How to Make Oatmeal . . . Wrong
By MARK BITTMAN
The New York Times
There’s a feeling of inevitability in writing about McDonald’s latest offering, their “bowl full of wholesome” — also known as oatmeal. The leading fast-food multinational, with sales over $16.5 billion a year (just under the GDP of Afghanistan), represents a great deal of what is wrong with American food today. From a marketing perspective, they can do almost nothing wrong; from a nutritional perspective, they can do almost nothing right, as the oatmeal fiasco demonstrates.
One “positive” often raised about McDonald’s is that it sells calories cheap. But since many of these calories are in forms detrimental rather than beneficial to our health and to the environment, they’re actually quite expensive — the costs aren’t seen at the cash register but in the form of high health care bills and environmental degradation.
Oatmeal is on the other end of the food spectrum. Real oatmeal contains no ingredients; rather, it is an ingredient. As such, it’s a promising lifesaver: oats are easy to grow in almost any non-extreme climate and, minimally processed, they’re profoundly nourishing, inexpensive and ridiculously easy to cook. They can even be eaten raw, but more on that in a moment.
Like so many other venerable foods, oatmeal has been roundly abused by food marketers for more than 40 years. Take, for example, Quaker Strawberries and Cream Instant Oatmeal, which contains no strawberries, no cream, 12 times the sugars of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats and only half of the fiber. At least it’s inexpensive, less than 50 cents a packet on average. (A serving of cooked rolled oats will set you back half that at most, plus the cost of condiments; of course, it’ll be much better in every respect.)
The oatmeal and McDonald’s story broke late last year, when Mickey D’s, in its ongoing effort to tell us that it’s offering “a selection of balanced choices” (and to keep in step with arch-rival Starbucks) began to sell the cereal. Yet in typical McDonald’s fashion, the company is doing everything it can to turn oatmeal into yet another bad choice. (Not only that, they’ve made it more expensive than a double-cheeseburger: $2.38 per serving in New York.) “Cream” (which contains seven ingredients, two of them actual dairy) is automatically added; brown sugar is ostensibly optional, but it’s also added routinely unless a customer specifically requests otherwise. There are also diced apples, dried cranberries and raisins, the least processed of the ingredients (even the oatmeal contains seven ingredients, including “natural flavor”).
A more accurate description than “100% natural whole-grain oats,” “plump raisins,” “sweet cranberries” and “crisp fresh apples” would be “oats, sugar, sweetened dried fruit, cream and 11 weird ingredients you would never keep in your kitchen.”
Since we know there are barely any rules governing promotion of foods, one might wonder how this compares to real oatmeal, besides being 10 times as expensive. Some will say that it tastes better, but that’s because they’re addicted to sickly sweet foods, which is what this bowlful of wholesome is.
Others will argue that the McDonald’s version is more “convenient.” This is nonsense; in the time it takes to go into a McDonald’s, stand in line, order, wait, pay and leave, you could make oatmeal for four while taking your vitamins, brushing your teeth and half-unloading the dishwasher. (If you’re too busy to eat it before you leave the house, you could throw it in a container and microwave it at work.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Silas House: My Polluted Kentucky Home
My Polluted Kentucky Home
By SILAS HOUSE
The New York Times
Berea, Ky.
LAST weekend I joined 19 other Kentuckians in a sit-in at the office of Gov. Steve Beshear. We were there to protest his support of mountaintop removal, a technique used by coal-mining companies that, as its name implies, involves blasting away the tops of mountains and hills to get at the coal seams beneath them.
Since it was first used in 1970, mountaintop removal has destroyed some 500 mountains and poisoned at least 1,200 miles of rivers and streams across the Appalachian coal-mining region. Yet Governor Beshear is so committed to the practice that he recently allied with the Kentucky Coal Association in a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to block more stringent regulations of it. In court his administration’s lawyers referred to public opposition as simply “an unwarranted burden.”
The news media and the rest of the country typically think of mountaintop removal as an environmental problem. But it’s a human crisis as well, scraping away not just coal but also the freedoms of Appalachian residents, people who have always been told they are of less value than the resources they live above.
Over the past six years I’ve visited dozens of people who live at the edge of mountaintop removal sites. They bathe their children in water that has arsenic levels as high as 130 times what the E.P.A. deems safe to drink.
Their roads are routinely destroyed by overloaded trucks; their air is clouded with pollutants. Their schools sit below ponds holding billions of gallons of sludge. Their children lose sleep worrying that the sludge dams will break, releasing the sludge down upon them. It happened 40 years ago at Buffalo Creek, W.Va., killing 125 people, and it could happen again today.
It’s a horrible way to live. And yet, as it does in many other impoverished quarters of America, the news too often avoids covering Appalachia as if it were a no man’s land.
When a 3-year-old Virginia boy was crushed to death in his crib after a half-ton boulder was accidentally (and illegally) dislodged by a mining company, it barely made the national news. Many people around here believe the omission reflected that the child lived in a trailer home in the heart of coal country.
In 2000, 306 million gallons of sludge — 30 times more than the volume of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez — buried parts of Martin County, Ky., as deep as 5 feet. Yet hardly anyone outside the region remembers the disaster, if they ever heard about it.
More recently, my friend Judy’s grandson was playing in a creek when he was suddenly surrounded by dozens of dead fish. Tests later proved that a coal company was releasing polyacrylamide — a cancer-causing agent used to prepare coal for burning — into the creek. When Judy complained to the state, no one replied. She recently died of brain cancer.
I’ve heard dozens of stories like these, but they rarely make it beyond the mountains. Is it any wonder then that Appalachian residents feel invisible?
In fact, invisible is how we’ve been taught to think of ourselves since coal was first discovered here. When I was little, teachers would stand over my desk and tell me that I had to change my accent if I wanted to get ahead in the world. Never mind that I had nearly perfect grammar and spelling.
We were also told the success of the mines mattered above all else, that if we complained about the dust, noise and disrespect pumped out by the mine in our community, people would lose jobs.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
By SILAS HOUSE
The New York Times
Berea, Ky.
LAST weekend I joined 19 other Kentuckians in a sit-in at the office of Gov. Steve Beshear. We were there to protest his support of mountaintop removal, a technique used by coal-mining companies that, as its name implies, involves blasting away the tops of mountains and hills to get at the coal seams beneath them.
Since it was first used in 1970, mountaintop removal has destroyed some 500 mountains and poisoned at least 1,200 miles of rivers and streams across the Appalachian coal-mining region. Yet Governor Beshear is so committed to the practice that he recently allied with the Kentucky Coal Association in a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to block more stringent regulations of it. In court his administration’s lawyers referred to public opposition as simply “an unwarranted burden.”
The news media and the rest of the country typically think of mountaintop removal as an environmental problem. But it’s a human crisis as well, scraping away not just coal but also the freedoms of Appalachian residents, people who have always been told they are of less value than the resources they live above.
Over the past six years I’ve visited dozens of people who live at the edge of mountaintop removal sites. They bathe their children in water that has arsenic levels as high as 130 times what the E.P.A. deems safe to drink.
Their roads are routinely destroyed by overloaded trucks; their air is clouded with pollutants. Their schools sit below ponds holding billions of gallons of sludge. Their children lose sleep worrying that the sludge dams will break, releasing the sludge down upon them. It happened 40 years ago at Buffalo Creek, W.Va., killing 125 people, and it could happen again today.
It’s a horrible way to live. And yet, as it does in many other impoverished quarters of America, the news too often avoids covering Appalachia as if it were a no man’s land.
When a 3-year-old Virginia boy was crushed to death in his crib after a half-ton boulder was accidentally (and illegally) dislodged by a mining company, it barely made the national news. Many people around here believe the omission reflected that the child lived in a trailer home in the heart of coal country.
In 2000, 306 million gallons of sludge — 30 times more than the volume of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez — buried parts of Martin County, Ky., as deep as 5 feet. Yet hardly anyone outside the region remembers the disaster, if they ever heard about it.
More recently, my friend Judy’s grandson was playing in a creek when he was suddenly surrounded by dozens of dead fish. Tests later proved that a coal company was releasing polyacrylamide — a cancer-causing agent used to prepare coal for burning — into the creek. When Judy complained to the state, no one replied. She recently died of brain cancer.
I’ve heard dozens of stories like these, but they rarely make it beyond the mountains. Is it any wonder then that Appalachian residents feel invisible?
In fact, invisible is how we’ve been taught to think of ourselves since coal was first discovered here. When I was little, teachers would stand over my desk and tell me that I had to change my accent if I wanted to get ahead in the world. Never mind that I had nearly perfect grammar and spelling.
We were also told the success of the mines mattered above all else, that if we complained about the dust, noise and disrespect pumped out by the mine in our community, people would lose jobs.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
Saturday, February 12, 2011
FORA TV: Michael Pollan on Food Rules: An Eater's Manual
Michael Pollan on Food Rules: An Eater's Manual
FORA TV
Michael Pollan, one of the best-known names in food-related issues, offers a guide about health and food. Food Rules: An Eater's Manual is a set of memorable ideas for eating wisely. Many of them are drawn from a variety of ethnic or cultural traditions. Whether at the supermarket or an all-you-can-eat buffet, this handy, pocket-size resource is for people who would like to become more mindful of what they are eating.
