This post was originally published a while ago but has recently been the target of an increased volume of visits.  It was prompted, in part, by a question on a now defunct site asking: “Tell us your feelings about earth, as it hurtles through space and time….. Is it in imminent danger right now? If yes, are we too late to save it? Is all the concern only unjustified paranoia?”

As readers of this site will know, I am certainly a fan of treating Mother Earth with all the respect we can. My reasons for this are a bit different than you might think. I optimistically have absolutely no fear that Homo sapiens, now the dominant species on the planet, will do any serious, long term harm to the Earth itself. The only reason many people think we as a species may permanently damage our planet is because of our biological tendency to see ourselves as the center of everything. The truth is we are too insignificant to the universe and even to the earth to be more than the proverbial fly on the camel’s back, always in danger of being swished off by the coarse tail of Mother Nature.

The reason I have been a supporter my whole life of the philosophy now trumpeted as “being green” has nothing to do with the ultimate preservation of the planet and everything to do with our responsibility to the other inhabitants of earth, human and otherwise, now and in the future. This responsibility means that we should not be contributing any more than is necessary for our survival to changes that affect the community of inhabitants of the earth. It is this community we have the awesome power to disrupt, not the planet itself.

Earth has undergone many cataclysmic changes in the past and will survive many more in the future. At some point in the future one of the changes will eliminate humans from the earth’s community. It is likely that before our final day, the species will face challenges of survival unthinkable to most people alive today. Whenever the ultimate end of the planet occurs, we humans will be insignificant contributors.

Fortunately, the human instincts of optimism and survival are not perceived on the incredibly huge scope of time involved with earth changes, but on the scale of the present and the coming few hundred years. Because of this, I believe we, as a species, will ultimately survive anything we can do to harm ourselves. (There is my optimism.) And, we will survive as a species because even if something happens that crushes the human population, any survivors will make the best of what is left in order to go on.

In our ultimate end, we will disappear because of some change well beyond our control. Current global warming trends are concerning and we need to address them so that we delay effects as long as possible. This will give us time and technology to help cope with the climate changes that will eventually come, human contributions or not. Eventually most of the current coastal cities of the world will be under water. At another point in the future, many of these same flooded areas will be under a mile thick sheet of ice. These futures seem long on the scale of human time, but they are short and repetitive on the scale of earthly time. Most sobering is that these things will eventually happen regardless of anything we humans do.

We are temporary occupants of earth. Our significance, and our responsibility, is to our fellow humans, both present and to come, and to all other species currently sharing the planet with us. The earth will survive into the unfathomable depths of time without us. However, by political, environmental, and religious responsibility, we can positively shape our part of the coming trip.

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

This subject of this previously published post has recently been back in the news, (and even on Facebook), so I thought it good to re-visit the controversy. Is organic soy milk guaranteed free of genetically modified soybeans? I asked the question of Nigel Tunnacliffe and he was nice enough to write the following answer. Nigel studied risk communication and public policy of GE foods at Simon Fraser University. He runs GE-Free Solutions, a certification and labeling company for non-GE foods. He is on the steering committee for the Society for a GE-Free BC, and covered the Pacific Rim Summit on Biotechnology and Bioenergy on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN).

————————————————

Photo by “Stuck in Customs”

Before I answer Will’s question, I need to state that I am not an expert on organic certification, and have no experience with American legislation. My experience is with genetically engineered foods in Canada, but I hope that while I approach the subject from a Canadian anti-GE perspective, I can shed some light on the question in as relevant a way as possible. I should also state that I am in the business of certifying non-genetically engineered foods, so please understand that I do approach this subject from a slightly biased point of view.

Can organic soy be genetically engineered? The answer is yes and no. It depends on your definition of “can”. If you mean is organic soy “allowed” to be GE? Then the answer is no. Organic certification requires that a crop be non-GE. BC Certified Organic, Pro-cert, Ecocert, “Transgenesis (modification of a genome through introducing DNA fragments, genetic engineering) is incompatible with the principles of organic production.” Quality Assurance International “Organic refers to products that are produced without using conventional pesticides … or bioengineering.”  USDA National Organic Program: “A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production, (are not allowed). Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).”

Clearly genetic engineering is not part of organic agriculture, so I believe this far we are all in agreement. The tricky part comes with how the standards are enforced.

