Bytes and Bites

We're Not Protected

I think more people are realizing how seriously the FDA, EPA, and other government agencies don't protect us from dangerous substances. I hope more people will refuse to aim their buying power at unsafe products. Only a dent in the corporate bottom line will change the marketing. It's up to consumers to do their own research.

Since "quality control" is so poor, I'd like to see private groups band together to offer product testing and information. Results can be published over the internet. I think we should join with our third world neighbors who are the least regulated and most vulnerable and to unscrupulous corporations. A poison banned in the U.S. may be to sold to Chilean grape producers, for example, and if you buy non-organics out of season, you may consume the toxin outlawed in the US anyway.

Considering the number of very toxic substances allowed here, it must be some pretty bad stuff!

As well-trained consumers, it's easy to buy the colorful, scented, anti-bacterial (are you sure?) revitalizing... whatever..., but the lotion you just bought may actually add more substances your over -worked liver has to detoxify. We don't know what we're buying because so little is required to be revealed. You may wonder what lotion on your skin has to do with your liver, but chemicals in lotions penetrate skin, just as to smell the lotion is to absorb molecules of it through your lungs, both easy ways foreign substances enter the system. In the case of solvents, for example, it only takes a little accumulating in your system to affect your health.

When the package of food claims to provide so much vitamin C, is that after

the ingredients have been processed or in their original state? The green pea I pick in my garden and eat raw gives me everything that live food has to offer... that green round thing pouring from a bag you pull out of the freezer has lost a lot of vitality in the processing and storage.

People don't have access to information they need to make a decision about any product. True, many people pick food because of a pretty package or a brand they are used to, and they should be free to pick food with little or no actual value to the body. But more and more people want to do better than General Foods and other food giants have in mind for us. If politicians were as concerned with protecting our health as they are about stroking their corporate contributors, we'd feel less like guinea pigs for the manufacturers.

What YOU can do

Driving a gasoline powered car is one easy example of how most of us couldn't sustain ourselves in our present fashion without the world's help, and otherwise the best of us are riddled with hypocrisies where the planet is concerned. But rather than burying our heads feeling hopeless and guilty, or looking down on others for not being as enlightened, let's just keep trying to personally do a little better for ourselves and everyone else day by day. Too simplistic? What can we do but face the truth and deal with it... or die on a poisoned lifeless landscape.. we or our children?

If we don't fight the genetically engineered growing of crops and crop control remedies, as an example, we become part of the problem.

I'd like to see people take back a little control of their environment by informing themselves of corporate and government practices that directly affects their health, boycott bad corporations, write representatives, inform others, support companies that voluntarily inform their prospective buyers, support people in other parts of the world that are fighting corporate abuse, and try in any other way you can think of to bring about real protection and real freedom.

If people hadn't fought legislation about organic standards, growers would now actually be prohibited from claiming their product exceeds the government standard or meets a higher standard, such as the fortunately still current

California Organic Certification standard. Every time we turn around, forces are in motion that make it easier for huge interests to make more money with less safety standards.

Back to the real world. If some
of us can do a few of the above list, everyone is better off. So if you can only inform yourself and people around you... think agressively not passively, and do even one other thing, you're doing a lot.

We need more extensive testing on products seeking approval, edible or not. Products already on the market need to be extensively tested and reapproved under new rules. I think people everywhere should work towards this goal in whatever way they can. Instead of the Good Housekeeping Label, private citizens could create a stamp of approval that meant it passed a toxin/foreign substance test at it's
point of sale. In the meantime, the government must be forced to require a complete label like I suggest below with the last test date. This would not be done to deny public access to products (except when a toxic substance is found to be over the safety limit), but rather to allow consumers to make informed decisions. If a toxic amount of a substance hasn't been determined, then not enough testing was done on it to have it on the market in the first place. A panel of citizens sort of like a jury could test and label products on the retail shelf. People need to know if it was artificially bred, when life in the field ended, what was used on the soil, the location it was grown, how and with what it was made and at what temperatures and in what containers, how it was shipped, etc.... the complete picture. I would not have shelled out dollars for juice if I had known they processed it in metal containers. My taste buds told me, but the dollars were already gone.

The Río Yaqui Farms

Here's a good example of why sustainable living is good for us little people.

The Desert Speaks, a program on KUAT, public TV station in Tucson, aired a show about farmers in Northern México. The Rio Yaqui is a fertile river valley where small farmers averaging 15 acres each make up a community where people are close to being economically equal. In other words, the community is mostly middle class.

In most towns, a few rich make most of the money. This is especially true in poor countries as in México where there are a few rich land owners or foreign agribusiness producers, but most of the people are poor. When agribusiness is involved, the mentality is to use up the resources, usually at the expense of local communities.

In contrast to farmers and small plantation owners who make little money from their crop when they sell to the
middle man, the small farms in the Rio Yaqui produce a mixture of crops with which people can sustain themselves at the kitchen table and at the marketplace. Their ties to the earth and their way of managing their community are intertwined. They protect and manage the waterway and irrigation system as a group. What better way to prevent pollution than to have the people who are bonded to their land decide on its management. Once again, decentralization works.