Pollan is the author of In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, The Omnivore's Dilemma and The Botany of Desire.
To Watch the Presentation
FORA TV
Michael Pollan, one of the best-known names in food-related issues, offers a guide about health and food. Food Rules: An Eater's Manual is a set of memorable ideas for eating wisely. Many of them are drawn from a variety of ethnic or cultural traditions. Whether at the supermarket or an all-you-can-eat buffet, this handy, pocket-size resource is for people who would like to become more mindful of what they are eating.
Pollan is the author of In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, The Omnivore's Dilemma and The Botany of Desire.
To Watch the Presentation
Monday, February 07, 2011
CrimethInc: Sex Tips for Restless Youth
Sex Tips for Restless Youth
CrimethInc.
Do you experience sexual problems? Do you have trouble getting aroused, or having sex that is fulfilling, or simply meeting the right partners to share that aspect of your life? Chances are you do—just have a look at the magazine rack in any grocery store, and it's clear from all the advice columns and feature articles just how sexually lost and frustrated modern men and women are. Unfortunately, these magazines only offer symptomatic treatment (otherwise, they wouldn't have to run the same articles over and over every month!), no real, radical solutions. And to date, few people have really dared to be open about their troubles, thanks to the social pressures to be "successful" in all affairs. So, in keeping with our general program of providing aid wherever it is needed, we offer some tips:
--Stop trying to make your sexuality serve in your efforts to be a good citizen (responsive lover, macho man, etc.)—it won't, it will just go on strike. Better to serve it, if serving must be done.
--Stop trying to make your sex life (or romance, or anything else, for that matter), by itself, provide you with qualities that should be intrinsic to every moment of your life. It is not the role of your sexuality to be your sole source of excitement, or intimacy, or pleasure—it is the role of sex to be just that, to be sex. If you feel trapped or insecure or bored everywhere else, you will probably have a hard time shaking off those feelings in bed.
--If your idea of seventh heaven is having perfect sex with a beautiful partner, dispel it. Heaven cannot be an isolated moment of life; it has to be a complete way of living, or else it will be just another barren myth to denigrate and impoverish the moments of our real experience. Better that we find ways to make every moment of life as exciting as great sex can be (and believe me, it can be done!), considering that we can't have sex all the time—such a thing would get boring, anyway, since living has so many facets we must not neglect! You can feel and share passion as deeply while building puppets for street demonstrations together, sneaking onto rooftops for late night conversations, or stowing away on ferryboats. Most people just haven't had the chance to be free and wild together anywhere outside the bedroom yet—and consequently, it hardly comes naturally between the sheets.
--Rescue your sexuality from the definitions and delineations slipped around it like a noose by external forces: the leering billboards and romantic comedies, the expectations of your friends and parents and paramours, the television programs and other social programming devices that would dictate desire and limit the erotic to the strictly sexual. The powers that be have everything at stake in keeping your sexuality emaciated and confined to the specific act of physical intercourse, to one routine and one partner and one ghettoized category, so you won't discover in it the freedom that you could be living around the clock, outside their control, beyond their target markets. But one step outside the lines, and the world is yours.
--And that means throwing out your pornography. Pornography isn't obscene because it's sexual, but because it's not—replace the representation with the real, in every instance, for maximum possibility. Masturbation is a beautiful thing, but don't let the pornography industry buy out your libido. A two-dimensional woman, no matter how trangressively posed, will do exactly what you command her and no more: that means she can never challenge you with her own needs or perspectives, never open new doors to you, never assert her selfhood. That refusal to be challenged is a rejection of the vast expanses of freedom that can only be reached with others. We should be wary of giving our fantasies such slaves to rule over, lest we learn to fetishize the violence of domination implied by such one-sided sex—and end up living in the sterile, determinist world of control mania. Do you want to explore, to reach unimaginable climaxes, to try out things you've never seen in movies? Do it with other people—they are out there. Let them know you're ready.
Sexuality as art—now there's a start. But more art "about" sexuality? It's doubtful that the world of images will ever belong to us again . . . that's just another diversion of our attention to that domain from this world, where we should be practicing doing, being, feeling with one another, not with the dangerous safety of an object. Make love and speak about your best kept secrets, your blackest needs, the demands the culture of fear places on your sexuality, held hostage as it is (never fear, you're not the only one who thinks you have things to hide—your secret's safe with all of us!) . . . We can get out of here, together, but first we have to be honest to figure out where the fuck we are!
To find indulgences that simultaneously satisfy and subvert our programmed, poisonous desires, and thus remake ourselves—that is the key.
Link to the Text
CrimethInc.
Do you experience sexual problems? Do you have trouble getting aroused, or having sex that is fulfilling, or simply meeting the right partners to share that aspect of your life? Chances are you do—just have a look at the magazine rack in any grocery store, and it's clear from all the advice columns and feature articles just how sexually lost and frustrated modern men and women are. Unfortunately, these magazines only offer symptomatic treatment (otherwise, they wouldn't have to run the same articles over and over every month!), no real, radical solutions. And to date, few people have really dared to be open about their troubles, thanks to the social pressures to be "successful" in all affairs. So, in keeping with our general program of providing aid wherever it is needed, we offer some tips:
--Stop trying to make your sexuality serve in your efforts to be a good citizen (responsive lover, macho man, etc.)—it won't, it will just go on strike. Better to serve it, if serving must be done.
--Stop trying to make your sex life (or romance, or anything else, for that matter), by itself, provide you with qualities that should be intrinsic to every moment of your life. It is not the role of your sexuality to be your sole source of excitement, or intimacy, or pleasure—it is the role of sex to be just that, to be sex. If you feel trapped or insecure or bored everywhere else, you will probably have a hard time shaking off those feelings in bed.
--If your idea of seventh heaven is having perfect sex with a beautiful partner, dispel it. Heaven cannot be an isolated moment of life; it has to be a complete way of living, or else it will be just another barren myth to denigrate and impoverish the moments of our real experience. Better that we find ways to make every moment of life as exciting as great sex can be (and believe me, it can be done!), considering that we can't have sex all the time—such a thing would get boring, anyway, since living has so many facets we must not neglect! You can feel and share passion as deeply while building puppets for street demonstrations together, sneaking onto rooftops for late night conversations, or stowing away on ferryboats. Most people just haven't had the chance to be free and wild together anywhere outside the bedroom yet—and consequently, it hardly comes naturally between the sheets.
--Rescue your sexuality from the definitions and delineations slipped around it like a noose by external forces: the leering billboards and romantic comedies, the expectations of your friends and parents and paramours, the television programs and other social programming devices that would dictate desire and limit the erotic to the strictly sexual. The powers that be have everything at stake in keeping your sexuality emaciated and confined to the specific act of physical intercourse, to one routine and one partner and one ghettoized category, so you won't discover in it the freedom that you could be living around the clock, outside their control, beyond their target markets. But one step outside the lines, and the world is yours.
--And that means throwing out your pornography. Pornography isn't obscene because it's sexual, but because it's not—replace the representation with the real, in every instance, for maximum possibility. Masturbation is a beautiful thing, but don't let the pornography industry buy out your libido. A two-dimensional woman, no matter how trangressively posed, will do exactly what you command her and no more: that means she can never challenge you with her own needs or perspectives, never open new doors to you, never assert her selfhood. That refusal to be challenged is a rejection of the vast expanses of freedom that can only be reached with others. We should be wary of giving our fantasies such slaves to rule over, lest we learn to fetishize the violence of domination implied by such one-sided sex—and end up living in the sterile, determinist world of control mania. Do you want to explore, to reach unimaginable climaxes, to try out things you've never seen in movies? Do it with other people—they are out there. Let them know you're ready.
Sexuality as art—now there's a start. But more art "about" sexuality? It's doubtful that the world of images will ever belong to us again . . . that's just another diversion of our attention to that domain from this world, where we should be practicing doing, being, feeling with one another, not with the dangerous safety of an object. Make love and speak about your best kept secrets, your blackest needs, the demands the culture of fear places on your sexuality, held hostage as it is (never fear, you're not the only one who thinks you have things to hide—your secret's safe with all of us!) . . . We can get out of here, together, but first we have to be honest to figure out where the fuck we are!
To find indulgences that simultaneously satisfy and subvert our programmed, poisonous desires, and thus remake ourselves—that is the key.