If the question “can organic soy be GE?” Means “when I buy organic soy, is it possible that it is contaminated?” then the answer, unfortunately, is yes. It all comes down to the actual requirements under organic certification schemes. The Ecocert (a French multinational certifier) policy, sums it up the best:

a) Operators shall ensure that materials and products used do not come from genetic engineering. A written guarantee from suppliers shall be provided to the certifier whenever there is a variety from genetically modified produce, according to the official list available on the Health Canada Website.

b) As of April 1st, 2007, for reasons of prevention, all agricultural firms must specify in the production plans they submit annually for approval by the certifying body, any possible risks associated with the potential presence of GMOs. These plans must include measures to be put into place by the firm to control and overcome them, and must be updated whenever any changes occur regarding external or internal factors that might influence the organic integrity of the firm’s products.

The requirements stated are not so much of a concern as the conspicuous exclusion of a critical component…TESTING! And with testing, comes maximum allowable contamination. Our North American standards are woefully behind the times, leaving our producers vulnerable to having their exports turned away from European ports, where testing is sometimes done. There was even a case last year where a processor received a shipment of organic soybeans that were 20% GE.

What’s more, there are common ingredients found in organic processed products which can come from genetically engineered sources. For example, both vitamin C and xanthan gum are allowed in organic food. Vitamin C is commonly produced from the skins of corn kernels, and xanthan gum is produced by bacteria which are most commonly fed corn. Corn, of course, is one of the largest GE crops, and there is widespread contamination.

There is a growing movement to require testing for GMOs in organic food. There was a meeting back in March of all major players in organic agriculture and processing to call for GMO testing, but there was no follow-up press release, so the outcome is unknown. The promised report has also yet to surface. There are also organizations such as the Non-GMO Project and GE-Free Solutions, which carry out testing and certification for organic and conventional food.

So, what does this mean for you? First of all, there is no replacement for consumer education. If you are really concerned about eating GE foods, as I am, you read the ingredient panel even if a processed product is labeled as organic. With the exception of Hawaiian papaya, you are safe buying anything in the produce section (GE corn tastes bad, and is almost never sold as corn on the cob). For processed food, watch out for corn, soy, canola and their derivatives (of which there are many), and cotton seed, which is used in vegetable oil.  Some testing is being done to verify non-GE status of certain products.

However, despite the occasional contamination, buying organic is currently one of the safest bets, and definitely the safest alternatives to reading about every possible derivative of soy and corn, you can make as a consumer for avoiding GE ingredients.

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Twister arrested for attempted murder!

Poor Twister. Her eggs are back in the news and… stop the presses…  that news is not good.

For years it was said that eating eggs was bad for you, raising your cholesterol level and clogging your arteries. One recommendation was to eat 3 or fewer eggs per week and maybe even eat only the whites. Egg consumption dropped a bit during that time until a few years ago when newer studies seemed to show that eggs really were not bad for you after all. In recent years there has even been an explosion of “high omega” eggs which are touted as actually being beneficial to your cardiac health.

Well, just like debate over is coffee bad for you, and countless other health recommendations with conflicting advice, eggs are back in the news. This time the news harkens back to the “eggs are bad for you” days. Supposedly a lifetime of egg consumption is almost as damaging to your heart health as a lifetime of cigarette smoking! What?!?!

The average U.S. citizen eats 6-7 eggs per week but like any other statistic, we need to think about the numbers. Since not everyone eats eggs, the average number of eggs consumed by actual egg eaters is higher. I was not able to find out if this new study recommends a “safe” level of egg consumption. I suspect not since if eggs are as bad for you as cigarettes, and even one cigarette a week can be deadly, it stands to reason that the best advice is to eat no eggs.

Really??? This is not what I want to hear. I eat a basically healthy diet, pretty much all vegetable based and non-processed. I am not a fanatic though. If I could say anything to these diet researchers, it would be “please lay off the cigarette scary headlines and for **&&%%$# sake let me have my occasional 3-egg omelet in peace. Even going to websites like the Mayo Clinic, there is no recommendation for a safe level of egg consumption. All advice in that regard does not make for good headlines and is as bland and uninteresting as well, an egg white omelet.

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Several years ago dietary carbohydrates were found in several studies to be a big contributor to long term weight gain.  Low carb diets were all the rage.  Over time the fanfare over low carb eating died down but many people still adhered, feeling that it was working for them.  After a few years of being relegated to the back burner, carbs are back up front in a big way.  In a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that people who consumed a low carb diet lost weight faster and kept the weight off longer than those on a low-fat diet.

After the publicity years ago that prompted so many to drop carbs in favor of a more fatty, high protein diet, additional studies seemed to show the whole carbs are bad for you thing was not necessarily what it seemed.  Many people felt that dropping carbs for high protein fats was a big mistake.  Then research started to show that there really are good fats vs. bad fats and that a low carb diet that made use of these good fats was maybe the best way to go.