Real Recycling

Why create garbage that needs to be recycled? Let's create less garbage by composting organics and buying in bulk.

If you are consuming REAL FOOD, less garbage results. It now seems normal in the US to fill-up garbage cans with materials that require pollution-producing trucks to transport to landfills or recycling plants. After more energy is expended to recycle, still another generation of energy is required to make these materials into more packaging holding more lifeless food.

Imagine what might happen if the campaign for recycling takes this turn: companies place their products in bulk containers in retail stores because of consumer demand. People refill their own containers with product. Imagine the oil, paper and energy that could be saved if consumables like disposable diapers, toilet paper and napkins were offered at a discount if the customer buys them without the packaging.

Right now, only more progressive health food stores and a few market chains have products in bulk. I think work

needs to be done to ensure , untampered-with clean product at the dispensary level (the grocer of yesteryear got a pickle out of the jar for you), yet this idea still seems more cost effective than hiring dump trucks to pickup materials that often are not actually recycled.

Meantime, big corporations are increasing efforts to market countries with growing economies, increasing demands for natural resources by training them to be good little consumers like we are.

Effective Boycotting

We must fight the genetically engineered (GE) growing of crops and crop control remedies.

Like bus boycotts in the South in the 60's, I think boycotts still work, whether they are by phone call, letter, email or walking into the headquarters of major corporations. The only way to reach in and change policies is by threatening their bottom line. Smaller groups can always bite at the heels of the larger and monied ones by publicizing the dirt they do to us all... When people actually tell a company why they will no longer buy their product, the company will listen if enough people speak up.

We believe companies should be held accountable for the damage they do. The infant formula Nestles and others marketed to poor families outside the US in the 70's that resulted in so many deaths is still reason not to buy their products. Yes, I do think we should all take it personally when corporations bulldoze humanity. I have INFACT's newsletter from Feb of '79 with a boycott list.

Here's another boycott example based on harm to the environment as well as to human health: detergents. Many are polluted with cobalt and PCB's.

We've been marketed to believe it takes

suds to cut grease off dishes, but for many years detergents have harmed our waterways. Detergents will pollute as long as consumers buy (see alternative cleaners). To be the most effective boycott, write to your old company and tell them why you decided to discontinue use of their products. Petitions online and handwritten make a difference.

Help us begin a list of companies who don't deserve being supported by the public dollar with supporting documentation as to why the offerings of the company or their politics are offensive, unsound, or unfair to less powerful populations.

Alive&United    Email us    Art4U    index    Living Healthy    All4u

We're Not Protected
I think more people are realizing how seriously the FDA, EPA, and other government agencies don't protect us from dangerous substances. I hope more people will refuse to aim their buying power at unsafe products. Only a dent in the corporate bottom line will change the marketing. It's up to consumers to do their own research. Since "quality control" is so poor, I'd like to see private groups band together to offer product testing and information. Results can be published over the internet. I think we should join with our third world neighbors who are the least regulated and most vulnerable and to unscrupulous corporations. A poison banned in the U.S. may be to sold to Chilean grape producers, for example, and if you buy non-organics out of season, you may consume the toxin outlawed in the US anyway.	Considering the number of very toxic substances allowed here, it must be some pretty bad stuff! As well-trained consumers, it's easy to buy the colorful, scented, anti-bacterial (are you sure?) revitalizing... whatever..., but the lotion you just bought may actually add more substances your over -worked liver has to detoxify. We don't know what we're buying because so little is required to be revealed. You may wonder what lotion on your skin has to do with your liver, but chemicals in lotions penetrate skin, just as to smell the lotion is to absorb molecules of it through your lungs, both easy ways foreign substances enter the system. In the case of solvents, for example, it only takes a little accumulating in your system to affect your health. When the package of food claims to provide so much vitamin C, is that after	the ingredients have been processed or in their original state? The green pea I pick in my garden and eat raw gives me everything that live food has to offer... that green round thing pouring from a bag you pull out of the freezer has lost a lot of vitality in the processing and storage. People don't have access to information they need to make a decision about any product. True, many people pick food because of a pretty package or a brand they are used to, and they should be free to pick food with little or no actual value to the body. But more and more people want to do better than General Foods and other food giants have in mind for us. If politicians were as concerned with protecting our health as they are about stroking their corporate contributors, we'd feel less like guinea pigs for the manufacturers.