Link to the Text
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
US & G8 Funding Cuts for AIDS "Will Be Counted in Human Lives"–Stephen Lewis Blasts Obama, Rich Nations over AIDS Policy
US & G8 Funding Cuts for AIDS "Will Be Counted in Human Lives"–Stephen Lewis Blasts Obama, Rich Nations over AIDS Policy
Democracy Now
A major international conference on global AIDS policy is underway in Austria this week, and there appears to be a growing rift over funding by rich nations. On Sunday, hundreds of people marched through the conference halls demanding rich nations meet their pledges to ensure universal access to AIDS treatment. We go to Vienna to speak with Stephen Lewis, the former special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and co-founder of AIDS-Free World. "It’s almost beyond the capacity of the mind to cope with that George Bush seemingly was more engaged in the battle against HIV than Barack Obama," says Lewis.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Democracy Now
A major international conference on global AIDS policy is underway in Austria this week, and there appears to be a growing rift over funding by rich nations. On Sunday, hundreds of people marched through the conference halls demanding rich nations meet their pledges to ensure universal access to AIDS treatment. We go to Vienna to speak with Stephen Lewis, the former special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and co-founder of AIDS-Free World. "It’s almost beyond the capacity of the mind to cope with that George Bush seemingly was more engaged in the battle against HIV than Barack Obama," says Lewis.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Friday, January 28, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
Worldview: Megacities Must Not Lose Their Humanizing Qualities
Megacities Must Not Lose Their HumanizingQualities
Worldview (WBEZ: Chicago Public Media)
Shanghai's population is approaching 20 million and as it, and other mega cities expand, Barry hopes that our global obsession with development doesn't come at a great cost…
Traveling through the world's megacities has resembled the journey described in Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. In this fictional masterpiece Marco Polo describes to Kubla Khan what he saw on his journey. After four decades of visits to megacities, it is also difficult to describe, let alone understand, the modern megacity, world city or global city. What they have in common are qualities of size, scale, shape and speed that are new in human development and unique in the history of globalization. For example, size proportionately affects both the physical and mental health of people and geometrically increases the global footprint of a city. We make cities, but they remake us.
The megacity, determined by a population of ten million or more, or the global city, determined by capital concentration, signals a new partition of the world. This spatial partition is represented within the city by formal vs. non-formal settlements or vertical vs. horizontal growth.
These new (in)human settlements are full with both promise and peril, beauty and barbarism. More important than the fact that half the world's population is living in cities is the emergence of the very large city. It is in the megacities that the fate of global and planetary development rests. In such cities there is a dance between promise and peril, each partner uncertain of who is leading.
The promise of the megacity can be the diversity of experience, people and cultures; economies of scale; human capital; or the concentration of science-technology-innovation. The peril of the megacity includes both planetary and global threats, such as inequality, pollution, violence or earthquakes. Martin Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, recognized that “Today's city is the most vulnerable social structure ever conceived by man.”
The bewildering methods of defining and measuring urban population suggest that even our conception of the city is indefinite. The megacity has been the subject of numerous horrific fictional accounts. But no one has managed to depict a city of twenty, thirty or forty million people as equitable and ecological. Such an idea cannot be sustained in the imagination.
Cities are problems in “organized complexity,” stated Jane Jacobs in 1961. The most difficult challenge facing megacites is to discover the challenge of this “organized complexity”. It is the interaction between the hard and soft infrastructure that sustains the urban area, including the full array of global and planetary systems that engage or are engaged by cities. One obvious example is the Icelandic Volcano. A planetary event dramatically impacted the global system of air traffic, and related activities.
Looking at the movement in and out of people, freight, power, ideas, services, waste in cities, it is obvious that Tokyo, New York, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo or Lagos represent distinct examples of “organized complexity.” They are driven by factors that are poorly understood in isolation, let alone in their interaction.
To Listen to the Episode
Worldview (WBEZ: Chicago Public Media)
Shanghai's population is approaching 20 million and as it, and other mega cities expand, Barry hopes that our global obsession with development doesn't come at a great cost…
Traveling through the world's megacities has resembled the journey described in Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. In this fictional masterpiece Marco Polo describes to Kubla Khan what he saw on his journey. After four decades of visits to megacities, it is also difficult to describe, let alone understand, the modern megacity, world city or global city. What they have in common are qualities of size, scale, shape and speed that are new in human development and unique in the history of globalization. For example, size proportionately affects both the physical and mental health of people and geometrically increases the global footprint of a city. We make cities, but they remake us.
The megacity, determined by a population of ten million or more, or the global city, determined by capital concentration, signals a new partition of the world. This spatial partition is represented within the city by formal vs. non-formal settlements or vertical vs. horizontal growth.
These new (in)human settlements are full with both promise and peril, beauty and barbarism. More important than the fact that half the world's population is living in cities is the emergence of the very large city. It is in the megacities that the fate of global and planetary development rests. In such cities there is a dance between promise and peril, each partner uncertain of who is leading.
The promise of the megacity can be the diversity of experience, people and cultures; economies of scale; human capital; or the concentration of science-technology-innovation. The peril of the megacity includes both planetary and global threats, such as inequality, pollution, violence or earthquakes. Martin Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb, recognized that “Today's city is the most vulnerable social structure ever conceived by man.”
The bewildering methods of defining and measuring urban population suggest that even our conception of the city is indefinite. The megacity has been the subject of numerous horrific fictional accounts. But no one has managed to depict a city of twenty, thirty or forty million people as equitable and ecological. Such an idea cannot be sustained in the imagination.
Cities are problems in “organized complexity,” stated Jane Jacobs in 1961. The most difficult challenge facing megacites is to discover the challenge of this “organized complexity”. It is the interaction between the hard and soft infrastructure that sustains the urban area, including the full array of global and planetary systems that engage or are engaged by cities. One obvious example is the Icelandic Volcano. A planetary event dramatically impacted the global system of air traffic, and related activities.
Looking at the movement in and out of people, freight, power, ideas, services, waste in cities, it is obvious that Tokyo, New York, Shanghai, Mumbai, Sao Paulo or Lagos represent distinct examples of “organized complexity.” They are driven by factors that are poorly understood in isolation, let alone in their interaction.
To Listen to the Episode
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Christa Blackwell: Why Nicotine Should be Illegal
"Why Nicotine Should be Illegal"
Christa Blackwell
ENG 102
440,000 deaths are associated with smoking every year (CDC, 2010). That alone should open up our eyes to see that this is a very serious issue in today’s world. Tobacco is a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing our population. If smoking were illegal we would not have as many people suffering from health concerns in America that there are today. Our hospitals are overcrowded with patients that are getting diseases from something that they are putting in their body, not knowing all the consequences of what they are doing from the start. Nicotine is not doing anything but harming Americans and showing our youth that it is ok to slowly kill ourselves. We are setting up an example that is ok to do these things when in reality it is not. Even with the continuing costs of nicotine on the rise this does not help fight the ongoing war with nicotine.
Nicotine has a much more powerful hold on smokers than alcohol does on drinkers. Whereas about 10 percent of alcohol users lose control of their intake of alcohol and become alcoholics, as many as 80 percent of all heavy smokers have tried to cut down or quit smoking but cannot overcome this dependence(Hales, 2009:375). Alcohol and nicotine are both legal here in the United States. With nicotine being more addictive than alcohol why is nicotine not illegal? You don’t see people going into rehab because of tobacco abuse. It is treated differently because it does not alter your state of mind as does alcohol and other drugs. But just as Alcohol has withdrawal symptoms, nicotine does as well. Nicotine withdrawal usually begins within hours. Symptoms include cravings, irritability, anxiety, restlessness and increased appetite (Hales, 2009: 377). Ultimately nicotine users need just as much help if not more to start the quitting process. It would be very beneficial for users to get to go to a 30 day rehab where they can be surrounded by others who have the same problems and have counselors to talk to about their issues. It is still a process and addiction that needs to be addressed according to the person.
Nicotine causes major health concerns for people who use it regularly and to people who have quit. Even for people who have smoked for years a lot have already done irreversible damage to their bodies that cannot be taken back. The diseases that you can get that are associated with nicotine are Cancer, (especially lung cancer), emphysema, heart disease, and other respiratory diseases. These are just a few things that your body can go through just by using nicotine. Smoking is linked to at least ten different cancers. It is the cause of more than 80 percent of all cases of lung cancer. The more people smoke, the longer they smoke, and the earlier they start smoking, the more likely they are to develop lung cancer (Hales, 2009: 379). The chemicals that are in nicotine are extremely hazardous to our health which is why they cause cancer. From my personal experience a family friend was diagnosed with lung cancer and she had quit smoking almost 20 years ago. This just shows how it affects our lungs. Even when people do eventually quit they have done damage that cannot be fixed. If nicotine was illegal, a lot of the healthcare issues would be addressed but would not be at the level they are now with nicotine being legal. We would not see as many cases of people in the hospital for smoking related diseases. And since nicotine would be harder to find and you would not be able to light a cigarette up wherever you wanted, causing people to be more inconspicuous about smoking. I work at UK and there is not a day that goes by that I do not drive by the hospital to see patients lined up with their oxygen tanks puffing on their cigarettes. The saddest part of it all is that they are more than likely in the hospital for nicotine related issues, continuing to kill themselves. If nicotine was illegal people would not be able to smoke as freely as they do now, but also they would be saving their bodies from these harmful diseases.
