and milk are two important ways to help lessen the devastating effects of animal farming on climate change.”

Entitled “Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change,” the article appears in the May 2008 issue of the journal.

Facts:

• Globally, approximately 56 billion land animals are reared and slaughtered annually for human consumption. Farm animal populations are expected to double by 2050.
• Over the last few decades, factory farming has grown at twice the rate of mixed farming systems (crop and farm animal) and at more than six times the rate of pasture-based systems. Industrial operations account for an estimated 67 percent of poultry production, 50 percent of egg production and 42 percent of pork production.
• Climate change’s far-reaching impacts not only threaten the environment, but also contribute to increased conflict, hunger and disease.

Timeline:

• April 2008-The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production releases the results of a two-year study, concluding that factory farms pose unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and animal welfare.
• January 2008-Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stresses the importance of lifestyle changes, including eating less meat, as a way to combat climate change.
• January 2008-National Council for Science and the Environment’s conference “Climate Change: Science and Solutions” includes breakout session on animal agriculture and climate change, organized by staff of The Humane Society of the United States.
• December 2007-On behalf of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri accepts the Nobel Peace Prize with co-recipient Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
• November 2007-The Humane Society of the United States releases its report, “The Impact of Animal Agriculture on Global Warming and Climate Change,” pointing to the significant roles that meat, egg and dairy production play in climate change and other serious environmental problems.
• September 2007-The Lancet, the world’s leading independent general medical journal, publishes a study that advocates a reduction in meat and milk consumption for residents of high-income countries, both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and for human health benefits.
• May 2007-The IPCC releases its long-awaited report on climate change science, impacts and mitigation strategies, finding that greenhouse gas emissions have risen due to human activities, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004.
• November 2006-The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations releases “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options,” which states that animal agriculture is “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems” and is a major driver of climate change.

-30-

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization – backed by 10.5 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty – On the web at humanesociety.org.

Sign-On “Cool Foods” Pledge Encourages Restaurants and Food Retailers to Reduce Their “Foodprint” by Making Responsible and Sustainable Food Choices

New York, NY, April 16th, 2008 - This afternoon the Center for Food Safety and the CornerStone Campaign announced the launch of the “Cool Foods Campaign.”  This national initiative is designed to empower people and businesses to take a bite out of global warming by encouraging them to make more sustainable food choices. Principal speakers included Campaign co-founders Mary Morgan and Andrew Kimbrell, as well as Chefs Dan Barber and Peter Hoffman, and food advocate and writer Anna Lappé.  The launch took place this afternoon at New York City’s Blue Hill.

At the event, Lappé also announced the launch of her Take a Bite Blog, a complimentary cool food chronicle, which details her journey to explore how food, farming, and your fork can help solve the climate crisis.

The Cool Foods Campaign aims to educate the public about the impact of food choices and agricultural practices on global warming, and empower people with resources needed to change that impact and reduce their “FoodPrint.”  Among other recommendations, the Campaign promotes organic, local and whole foods which require far less fossil fuels for their production and transportation.

“Cool foods and good cuisine are natural partners,” says Peter Hoffman, chef and owner of Savoy & Back Forty Restaurants.  “Chefs and restaurants nationwide should embrace the Cool Foods Campaign since it’s so closely aligned with our philosophy of presenting the best, freshest and most delicious ingredients to our customers.”

The Campaign encourages businesses, organizations and individuals to sign a Cool Foods pledge, indicating their commitment.  Inaugural signers of the pledge include chefs Dan Barber and Peter Hoffman, along with certified organic Restaurant Nora, My Organic Market Co-op, and various members of the academic and religious communities.  The pledge outlines easy steps that will help families, chefs, and businesses identify and choose: organic foods; fruits and vegetables over animal products; locally grown and produced food; and food with decreased processing and packaging.

“Organic and local foods reduce global warming emissions and also provide a better variety of textures, tastes, and aromas” says Dan Barber, executive chef & co-owner of Blue Hill. “These foods are both environmentally friendly and good for the planet and also allow for a truly better dining experience- a concept that we embrace at Blue Hill.”

Consumers and businesses that take the Cool Food pledge will receive information including fact sheets and an accessible shopper’s guide to share with their families and customers. The Campaign also provides consumers with an organic cotton shopping bag, and frequent updates on important food news and agricultural events relevant to addressing the global warming crisis.

“Everyone can fight global warming by changing their food choices,” said Mary Morgan co-founder of the CornerStone Campaign. “The Cool Foods Campaign provides critical resources that will enable the public to help the planet through a commitment to organic, local, and ‘cool’ food choices.”

Commenting on the Campaign and announcing her blog, bestselling author Anna Lappé stated, “The campaign and Take a Bite blog will help make it easy for people to make the commitment to cool foods and ‘cool’ farmers, which will have a massive and positive impact.  Everyone, anyone, can make this choice, and not only does it taste better, it actually is better, for you, for your community and for the planet.”

The campaign is launching one day after a landmark report was issued by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) – a committee commissioned by the United Nations and World Bank.  The committee’s report urgently calls for drastic changes to agricultural practices worldwide, including a need to increase local food consumption and the change over to farming practices that reduce global warming by minimizing energy consumption, pesticide use and pollution.  According to the IAASTD press release, “The report will suggest that modern agriculture will have to change radically if the world is to avoid social breakdown and environmental collapse.” 

Check out the new Cool Foods Campaign website at http://www.coolfoodscampaign.org/

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture.  The Center’s founders initiated the historic lawsuit, which culminated in last year’s Supreme Court environmental ruling (Massachusetts, et al. v. E.P.A.) which determined that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate global warming pollution emissions.  The ruling is being hailed as one of the most important environmental cases in decades and one that will fundamentally alter the nation’s political discourse on global warming.