No matter how many times it happens this “good for you, bad for you” diet debate never ceases to frustrate me.  Coffee is another one that seems to swing back and forth from good to bad several times a year.  The most worrisome one for me is the big idea now that whole grains are bad for you.  A big part of my diet is whole wheat, brown rice, nuts, and seeds.  It’s what I like, but research now seems to show whole grains might be bad for you.  Hope that one changes back real soon. I think the main positive change that can be made is still to cut out all highly processed food and soda. Do that and all the rest may not really matter.

The recently revived focus on dietary carbs got a big boost from NPR when the program On Point ran a show titled New Research On Carbs.

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Tune in next week for the photographic answer!

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Google has made a big deal recently about how all their recent changes are supposed to make search results more relevant and accurate. Many small sites like this one have been severely penalized because we are not considered “authoritative” enough to be included in search results. The problem is that many of the sites that are now showing up at the top of Google search results are not only garbage, but often down right scummy content thieves. This is a problem that many online are writing about, but I have yet to see Google admit there is a problem.

I will try to show one example here, but keep in mind that depending on your location and search history, Google results might look different to you than to me. I did a search for “organic food” specifying that results come from only blogs. I was trying to see if anyone had paid to read a research study I had recently written about and then posted a blog article about the study. The first blog at the top of the Google search results looked to be exactly what I wanted to find but when I clicked through to it I found it was a patently obvious scraper site. The site was copying articles from across the web and re-posting them as their own content. The site was the worst kind of plagiarizer site there is, often posting several articles an hour, all stolen from other, original, sites. But Google put this scumbag site right at the top of the search results!!

Here is a link to the results in question. Hopefully those results will stay the same over time so you can see the site in question at the search result titled: “Does eating organic food make you a jerk”. If the search results don’t show that for you, following is the link that will take you to the site Google put at the top of the results. You will need to edit out the “dot” from the link text and replace it with a period as I don’t want to give a real link to that spam, scraper site. http://organic-food-tips *dot* com/  And here is a link to the actual article I wanted to read that had been stolen from the original author at a legitimate website: http://organic-food-tips *dot* com/does-eating-organic-food-make-you-a-jerk-2/  Fortunately I did find the original article at the Fox News site and linked to that from my previous post.

This is very discouraging to those of us that try to post original content but then see that content stolen by a scraper site and re-posted by Google at the top of their “authoritative and relevant” search results. The original articles by the original authors are often no place to be found in the search results.  Shame on you Google.

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

No, my title doesn’t really mean like in the first definition of the word, but as in the second:

Adjective:
1.  Suffering from or full of nasal mucus.
2.  Having  a superior, conceited attitude.

At least that is what a study published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science Journal on May 15, 2012 claims.  As the abstract of the study states: “Recent research has revealed that specific tastes can influence moral processing, with sweet tastes inducing prosocial behavior and disgusting tastes harshening moral judgments.”

I wonder if the assumption the researchers made was that organic food tastes disgusting so eating organic makes you an a**h***???  If they did, how in the name of, (insert your favorite whoever here), did those researchers decided organic food belongs in the disgusting food category? On the other hand maybe they are not saying exactly that, but just that eating, or in the case of this study only “viewing”, organic food makes you volunteer “significantly less time to help a needy stranger” and cause you to judge “moral transgressions significantly harsher than those who viewed nonorganic foods”.

We can’t be sure of what the full study says as it is locked behind a pay wall or available only to those professionals subscribing to the Journal.  Here is the link to the article “Wholesome Foods and Wholesome Morals? Organic Foods Reduce Prosocial Behavior and Harshen Moral Judgments “, but you will have to pony up $25.00 if you want to read it.  I did not, but I am sure someone will, and soon post an in-depth analysis of what the study found and how thorough the research methods actually were.

If you eat organic food, what do you think?  Are you a conceited, condescending, overbearing, selfish, pain in the butt?  If the answer to that is yes, do you think going off the organic food will fix your personality disorder?

Or do you, like me, think that these researchers had a little too much time to kill and thought of a way to justify their junk food habits and maybe try to prove that they, and their eating habits make them better people than those of us that choose organic food whenever possible?  Wait a minute…. let me go check that definition of a snotty snob again.

 Update:  Just as I thought, I found an article about this study written by a doctor who appears to have paid to read the whole research publication.  You can find the article on the Fox News website.

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com

Click here to read comments or add your own. Original Article From: WillTaft.com