With women being just as dependent on nicotine as men it is inevitable that they would continue to use nicotine during pregnancy. Women who smoke present different challenges to doctors. The impact of their smoking on the fetus is a major public health issue(Bradley:2009, 371).Infants born to smoking mothers appear to suffer from reduced lung capacity, with the infants experiencing an average of 10% reduction in their lung functions. Infants born to women who smoke a pack a day or more were found twice as likely to grow up and become cigarette smokers as to children of non-smoking mothers. Finally, infants who are exposed to cigarette smoke suffer a significantly higher rate of SIDS than infants who are not exposed to this hazard (Doweiko, 2009: 247). What is happening is that mothers are consciously making a decision to put hazardous chemicals in their body when they know that this could harm the child. Right now when you go into a hospital if a mother is knowingly taking drugs, the child is drug tested upon birth and if they find drugs in the child’s system the child is immediately taken away. The same should be done in these cases as well for nicotine. The child could suffer from devastating problems that would carry on into the child’s adult life. With SIDS the child could die, and all because the mother wanted to continue using nicotine. If nicotine was illegal, we could punish the people that are doing this to infants who have no say in the matter. They could have consequences for their actions especially if it was found they had done damage to the child from their decisions. I don’t think that nicotine is any different than drugs when a woman is pregnant, both nicotine and drugs do damage to an infant. If smoking were eliminated, it is estimated that there would be 25 percent fewer low birth weights in infants (Robertson, 2002:49). This would help our children’s healthcare immensely with them being born healthy and not having to go to the hospital or getting checked out as much as they would if they had health problems. As a whole this would cut down on healthcare costs, which in our overspending country would be very beneficial.
More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Most exposures to tobacco smoke occur in homes and workplaces. Almost 60% of US children aged 3-11 years –or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke (CDC,2007). Just recently has it been said that secondhand smoke could cause health problems to those who do not smoke. Children are at the greatest risk for health problems due to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke in the home poses great hazards for the children present. More than 350,000 respiratory diseases are found in children each year that are directly related to secondhand smoke(Robertson, 2002:49). Children are at such high risk for getting different infections and get sick a lot more than children who are not exposed to secondhand smoke. It is so toxic because even though you are not actually smoking the tobacco, you are breathing the same chemicals as smokers are. These chemicals can come from the tobacco or the soil, paper and ingredients added to make the tobacco taste better. Carbon monoxide (car exhaust), Toluene (paint thinner), and cadmium (batteries) are just a few of the toxic chemicals that we breathe in by secondhand smoke. To an infant or small child with a poor immune system these chemicals could harm them irreversibly. Secondhand smoke is very deadly and a very serious problem. We don’t ask to be exposed to secondhand smoke sometimes we just are. There are different levels of secondhand smoke but with either being in a room with a lot of smoke or just a little bit they all affect you the same way. As adults we can leave the room, or ask the person not to do that around us. Children on the other hand don’t have that voice to choose if they want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, especially if their parents are smokers in the home. If smoking were illegal children would not have to deal with this health concern. Non-smokers wouldn’t have to worry if they go somewhere that they may be exposed to smoke. For example, I had to go to a retirement party for my uncle. This was in Ohio where smoking is permitted in private facilities. The whole room was full of smokers and I could barely stand it to stay in there. The next day my throat was hurting and I know it was because I am not around smokers that often. Secondhand smoke is just as bad as smoking if not worse because at least with smoking the people are choosing to smoke. Non-smokers are not choosing to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
Lexington, Kentucky was the first city in the state of Kentucky to put into effect a smoke-free ordinance and went into effect April 27, 2004 (Anderson:2007, 1). They have made restaurants, businesses and campuses a smoke-free environment. IT has affected all the bars here in Lexington with not allowing customers to smoke inside or on the premises without being fined for their actions. Penalties for violating this begin at $100 for the first offense, $250 for second offense, and $500 for each other offense after. Individuals who are smoking in a prohibited area and have been asked to leave can have trespassing charges brought against them if they refuse to leave (Anderson: 2007, 1). For people who are non-smokers this really was a breakthrough moment because now we could go out in public or our favorite restaurant and not be bothered by a cloud of smoke over our heads. It was very exciting time but now that some time has passed, even though people are not smoking inside buildings we are still being exposed in public places. This is such a great step in the right direction but I don’t believe that the ultimate goal was fulfilled here. The goal is to eliminate smoking and cause people to want to quit smoking. With smokers they will always find a way to smoke, so even though now there are fines they could receive for breaking these rules a lot of people either don’t get caught or are being over looked now. I think if smoking were illegal it would be helping us strive for a healthier way of life here in Kentucky and show people that we are serious about the regulations we are putting on the community.
On campus, University of Kentucky became smoke free on November 19, 2009. A few years after Lexington became smoke free. UK decided this was what they wanted to do because of all the money that is being spent on treating people who get sick from using tobacco products and being exposed to secondhand smoke. This is in turn directly related to their students, patients, employees and visitors at risk for disease. University of Kentucky has a high level of respect in the community and I don’t think that they would want people visiting the campus being disgusted at people using nicotine. As a UK employee, I have been directed affected by this smoking ban. I have seen the regulations go into effect and how upset people have become because of this ban. I have seen the worst possible thing happen, fire an employee for not smoking in the designated area. These designated smoking areas are being used instead of people being able to smoke wherever they want to. So now instead of seeing people smoking everywhere on campus they are just huddled up in certain areas. At the hospital the patients, visitors, and employees smoke on the corner of limestone. I do not see the benefit of smoking in one designated place or smoking campus wide. It is still smoking both ways and needs to be abolished.
$96 billion of the total US health care costs each year are attributed to smoking. This is below the total cost to society because it does not include burn care from smoking-related fires, prenatal care for low-birth weight infants or mothers who smoke, and medical care costs associated with disease from secondhand smoke. In addition, the costs of lost productivity due to smoking are $97 billion a year, making the economic burden of smoking to $193 billion per year (NIDA:2007). The direct costs of nicotine on our healthcare system are why nicotine should be illegal. Research that has been done on health care costs among former smokers suggests that quitters incur greater health care costs for up to four years after quitting. So if a smoker does not have health insurance either the hospital has to pay for the expenses he/she is racking up or we are using our taxpaying dollars to pay for healthcare expenses. I feel like there are a lot better things that we can use our money for than to pay hospital bills to a smoker. We have just now almost gotten out of the recession the economy has been in, and to continue to keep paying for these expenses will put us right back to where we do not want to be. I have seen now that companies are not willing to hire smokers and are giving their current employees time to quit or they may lose their jobs. Not only for the reason they are promoting a nicotine free workplace but because their healthcare costs are rising and it is effecting everyone in the company.
As you can see, Nicotine is affecting the community we live in. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that is taking control over our society. If we made nicotine illegal a lot of things would be changed. A lot of the health risks that smoking causes like lung cancer, asthma or emphysema would not be as prevalent as it is right now. We could be fighting back against these diseases because they are preventable diseases. Women being pregnant would be addressed at a more serious level than it is right now. Women wouldn’t be putting these chemicals in their bodies as freely now because they would face serious consequences. Just the same that a baby born with drugs in their system it would be treated the same with nicotine. Both are harmful to babies and both can leave them with irreversible damage. This also goes along with second-hand smoke. You would not be allowed to smoke in public places or even the privacy of your own home. This would be very beneficial to children who have no voice when it comes to secondhand smoke. They can’t choose if they want to stay where they are and breathe in these chemicals. They would not have to suffer the consequences of their parent’s actions any longer, leading to healthier, active and happy children. With the smoking ban being around for some years now, we have seen the results and how it is helping our community stay healthier. This is the first step to get nicotine illegal and showing society how we are fighting for the health of our community. And if you still believe that smoking isn’t that bad just look at how smoking is affecting healthcare costs but also the costs of medical insurance. We can be a part and help the national budget stay low by eliminating smoking. We will live in a much more proactive society that is concerned about the well being of others.
Anderson, Deborah. "Smoking Laws In Kentucky." Associated Content (2007): pg. 1-4. Web. 16 Nov 2010.
Brady, Kathleen. Women and Addiction: A comprehensive Handbook. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2009.
"Data & Statistics: Secondhand Smoke." Centers for Disease Control . N.p., 06142007. Web. 9 Nov 2010.
Doweiko, Harold E. Concepts of Chemical Dependency. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2009.
Hales, Diana. An Invitation to Health. 2009-2010. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.
Robertson, Cathie. Safety, Nutrition & Health in Childcare. Albany, NY: Delmar, 2002.
"Smoking and Tobacco Use ." Center for Disease Control. Center for Disease Control , 03 11 2010. Web. 3 Nov 2010.
"Tobacco Addiction." National Institute on Drug Abuse (2007): 1. Web. 16 Nov 2010.
Christa Blackwell
ENG 102
440,000 deaths are associated with smoking every year (CDC, 2010). That alone should open up our eyes to see that this is a very serious issue in today’s world. Tobacco is a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing our population. If smoking were illegal we would not have as many people suffering from health concerns in America that there are today. Our hospitals are overcrowded with patients that are getting diseases from something that they are putting in their body, not knowing all the consequences of what they are doing from the start. Nicotine is not doing anything but harming Americans and showing our youth that it is ok to slowly kill ourselves. We are setting up an example that is ok to do these things when in reality it is not. Even with the continuing costs of nicotine on the rise this does not help fight the ongoing war with nicotine.