What YOU can do
Driving a gasoline powered car is one easy example of how most of us couldn't sustain ourselves in our present fashion without the world's help, and otherwise the best of us are riddled with hypocrisies where the planet is concerned. But rather than burying our heads feeling hopeless and guilty, or looking down on others for not being as enlightened, let's just keep trying to personally do a little better for ourselves and everyone else day by day. Too simplistic? What can we do but face the truth and deal with it... or die on a poisoned lifeless landscape.. we or our children?
If we don't fight the genetically engineered growing of crops and crop control remedies, as an example, we become part of the problem. I'd like to see people take back a little control of their environment by informing themselves of corporate and government practices that directly affects their health, boycott bad corporations, write representatives, inform others, support companies that voluntarily inform their prospective buyers, support people in other parts of the world that are fighting corporate abuse, and try in any other way you can think of to bring about real protection and real freedom. If people hadn't fought legislation about organic standards, growers would now actually be prohibited from claiming their product exceeds the government standard or meets a higher standard, such as the fortunately still current	California Organic Certification standard. Every time we turn around, forces are in motion that make it easier for huge interests to make more money with less safety standards. Back to the real world. If some of us can do a few of the above list, everyone is better off. So if you can only inform yourself and people around you... think agressively not passively, and do even one other thing, you're doing a lot. We need more extensive testing on products seeking approval, edible or not. Products already on the market need to be extensively tested and reapproved under new rules. I think people everywhere should work towards this goal in whatever way they can. Instead of the Good Housekeeping Label, private citizens could create a stamp of approval that meant it passed a toxin/foreign substance test at it's	point of sale. In the meantime, the government must be forced to require a complete label like I suggest below with the last test date. This would not be done to deny public access to products (except when a toxic substance is found to be over the safety limit), but rather to allow consumers to make informed decisions. If a toxic amount of a substance hasn't been determined, then not enough testing was done on it to have it on the market in the first place. A panel of citizens sort of like a jury could test and label products on the retail shelf. People need to know if it was artificially bred, when life in the field ended, what was used on the soil, the location it was grown, how and with what it was made and at what temperatures and in what containers, how it was shipped, etc.... the complete picture. I would not have shelled out dollars for juice if I had known they processed it in metal containers. My taste buds told me, but the dollars were already gone.

The Río Yaqui Farms
Here's a good example of why sustainable living is good for us little people. The Desert Speaks, a program on KUAT, public TV station in Tucson, aired a show about farmers in Northern México. The Rio Yaqui is a fertile river valley where small farmers averaging 15 acres each make up a community where people are close to being economically equal. In other words, the community is mostly middle class.	In most towns, a few rich make most of the money. This is especially true in poor countries as in México where there are a few rich land owners or foreign agribusiness producers, but most of the people are poor. When agribusiness is involved, the mentality is to use up the resources, usually at the expense of local communities. In contrast to farmers and small plantation owners who make little money from their crop when they sell to the	middle man, the small farms in the Rio Yaqui produce a mixture of crops with which people can sustain themselves at the kitchen table and at the marketplace. Their ties to the earth and their way of managing their community are intertwined. They protect and manage the waterway and irrigation system as a group. What better way to prevent pollution than to have the people who are bonded to their land decide on its management. Once again, decentralization works.

Real Recycling
Why create garbage that needs to be recycled? Let's create less garbage by composting organics and buying in bulk. If you are consuming REAL FOOD, less garbage results. It now seems normal in the US to fill-up garbage cans with materials that require pollution-producing trucks to transport to landfills or recycling plants. After more energy is expended to recycle, still another generation of energy is required to make these materials into more packaging holding more lifeless food.	Imagine what might happen if the campaign for recycling takes this turn: companies place their products in bulk containers in retail stores because of consumer demand. People refill their own containers with product. Imagine the oil, paper and energy that could be saved if consumables like disposable diapers, toilet paper and napkins were offered at a discount if the customer buys them without the packaging. Right now, only more progressive health food stores and a few market chains have products in bulk. I think work	needs to be done to ensure , untampered-with clean product at the dispensary level (the grocer of yesteryear got a pickle out of the jar for you), yet this idea still seems more cost effective than hiring dump trucks to pickup materials that often are not actually recycled. Meantime, big corporations are increasing efforts to market countries with growing economies, increasing demands for natural resources by training them to be good little consumers like we are.

Effective Boycotting
We must fight the genetically engineered (GE) growing of crops and crop control remedies. Like bus boycotts in the South in the 60's, I think boycotts still work, whether they are by phone call, letter, email or walking into the headquarters of major corporations. The only way to reach in and change policies is by threatening their bottom line. Smaller groups can always bite at the heels of the larger and monied ones by publicizing the dirt they do to us all... When people actually tell a company why they will no longer buy their product, the company will listen if enough people speak up.	We believe companies should be held accountable for the damage they do. The infant formula Nestles and others marketed to poor families outside the US in the 70's that resulted in so many deaths is still reason not to buy their products. Yes, I do think we should all take it personally when corporations bulldoze humanity. I have INFACT's newsletter from Feb of '79 with a boycott list. Here's another boycott example based on harm to the environment as well as to human health: detergents. Many are polluted with cobalt and PCB's. We've been marketed to believe it takes	suds to cut grease off dishes, but for many years detergents have harmed our waterways. Detergents will pollute as long as consumers buy (see alternative cleaners). To be the most effective boycott, write to your old company and tell them why you decided to discontinue use of their products. Petitions online and handwritten make a difference. Help us begin a list of companies who don't deserve being supported by the public dollar with supporting documentation as to why the offerings of the company or their politics are offensive, unsound, or unfair to less powerful populations.