The CornerStone Campaign is a new, 501(c)(3) foundation dedicated to addressing the pressing human health, environmental and social impacts associated with biotechnology and food production.  On the web at http://www.cornerstonecampaign.org/.

The Take a Bite Blog is a project of the Small Planet Institute, co-founded by author Anna Lappé. On the web at: http://www.takeabite.cc/.

Contact: John Bianchi, Goodman Media, 212-576-2700; Andrew Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety 202-547-9359

(NaturalNews) The recall of 143 million pounds of beef processed over the past two years is the largest meat recall in the history of the world. The USDA had no choice following an animal group’s release of videotape of “downer” cows being dragged across filthy floors and pushed around by a fork lift, before joining their healthier brethren on the hamburger highway. Since we all agree that the primary responsibility of the USDA is food safety, the question is, where were the USDA inspectors? The answer may be that for several years, the top priority at the USDA has not been food safety, but the creation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

What is NAIS?

Formulated under the Patriot Act and therefore with no legislative review or input of the people, NAIS is a government program originally designed to give US beef producers help in getting their products into the export markets, as well as protection from liability involving those products.

Often labeled “no chicken left behind”, the program has grown to include all livestock species, including cattle, bison, deer, elk, llamas, alpacas, horses, donkeys, mules, goats, sheep, swine, all poultry species, and fish. Owners are required at their expense to electronically, and with geo-satellite coordinates, tag each group or groups of animals and report within 24 hours to a data base: animal births, deaths, ownership transfers, and animal ingress and egress from the owner’s land.

Under this system, animal owners who want to sell or take their animals off their property are also required to register their land with the USDA, thus putting their property under federal jurisdiction.

Of course, the benefit is to the big factory farms who clearly do need some type of regulation. They will do single ID’s for large groups of animals. Small farmers, pet owners and homesteaders will have to tag and track every single animal individually.

Under NAIS, there are no exceptions. Even small farms that sell directly to local consumers will be required to pay the fees and file paperwork on each of their animals. Homesteaders who raise their own meat and grandma with her one egg hen will also have to register their homes as ‘farm premises’ and obtain a Premise ID, as well as tagging each animal.

The animal tracking, logging and reporting components of NAIS are scheduled to become mandatory nationwide in January, 2009. Strict enforcement involving fines, inspections of properties and confiscation or redistribution of livestock can be done by the USDA or state government without trial or legal hearings and with no compensation to the owner of the animals. Failure to register your home or farm with a Premise ID already faces a $1,000 fine in some states. This is in violation of the Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Nearly $150 million of taxpayer money as been spent on promoting NAIS, money that could have been spent on more inspectors to oversee meat processing plants. Instead, NAIS money has been used to influence non-government organizations into a public/private partnership to promote the NAIS. The Future Farmers of America and the 4H Club received large sums to encourage their parents to quickly register their property into the program.

NAIS and Food Safety

NAIS does nothing to prevent or arrest disease or contamination in the food supply. The initiative is not intended for this purpose. The goal of NAIS is to provide a 48 hour trace back to the farm of origin in the case of problems, a requirement for export to foreign markets. NAIS expands corporate profits, not consumer safety. The 48 hour trace back time that follows any problem detection could mean weeks or months have elapsed since any problem would actually have occurred.

Contamination of the food generally happens after the food leaves the farm. Many examples of factory contaminated food fill the news. And if the problem is not discovered at the factory but later, at the consumer level, there is a recall. The systems are already in place to handle this type of problem.

As to disease, meat sold in stores and restaurants is supposedly USDA inspected during slaughter and processing. The reality is that large numbers of recalls show us that meat from big commercial producers may not have been properly inspected because there are not enough inspectors, and because priorities lie elsewhere.

NAIS does nothing to halt the spread of Mad Cow Disease, a disease believed to be caused by the practice of grinding up old cows and adding them to cow feed. This practice is banned, and it is the job of the USDA to enforce this ban.

NAIS cannot help prevent the feared Avian Flu which is spread by wild birds.

Had the NAIS system been fully in place, it would not have prevented the “downer” cows in California from getting into the food supply. Nor would it have prevented any of the other meat recalls in recent years. Only a more efficient USDA inspection program can improve food safety.

Who Benefits and Who Loses From NAIS?

Today’s NAIS is an outgrowth of international agreements brought to the USDA by the National Institute of Animal Agriculture, a not-for-profit organization consisting of large meat packers, manufacturers of animal tags and tag-reading equipment, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. These are the organizations benefiting financially from the NAIS. Farmers, ranchers, and producers who must pay for this program were not invited to participate in its development.

The tag and reader manufacturers anticipate windfall profits from NAIS. State Departments of Agriculture are also slated to benefit. And certainly this is a full employment act for the USDA.

Animal owners who have to pay the bill for all this are being urged to sign up before NAIS becomes law in their states. Early sign up is billed as a patriotic act. To encourage early signing, animals cannot be shown at state fairs unless their premises are registered in the NAIS. Breed associations are being encouraged to withhold registration of animals for people not first registered with NAIS. There are reports that animals have been slaughtered by USDA inspectors on small farms where the owners resist registration.

Agri-business is the clear winner under NAIS. The prize is expanded export markets, and legal liability protection at minimal cost. Small farmers will be forced out of business due to the additional fees and paperwork, resulting in market share gain, bigger monopolies, and higher profits for the corporations. Anyone wishing to raise his own, better quality food will face the obstacles of paperwork and regulation.

NAIS is going to be expensive and guess who will pay for it in higher food prices? You!

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Reprinted from Natural News.