Nicotine has a much more powerful hold on smokers than alcohol does on drinkers. Whereas about 10 percent of alcohol users lose control of their intake of alcohol and become alcoholics, as many as 80 percent of all heavy smokers have tried to cut down or quit smoking but cannot overcome this dependence(Hales, 2009:375). Alcohol and nicotine are both legal here in the United States. With nicotine being more addictive than alcohol why is nicotine not illegal? You don’t see people going into rehab because of tobacco abuse. It is treated differently because it does not alter your state of mind as does alcohol and other drugs. But just as Alcohol has withdrawal symptoms, nicotine does as well. Nicotine withdrawal usually begins within hours. Symptoms include cravings, irritability, anxiety, restlessness and increased appetite (Hales, 2009: 377). Ultimately nicotine users need just as much help if not more to start the quitting process. It would be very beneficial for users to get to go to a 30 day rehab where they can be surrounded by others who have the same problems and have counselors to talk to about their issues. It is still a process and addiction that needs to be addressed according to the person.
Nicotine causes major health concerns for people who use it regularly and to people who have quit. Even for people who have smoked for years a lot have already done irreversible damage to their bodies that cannot be taken back. The diseases that you can get that are associated with nicotine are Cancer, (especially lung cancer), emphysema, heart disease, and other respiratory diseases. These are just a few things that your body can go through just by using nicotine. Smoking is linked to at least ten different cancers. It is the cause of more than 80 percent of all cases of lung cancer. The more people smoke, the longer they smoke, and the earlier they start smoking, the more likely they are to develop lung cancer (Hales, 2009: 379). The chemicals that are in nicotine are extremely hazardous to our health which is why they cause cancer. From my personal experience a family friend was diagnosed with lung cancer and she had quit smoking almost 20 years ago. This just shows how it affects our lungs. Even when people do eventually quit they have done damage that cannot be fixed. If nicotine was illegal, a lot of the healthcare issues would be addressed but would not be at the level they are now with nicotine being legal. We would not see as many cases of people in the hospital for smoking related diseases. And since nicotine would be harder to find and you would not be able to light a cigarette up wherever you wanted, causing people to be more inconspicuous about smoking. I work at UK and there is not a day that goes by that I do not drive by the hospital to see patients lined up with their oxygen tanks puffing on their cigarettes. The saddest part of it all is that they are more than likely in the hospital for nicotine related issues, continuing to kill themselves. If nicotine was illegal people would not be able to smoke as freely as they do now, but also they would be saving their bodies from these harmful diseases.
With women being just as dependent on nicotine as men it is inevitable that they would continue to use nicotine during pregnancy. Women who smoke present different challenges to doctors. The impact of their smoking on the fetus is a major public health issue(Bradley:2009, 371).Infants born to smoking mothers appear to suffer from reduced lung capacity, with the infants experiencing an average of 10% reduction in their lung functions. Infants born to women who smoke a pack a day or more were found twice as likely to grow up and become cigarette smokers as to children of non-smoking mothers. Finally, infants who are exposed to cigarette smoke suffer a significantly higher rate of SIDS than infants who are not exposed to this hazard (Doweiko, 2009: 247). What is happening is that mothers are consciously making a decision to put hazardous chemicals in their body when they know that this could harm the child. Right now when you go into a hospital if a mother is knowingly taking drugs, the child is drug tested upon birth and if they find drugs in the child’s system the child is immediately taken away. The same should be done in these cases as well for nicotine. The child could suffer from devastating problems that would carry on into the child’s adult life. With SIDS the child could die, and all because the mother wanted to continue using nicotine. If nicotine was illegal, we could punish the people that are doing this to infants who have no say in the matter. They could have consequences for their actions especially if it was found they had done damage to the child from their decisions. I don’t think that nicotine is any different than drugs when a woman is pregnant, both nicotine and drugs do damage to an infant. If smoking were eliminated, it is estimated that there would be 25 percent fewer low birth weights in infants (Robertson, 2002:49). This would help our children’s healthcare immensely with them being born healthy and not having to go to the hospital or getting checked out as much as they would if they had health problems. As a whole this would cut down on healthcare costs, which in our overspending country would be very beneficial.
More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Most exposures to tobacco smoke occur in homes and workplaces. Almost 60% of US children aged 3-11 years –or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke (CDC,2007). Just recently has it been said that secondhand smoke could cause health problems to those who do not smoke. Children are at the greatest risk for health problems due to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke in the home poses great hazards for the children present. More than 350,000 respiratory diseases are found in children each year that are directly related to secondhand smoke(Robertson, 2002:49). Children are at such high risk for getting different infections and get sick a lot more than children who are not exposed to secondhand smoke. It is so toxic because even though you are not actually smoking the tobacco, you are breathing the same chemicals as smokers are. These chemicals can come from the tobacco or the soil, paper and ingredients added to make the tobacco taste better. Carbon monoxide (car exhaust), Toluene (paint thinner), and cadmium (batteries) are just a few of the toxic chemicals that we breathe in by secondhand smoke. To an infant or small child with a poor immune system these chemicals could harm them irreversibly. Secondhand smoke is very deadly and a very serious problem. We don’t ask to be exposed to secondhand smoke sometimes we just are. There are different levels of secondhand smoke but with either being in a room with a lot of smoke or just a little bit they all affect you the same way. As adults we can leave the room, or ask the person not to do that around us. Children on the other hand don’t have that voice to choose if they want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, especially if their parents are smokers in the home. If smoking were illegal children would not have to deal with this health concern. Non-smokers wouldn’t have to worry if they go somewhere that they may be exposed to smoke. For example, I had to go to a retirement party for my uncle. This was in Ohio where smoking is permitted in private facilities. The whole room was full of smokers and I could barely stand it to stay in there. The next day my throat was hurting and I know it was because I am not around smokers that often. Secondhand smoke is just as bad as smoking if not worse because at least with smoking the people are choosing to smoke. Non-smokers are not choosing to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
Lexington, Kentucky was the first city in the state of Kentucky to put into effect a smoke-free ordinance and went into effect April 27, 2004 (Anderson:2007, 1). They have made restaurants, businesses and campuses a smoke-free environment. IT has affected all the bars here in Lexington with not allowing customers to smoke inside or on the premises without being fined for their actions. Penalties for violating this begin at $100 for the first offense, $250 for second offense, and $500 for each other offense after. Individuals who are smoking in a prohibited area and have been asked to leave can have trespassing charges brought against them if they refuse to leave (Anderson: 2007, 1). For people who are non-smokers this really was a breakthrough moment because now we could go out in public or our favorite restaurant and not be bothered by a cloud of smoke over our heads. It was very exciting time but now that some time has passed, even though people are not smoking inside buildings we are still being exposed in public places. This is such a great step in the right direction but I don’t believe that the ultimate goal was fulfilled here. The goal is to eliminate smoking and cause people to want to quit smoking. With smokers they will always find a way to smoke, so even though now there are fines they could receive for breaking these rules a lot of people either don’t get caught or are being over looked now. I think if smoking were illegal it would be helping us strive for a healthier way of life here in Kentucky and show people that we are serious about the regulations we are putting on the community.
On campus, University of Kentucky became smoke free on November 19, 2009. A few years after Lexington became smoke free. UK decided this was what they wanted to do because of all the money that is being spent on treating people who get sick from using tobacco products and being exposed to secondhand smoke. This is in turn directly related to their students, patients, employees and visitors at risk for disease. University of Kentucky has a high level of respect in the community and I don’t think that they would want people visiting the campus being disgusted at people using nicotine. As a UK employee, I have been directed affected by this smoking ban. I have seen the regulations go into effect and how upset people have become because of this ban. I have seen the worst possible thing happen, fire an employee for not smoking in the designated area. These designated smoking areas are being used instead of people being able to smoke wherever they want to. So now instead of seeing people smoking everywhere on campus they are just huddled up in certain areas. At the hospital the patients, visitors, and employees smoke on the corner of limestone. I do not see the benefit of smoking in one designated place or smoking campus wide. It is still smoking both ways and needs to be abolished.
$96 billion of the total US health care costs each year are attributed to smoking. This is below the total cost to society because it does not include burn care from smoking-related fires, prenatal care for low-birth weight infants or mothers who smoke, and medical care costs associated with disease from secondhand smoke. In addition, the costs of lost productivity due to smoking are $97 billion a year, making the economic burden of smoking to $193 billion per year (NIDA:2007). The direct costs of nicotine on our healthcare system are why nicotine should be illegal. Research that has been done on health care costs among former smokers suggests that quitters incur greater health care costs for up to four years after quitting. So if a smoker does not have health insurance either the hospital has to pay for the expenses he/she is racking up or we are using our taxpaying dollars to pay for healthcare expenses. I feel like there are a lot better things that we can use our money for than to pay hospital bills to a smoker. We have just now almost gotten out of the recession the economy has been in, and to continue to keep paying for these expenses will put us right back to where we do not want to be. I have seen now that companies are not willing to hire smokers and are giving their current employees time to quit or they may lose their jobs. Not only for the reason they are promoting a nicotine free workplace but because their healthcare costs are rising and it is effecting everyone in the company.
As you can see, Nicotine is affecting the community we live in. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that is taking control over our society. If we made nicotine illegal a lot of things would be changed. A lot of the health risks that smoking causes like lung cancer, asthma or emphysema would not be as prevalent as it is right now. We could be fighting back against these diseases because they are preventable diseases. Women being pregnant would be addressed at a more serious level than it is right now. Women wouldn’t be putting these chemicals in their bodies as freely now because they would face serious consequences. Just the same that a baby born with drugs in their system it would be treated the same with nicotine. Both are harmful to babies and both can leave them with irreversible damage. This also goes along with second-hand smoke. You would not be allowed to smoke in public places or even the privacy of your own home. This would be very beneficial to children who have no voice when it comes to secondhand smoke. They can’t choose if they want to stay where they are and breathe in these chemicals. They would not have to suffer the consequences of their parent’s actions any longer, leading to healthier, active and happy children. With the smoking ban being around for some years now, we have seen the results and how it is helping our community stay healthier. This is the first step to get nicotine illegal and showing society how we are fighting for the health of our community. And if you still believe that smoking isn’t that bad just look at how smoking is affecting healthcare costs but also the costs of medical insurance. We can be a part and help the national budget stay low by eliminating smoking. We will live in a much more proactive society that is concerned about the well being of others.
Anderson, Deborah. "Smoking Laws In Kentucky." Associated Content (2007): pg. 1-4. Web. 16 Nov 2010.
Brady, Kathleen. Women and Addiction: A comprehensive Handbook. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2009.
"Data & Statistics: Secondhand Smoke." Centers for Disease Control . N.p., 06142007. Web. 9 Nov 2010.
Doweiko, Harold E. Concepts of Chemical Dependency. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2009.
Hales, Diana. An Invitation to Health. 2009-2010. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.
Robertson, Cathie. Safety, Nutrition & Health in Childcare. Albany, NY: Delmar, 2002.
"Smoking and Tobacco Use ." Center for Disease Control. Center for Disease Control , 03 11 2010. Web. 3 Nov 2010.
"Tobacco Addiction." National Institute on Drug Abuse (2007): 1. Web. 16 Nov 2010.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Ethan Watters: The Globalization of the American Psyche
Ethan Watters: The Globalization of the American Psyche
FORA TV
American culture is homogenizing the way the world goes mad. Our exportation of everything from movies to junk food is a well-documented phenomenon. But neither our golden arches nor our bomb craters represent our most troubling impact on the world: the bulldozing of the human mind itself.
In Crazy Like Us, leading trend-spotter and science writer Ethan Watters shows that we are not only changing the way the world treats and understands mental illness, we are actually changing the symptoms and prevalence of the diseases themselves.
Watters travels the world to illustrate the ways in which Western influences have changed mental illness.
In Hong Kong, he meets teenagers who have learned from American culture that anorexia is the modern way to express distress, and who began refusing food after a wave of Western celebrities and researchers began raising awareness. In Zanzibar, he witnesses a much milder and more bearable form of schizophrenia than what we have in the States.
In Sri Lanka, he sees western crisis counselors bungle the treatment of tsunami victims and actually cause the community more distress.
And in Japan, he tells the story of the drug companies selling depression itself to create a market for a new drug. There is no transcript for this program
To Watch the Episode
FORA TV
American culture is homogenizing the way the world goes mad. Our exportation of everything from movies to junk food is a well-documented phenomenon. But neither our golden arches nor our bomb craters represent our most troubling impact on the world: the bulldozing of the human mind itself.
In Crazy Like Us, leading trend-spotter and science writer Ethan Watters shows that we are not only changing the way the world treats and understands mental illness, we are actually changing the symptoms and prevalence of the diseases themselves.
Watters travels the world to illustrate the ways in which Western influences have changed mental illness.
In Hong Kong, he meets teenagers who have learned from American culture that anorexia is the modern way to express distress, and who began refusing food after a wave of Western celebrities and researchers began raising awareness. In Zanzibar, he witnesses a much milder and more bearable form of schizophrenia than what we have in the States.
In Sri Lanka, he sees western crisis counselors bungle the treatment of tsunami victims and actually cause the community more distress.
And in Japan, he tells the story of the drug companies selling depression itself to create a market for a new drug. There is no transcript for this program
To Watch the Episode
Claude Fischler: Americans need to stop multitasking while eating alone
Americans need to stop multitasking while eating alone, argues French sociologist Claude Fischler
Grist
...
Fischler and his colleagues surveyed 7,000 people from the United States and five European nations (France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and England) about their attitudes toward food and health. They found a spectrum of attitudes, with the U.S. occupying one extreme end and France, the other.
Here in the good ol' U.S. of A, our national identity as disparate, atomized individuals is reflected in how we see our food: nothing more than a sum of individual nutrients that can be customized to fit the health needs and tastes of the individual. Americans value choice in their diets above almost all else. They want to build a diet especially for their bodies and what they choose to put in their bodies is always their choice. The American obsession with choice stood out markedly from the other five countries surveyed, and is the case in other studies as well.
On the other hand, the French made clear that "not all eating is eating." Eating "requires a certain configuration of time, space, and people" to constitute a meal. For example, a Frenchwoman, Fischler recounted, would tell researchers that she hadn't eaten all day but then state plainly that she bought and consumed a pastry from a baker's stand. The French also honed in on food's quality and culinary identity: How does it taste? Where does it come from? How fresh is it?
It's not just what you're eating, it's who you're eating. Er, with! Who you're eating with.
Along these same lines, the English-speaking countries in the study (U.S. and Britain) distinguished themselves from the continental European nations (France, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy) by describing health as the main purpose of eating. For the others, health is a secondary benefit; social pleasures and the joy of life dominate continental Europeans' discussions about eating. As one Italian put it, "to eat good fish and drink good wine" with friends is the true meaning of eating well. That sounds convivial, even commensal. It also sounds worlds away from the anxiety revealed by middle-aged American women weighing the protein and carbohydrates necessary to eat well.
It's not surprising that attitudes toward eating differ among countries and cultures. But what are the consequences of those differences?
To Read the Rest of the Article
Grist
...
Fischler and his colleagues surveyed 7,000 people from the United States and five European nations (France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and England) about their attitudes toward food and health. They found a spectrum of attitudes, with the U.S. occupying one extreme end and France, the other.
Here in the good ol' U.S. of A, our national identity as disparate, atomized individuals is reflected in how we see our food: nothing more than a sum of individual nutrients that can be customized to fit the health needs and tastes of the individual. Americans value choice in their diets above almost all else. They want to build a diet especially for their bodies and what they choose to put in their bodies is always their choice. The American obsession with choice stood out markedly from the other five countries surveyed, and is the case in other studies as well.
On the other hand, the French made clear that "not all eating is eating." Eating "requires a certain configuration of time, space, and people" to constitute a meal. For example, a Frenchwoman, Fischler recounted, would tell researchers that she hadn't eaten all day but then state plainly that she bought and consumed a pastry from a baker's stand. The French also honed in on food's quality and culinary identity: How does it taste? Where does it come from? How fresh is it?
It's not just what you're eating, it's who you're eating. Er, with! Who you're eating with.
Along these same lines, the English-speaking countries in the study (U.S. and Britain) distinguished themselves from the continental European nations (France, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy) by describing health as the main purpose of eating. For the others, health is a secondary benefit; social pleasures and the joy of life dominate continental Europeans' discussions about eating. As one Italian put it, "to eat good fish and drink good wine" with friends is the true meaning of eating well. That sounds convivial, even commensal. It also sounds worlds away from the anxiety revealed by middle-aged American women weighing the protein and carbohydrates necessary to eat well.
It's not surprising that attitudes toward eating differ among countries and cultures. But what are the consequences of those differences?
To Read the Rest of the Article
Monday, September 27, 2010
Michael Pollan and Raj Patel: The Politics and Economics of Food (How Markets Promote Famine and Subsidize Sickness)
(Extra credit opportunity for HUM 121 students)
The Politics and Economics of Food (How Markets Promote Famine and Subsidize Sickness)
Unwelcome Guests
Most Americans seem to know little about what is in the food they eat, by any standards a pretty remarkable state of affairs. Our first speaker this week is Michael Pollan, author of several books on food. His 2008 talk, "In Defence of Food", encourages us to look at food from a common sense, rather than a scientific perspective. His advise on what to eat is simple - "Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables". But what is food? He also advises "not to eat anything that your great grandmother wouldn't recognise as food."
On the relationship between food and health, he notes that around 1960, the average US citizen spent 18% of their income on food, while their healthcare expense was about 5%. Nowadays, the average US citizen spends only 9% of their income on food, but their healthcare bill is up to around 17%. He discusses the role of the farm bill in shaping the food choices available to Americans, by heavily subsidizing corn and soy, and explains why the cheapest foods in the modern supermarket are the least healthy ones. He concludes that the agribusiness is overreaching, both politically and technologically, while a grassroots resistance movement is growing to food hegemony.
After a junk food song, "Twinkies and Ding Dongs" by Slash J. Frank, our second hour features Raj Patel, speaking on "The Hidden Battle for the World Food System". He will be asking questions such as
"Which unhealthy ingredient is in ¾ of all processed fast food?"
"What is lecithin?"
"Why is there no Wal★Mart in Germany?"
"What is Bunny Chow, and how does it relate to the apartheid laws?"
"Is your food made to suit you, or are you made to suit your food?"
"What is the importance of the Italian Communist Party to food?"
He rejects 'supermarket democracy' which allows consumers to choose from multiple different brands of the same toxic junk, and suggests that the answer is not shopping but political organising.
To Listen to the Episode
The Politics and Economics of Food (How Markets Promote Famine and Subsidize Sickness)
Unwelcome Guests
Most Americans seem to know little about what is in the food they eat, by any standards a pretty remarkable state of affairs. Our first speaker this week is Michael Pollan, author of several books on food. His 2008 talk, "In Defence of Food", encourages us to look at food from a common sense, rather than a scientific perspective. His advise on what to eat is simple - "Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables". But what is food? He also advises "not to eat anything that your great grandmother wouldn't recognise as food."
On the relationship between food and health, he notes that around 1960, the average US citizen spent 18% of their income on food, while their healthcare expense was about 5%. Nowadays, the average US citizen spends only 9% of their income on food, but their healthcare bill is up to around 17%. He discusses the role of the farm bill in shaping the food choices available to Americans, by heavily subsidizing corn and soy, and explains why the cheapest foods in the modern supermarket are the least healthy ones. He concludes that the agribusiness is overreaching, both politically and technologically, while a grassroots resistance movement is growing to food hegemony.
After a junk food song, "Twinkies and Ding Dongs" by Slash J. Frank, our second hour features Raj Patel, speaking on "The Hidden Battle for the World Food System". He will be asking questions such as
"Which unhealthy ingredient is in ¾ of all processed fast food?"
"What is lecithin?"
"Why is there no Wal★Mart in Germany?"
"What is Bunny Chow, and how does it relate to the apartheid laws?"
"Is your food made to suit you, or are you made to suit your food?"
"What is the importance of the Italian Communist Party to food?"
He rejects 'supermarket democracy' which allows consumers to choose from multiple different brands of the same toxic junk, and suggests that the answer is not shopping but political organising.
To Listen to the Episode
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Meterologist Jeff Masters on Extreme Weather Trends Across the Globe
Meterologist: Record Heat Wave in Russia Could Kill Tens of Thousands
Democracy Now
Wildfires across Russia. Devastating floods in Pakistan. Deadly landslides and flash floods in India and China. Heat wave across the United States. Severe drought in Niger. Taken together, scientists warn the events match predictions for extreme climate events caused by global warming. This year is on track to be the warmest since reliable temperature records began over a century ago, mainly due to a buildup of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels. We speak to Jeff Masters, co-founder and director of meteorology for Weather Underground, a weather information website.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Democracy Now
Wildfires across Russia. Devastating floods in Pakistan. Deadly landslides and flash floods in India and China. Heat wave across the United States. Severe drought in Niger. Taken together, scientists warn the events match predictions for extreme climate events caused by global warming. This year is on track to be the warmest since reliable temperature records began over a century ago, mainly due to a buildup of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels. We speak to Jeff Masters, co-founder and director of meteorology for Weather Underground, a weather information website.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Good Food (Mark Dworking and Melissa Young, 2008)
Trailer of documentary about the Pacific North West small farm/healthy food movement...
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Speaking of Faith: Stress and the Balance Within
Stress and the Balance Within
Speaking of Faith (American Public Media)
Host: Krista Tippett
The American experience of stress has spawned a multi-billion dollar self-help industry. Wary of this, Esther Sternberg says that, until recently, modern science did not have the tools or the inclination to take emotional stress seriously. She shares fascinating new scientific insight into the molecular level of the mind-body connection.
To Listen to the Program and Access Resources
Speaking of Faith (American Public Media)
Host: Krista Tippett
The American experience of stress has spawned a multi-billion dollar self-help industry. Wary of this, Esther Sternberg says that, until recently, modern science did not have the tools or the inclination to take emotional stress seriously. She shares fascinating new scientific insight into the molecular level of the mind-body connection.
To Listen to the Program and Access Resources
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Future of Food (USA: Deborah Koons, 2004)
One of the best documentaries I have seen on this subject... does the devil own Monsanto (or at least have a major interest in it)? Great mapping of Monsanto CEOs and Board Members who are members of government.
Oil, Coal, Food, Media, etc...... America say hello to your corporatocracy:
The Future of Food (USA: Deborah Koons, 2004)
To Watch the Documentary Online
Oil, Coal, Food, Media, etc...... America say hello to your corporatocracy:
The Future of Food (USA: Deborah Koons, 2004)
To Watch the Documentary Online
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Tell Somebody: Helen Caldicott - Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, & Kansas City; Ivory Mae Thomas - Exposed to radioactive promethium; Jason Klumb
Tell Somebody (KKFI: Kansas City)
Dr. Helen Caldicott - Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, & Kansas City
Caldicott, a pediatrician, has, according to her biography at If You Love This Planet, "devoted over 35 years to educating the public and policymakers about the medical hazards of nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, and ecological collapse, and the necessary remedy of citizen participation."
To Listen to the Episode
Exposed to radioactive promethium - Ivory Mae Thomas
A little over twenty years ago, Ivory Mae Thomas was at work on the night shift cleaning offices at the Kansas City branch of the US nuclear weapons complex when someone came to her and said "I've got bad news for you. ...our machine had a little leak, and we discovered you stepped in radiation." They took her to an emergency room at the plant, took her clothes, scrubbed her down, and came to her house in the middle of the night and scrubbed it down. Thomas says she was never told exactly what she had been exposed to until a local television reporter dug it out with FOIA requests twenty years later.
To Listen to the Episode
Jason Klumb - Regional Administrator, General Services Administration
Jason Klumb, Administrator for the Heartland Region of the General Services Administration, sat down with Tell Somebody in his south Kansas City office to talk about how he called in doctors from the Centers for Disease Control to look into health concerns among former and current workers at the Bannister Federal Complex.
To Listen to the Episode
Dr. Helen Caldicott - Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, & Kansas City
Caldicott, a pediatrician, has, according to her biography at If You Love This Planet, "devoted over 35 years to educating the public and policymakers about the medical hazards of nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, and ecological collapse, and the necessary remedy of citizen participation."
To Listen to the Episode
Exposed to radioactive promethium - Ivory Mae Thomas
A little over twenty years ago, Ivory Mae Thomas was at work on the night shift cleaning offices at the Kansas City branch of the US nuclear weapons complex when someone came to her and said "I've got bad news for you. ...our machine had a little leak, and we discovered you stepped in radiation." They took her to an emergency room at the plant, took her clothes, scrubbed her down, and came to her house in the middle of the night and scrubbed it down. Thomas says she was never told exactly what she had been exposed to until a local television reporter dug it out with FOIA requests twenty years later.
To Listen to the Episode
Jason Klumb - Regional Administrator, General Services Administration
Jason Klumb, Administrator for the Heartland Region of the General Services Administration, sat down with Tell Somebody in his south Kansas City office to talk about how he called in doctors from the Centers for Disease Control to look into health concerns among former and current workers at the Bannister Federal Complex.
To Listen to the Episode
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Johann Hari: How Goldman gambled on starvation
How Goldman gambled on starvation
by Johann Hari
The Independent (UK)
Speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much pain?
By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. Here's the rest. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world.
It starts with an apparent mystery. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people – mostly children – couldn't afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it "a silent mass murder", entirely due to "man-made actions."
Earlier this year I was in Ethiopia, one of the worst-hit countries, and people there remember the food crisis as if they had been struck by a tsunami. "My children stopped growing," a woman my age called Abiba Getaneh, told me. "I felt like battery acid had been poured into my stomach as I starved. I took my two daughters out of school and got into debt. If it had gone on much longer, I think my baby would have died."
Most of the explanations we were given at the time have turned out to be false. It didn't happen because supply fell: the International Grain Council says global production of wheat actually increased during that period, for example. It isn't because demand grew either: as Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi has shown, demand actually fell by 3 per cent. Other factors – like the rise of biofuels, and the spike in the oil price – made a contribution, but they aren't enough on their own to explain such a violent shift.
To understand the biggest cause, you have to plough through some concepts that will make your head ache – but not half as much as they made the poor world's stomachs ache.
For over a century, farmers in wealthy countries have been able to engage in a process where they protect themselves against risk. Farmer Giles can agree in January to sell his crop to a trader in August at a fixed price. If he has a great summer, he'll lose some cash, but if there's a lousy summer or the global price collapses, he'll do well from the deal. When this process was tightly regulated and only companies with a direct interest in the field could get involved, it worked.
To Read the Entire Article
by Johann Hari
The Independent (UK)
Speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much pain?
By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. Here's the rest. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world.
It starts with an apparent mystery. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people – mostly children – couldn't afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it "a silent mass murder", entirely due to "man-made actions."
Earlier this year I was in Ethiopia, one of the worst-hit countries, and people there remember the food crisis as if they had been struck by a tsunami. "My children stopped growing," a woman my age called Abiba Getaneh, told me. "I felt like battery acid had been poured into my stomach as I starved. I took my two daughters out of school and got into debt. If it had gone on much longer, I think my baby would have died."
Most of the explanations we were given at the time have turned out to be false. It didn't happen because supply fell: the International Grain Council says global production of wheat actually increased during that period, for example. It isn't because demand grew either: as Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi has shown, demand actually fell by 3 per cent. Other factors – like the rise of biofuels, and the spike in the oil price – made a contribution, but they aren't enough on their own to explain such a violent shift.
To understand the biggest cause, you have to plough through some concepts that will make your head ache – but not half as much as they made the poor world's stomachs ache.
For over a century, farmers in wealthy countries have been able to engage in a process where they protect themselves against risk. Farmer Giles can agree in January to sell his crop to a trader in August at a fixed price. If he has a great summer, he'll lose some cash, but if there's a lousy summer or the global price collapses, he'll do well from the deal. When this process was tightly regulated and only companies with a direct interest in the field could get involved, it worked.
To Read the Entire Article
Monday, June 21, 2010
Avi Lewis: In Deep Water
In Deep Water
by Avi lewis
Al Jazeera
In the two months since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, millions of litres of oil have gushed out of BP's well into the water each day, slowly encroaching on the coastline.
A menace to the fragile marshlands, the drilling disaster is also threatening a whole way of life for fishing communities in Louisiana - still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina five years ago.
But this is not all new: Big Oil has a long history in this part of the world.
Fault Lines' Avi Lewis travels to the drill zone, and learns about the erosion in the wetlands from industry canals and pipelines, the health problems blamed on contaminated air and water from petrochemical refineries.
On the Gulf Coast, it has long been widely accepted that the fishing and oil industries can co-exist. In the wake of the Deepwater disaster, the more destructive (and more lucrative) industry may be the last one standing.
To Watch the Documentary
by Avi lewis
Al Jazeera
In the two months since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, millions of litres of oil have gushed out of BP's well into the water each day, slowly encroaching on the coastline.
A menace to the fragile marshlands, the drilling disaster is also threatening a whole way of life for fishing communities in Louisiana - still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina five years ago.
But this is not all new: Big Oil has a long history in this part of the world.
Fault Lines' Avi Lewis travels to the drill zone, and learns about the erosion in the wetlands from industry canals and pipelines, the health problems blamed on contaminated air and water from petrochemical refineries.
On the Gulf Coast, it has long been widely accepted that the fishing and oil industries can co-exist. In the wake of the Deepwater disaster, the more destructive (and more lucrative) industry may be the last one standing.
To Watch the Documentary
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Intelligence Squared U.S.: Is paying extra money for organic food really worth it?
Is paying extra money for organic food really worth it?
Intelligence Squared U.S. (NPR)
Some argue that the label "organic" confers real value — marking healthier food produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and antibiotics. But others claim it's just marketing hype — that organic food hasn't been proven healthier and that it comes with its own environmental trade-offs, like requiring more land.
A group of experts recently went head-to-head on the topic in an Oxford-style debate, the latest in the Intelligence Squared U.S. series. Three argued in favor of the motion "Organic Food Is Marketing Hype" and three argued against.
Before the debate, the audience at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts voted 21 percent in favor of the motion and 45 percent against, with 34 percent undecided. After the debate, the percentage who agreed "Organic Food Is Marketing Hype" remained the same, while 69 percent of the audience opposed it. Ten percent remained undecided.
The April 13 debate was moderated by John Donvan, correspondent for ABC News' Nightline. Those debating were:
FOR THE MOTION
Dennis Avery is director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. From 1980-88, he served as an agricultural analyst for the State Department, where he was responsible for assessing the foreign policy implications of food and farming developments worldwide. At Hudson, Avery continues to monitor developments in world food production, farm product demand, the safety and security of food supplies, and the sustainability of world agriculture.
Blake Hurst raises corn and soybeans with his wife, Julie, and other family members on a farm in northwest Missouri. The Hursts have farmed for over 30 years and also own and operate a greenhouse business with their daughter and son-in-law. Hurst, a freelance writer, has had articles published in The Wall Street Journal, The Wilson Quarterly, The American and other periodicals.
John Krebs is the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and is the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom. He was appointed to the House of Lords as an independent crossbencher in 2007. Krebs is a trustee of the Nuffield Foundation; chairman of the U.K. Science and Technology Honours Committee; and chairman of the Royal Society's Science Policy Advisory Group. He sits on the U.K. Climate Change Committee and chairs its Adaptation Sub-Committee.
AGAINST THE MOTION
Charles Benbrook serves as the chief scientist of The Organic Center. He worked in Washington, D.C., on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997. Benbrook has served as agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality; executive director of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research and Foreign Agriculture; executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences; and he ran Benbrook Consulting Services.
Urvashi Rangan is the director of technical policy for Consumers Union, which she joined in 1999. She developed its ratings system, database and website for evaluating environmental labels. She serves as a spokesperson for Consumer Reports in the areas of sustainable production and consumption practices, organic food standards, food safety issues, pollution and environmental health concerns.
Jeffrey Steingarten is the food critic for Vogue magazine. He is also the author of It Must've Been Something I Ate and The Man Who Ate Everything, named food book of the year by the British Guild of Food Writers and awarded the 1998 Julia Child Book Award for literary food writing.
To Listen to the Debate
Intelligence Squared U.S. (NPR)
Some argue that the label "organic" confers real value — marking healthier food produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and antibiotics. But others claim it's just marketing hype — that organic food hasn't been proven healthier and that it comes with its own environmental trade-offs, like requiring more land.
A group of experts recently went head-to-head on the topic in an Oxford-style debate, the latest in the Intelligence Squared U.S. series. Three argued in favor of the motion "Organic Food Is Marketing Hype" and three argued against.
Before the debate, the audience at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts voted 21 percent in favor of the motion and 45 percent against, with 34 percent undecided. After the debate, the percentage who agreed "Organic Food Is Marketing Hype" remained the same, while 69 percent of the audience opposed it. Ten percent remained undecided.
The April 13 debate was moderated by John Donvan, correspondent for ABC News' Nightline. Those debating were:
FOR THE MOTION
Dennis Avery is director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. From 1980-88, he served as an agricultural analyst for the State Department, where he was responsible for assessing the foreign policy implications of food and farming developments worldwide. At Hudson, Avery continues to monitor developments in world food production, farm product demand, the safety and security of food supplies, and the sustainability of world agriculture.
Blake Hurst raises corn and soybeans with his wife, Julie, and other family members on a farm in northwest Missouri. The Hursts have farmed for over 30 years and also own and operate a greenhouse business with their daughter and son-in-law. Hurst, a freelance writer, has had articles published in The Wall Street Journal, The Wilson Quarterly, The American and other periodicals.
John Krebs is the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and is the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom. He was appointed to the House of Lords as an independent crossbencher in 2007. Krebs is a trustee of the Nuffield Foundation; chairman of the U.K. Science and Technology Honours Committee; and chairman of the Royal Society's Science Policy Advisory Group. He sits on the U.K. Climate Change Committee and chairs its Adaptation Sub-Committee.
AGAINST THE MOTION
Charles Benbrook serves as the chief scientist of The Organic Center. He worked in Washington, D.C., on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997. Benbrook has served as agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality; executive director of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research and Foreign Agriculture; executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences; and he ran Benbrook Consulting Services.
Urvashi Rangan is the director of technical policy for Consumers Union, which she joined in 1999. She developed its ratings system, database and website for evaluating environmental labels. She serves as a spokesperson for Consumer Reports in the areas of sustainable production and consumption practices, organic food standards, food safety issues, pollution and environmental health concerns.
Jeffrey Steingarten is the food critic for Vogue magazine. He is also the author of It Must've Been Something I Ate and The Man Who Ate Everything, named food book of the year by the British Guild of Food Writers and awarded the 1998 Julia Child Book Award for literary food writing.
To Listen to the Debate
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
History for the Future: Talking Drug Policy and Addiction with Caroline Acker
Talking Drug Policy and Addiction with Caroline Acker
History for the Future
An interview with Caroline Acker, Associate Professor of History at Carnegie Mellon University. We talk about the development of American drug policy, the meaning of addiction, her work in co-founding Prevention Point Pittsburgh (the area needle exchange program), and drug policy under Obama.
To Listen to the Episode
History for the Future
An interview with Caroline Acker, Associate Professor of History at Carnegie Mellon University. We talk about the development of American drug policy, the meaning of addiction, her work in co-founding Prevention Point Pittsburgh (the area needle exchange program), and drug policy under Obama.
To Listen to the Episode
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)