Mary Gilbert’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I've just read a book called "The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health" by T. Colin Campbell and (his son) Thomas M. Campbell.  The cover also calls it "The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever conducted.," which is probably correct. 

  The book is based on decades of scrupulous scientifc research in both nutrition (a lot of rats bit the dust) and biological studies of proteins, etc., capped by an enormous analysis of dietary habits in various counties in China, "...the culmination of a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine."

  The biggest surprise was a strong positive correlation between consumption of animal protein and cancer.  Other "diseases of affluence" such as heart attacks, diabetes, etc. are also found to correlate with animal protein intake.  "Diseases of poverty" are no fun either, but very low consumption of animal protein among the poor seems practically to guarantee that cancer will not be what takes you out. 

  Campbell writes very clearly about how the results of his and other studies are kept from the public to preserve the myth (and profits) of the meat and dairy industries.

  Don't take my word for it.   Read the book (for free! libraries have it) and consider whether you find it convincing.  No two ways bout it, animal protein is identified as a major carcinogen.

   

   

   

   

  On Ask Umbra on livestock and water posted 3 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A stronger climate bill is crucial, and MoveOn should give it all the support we can.  I represent an NGO at the UN and hear more than many of my well-informed US colleagues about what climate disruption really means.  Small island states and low coastal areas are panicking.  The change in patterns of precipitation is already causing devastating droughts and flooding.  The illusion that our economy can be viewed as separate from the health of the planetary systems that enable life is dangerous nonsense, equivalent to "I'm not worried, it's your end of the boat that's sinking."

  What scares me is that if the US fails to put through a responsible climate package domestically the Copenhagen negotiations in December on an international treaty to replace Kyoto are doomed.  If that happens we are endorsing global disaster.

  Yes, MoveOn, let's do everything we can to strengthen the climate bill in the Senate, and then more again when the two Houses get together on the joint bill.

  On MoveOn asks members whether it should launch major campaign to strengthen climate bill posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  In some Third World (or more correctly, Majority World) countries --- and maybe here too, I don't know --- there are water - free toilets that immediately separate the urine from the solid material and use the urine for fertilizer. The solid waste is dried and can be used to generate methane for lighting and other uses.  Or it can be interlayered with sawdust or other such materials and allowed to dry to become compost too.

  These technologies are very important to publicize and otherwise make available in arid places, especially with the increase of drought and spread of outright desertification associated with climate change. 

  Human urine is definitely good for plants.  Even food plants.  Dilute 10-15 parts water to 1 part urine, more diluted for potted plants,and use it before 24 hours go by so it hasn't turned to amonia.

  On Ask Umbra on public peeing posted 5 months, 4 weeks ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  JPAP is right in some ways, but whenever we are talking about agriculture it's important to distinguish between different scales of agriculture.  There is agribusiness, which is dominant, and which produces most of the food available to buy here in the US.  Then there are the small, usually family farms that agribusiness is plowing under.  (I do a newsletter for a family farm CSA and thank the farmer often for his terriffic produce.) 

  At this point Monsanto and the rest of the club are into greenwashing.  They had a meeting in Colorado in February and agreed on a definition of "Sustainable Agriculture" that includes GMOs and lots of chemicals.  MOnsanto now has a corn that can be planted without tilling the soil, already in use in Asia.  Since "no-till" agriculture is now understood to help keep carbon in the ground, they are ready to promote no-till.  You do first need to treat the ground with an herbicide that kills everything, includiing helpful microbes, before you plant, but you definitely don't have to till. 

  Agribusiness and the chokehold it has on our food consumption are very harmful, not only in the reduced nutritional value we receive, and the now substantiated health problems associated with GMO crops, but in the damage it does to soil structure, the loss of topsoil, the desperate problem we will soon be in due to irresponsible water mining from aquifers that don't recharge, and the pollution of waterways including the ocean with carbon-based fertilizers and pesticides. 

  Additionally agribusiness and the scramble for profits is currently fueling a major land-grab in third-world countries (or more correctly, majority countries)not only to grow food crops for export (those cheap foods from all over that we get in the market) but now to grow monocrop plantations of biofuels sources.  Traditional land rights are becoming worthless, and poverty is on the big-time increase.

  The agriculture to encourage is the kind where you DO get to thank the farmer, because you know her or him.  Maybe you've even walked the fields.  Soon it will be pea season in the northeast, where I live, and I will take my grandson, who is three, out into the sunny rows where we will pick safe peas and pop them into our mouths, still warm. 

  If you can become part of a network that is sustainable, not only for the land but also for the small farmer, DO IT. 

   

   

   

   

   

   

  On Monsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messages posted 5 months, 4 weeks ago 30 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A commentor above mentioned that Monsanto pulled out of the IAASDT process shortly before the report was finalized, because they didn't like the (correct) data indicating their GMO Roundup-Ready products didn't look good.

  I just attended the meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development at the UN in NY earlier this month.  Most of you will be surprised and disheartened to hear that the IAASDT report was not even referred to in any negotiating sessions, although its head spoke on the next to the last day.  By that time negotiations were almost completed and no material was being added. 

  There was, however, lots of discussion on the New Green Revolution, which is being promoted by UNEP (The UN Environmental Programme) and had GMO crops at its heart.  One idea is to bring in GMO food crops that will be successful in dryland areas.  There is also a GMO variety of corn that can be grown using no-till agriculture, now being touted as a way to keep carbon in the soil.  First you lay down a heavy dose of herbicide/pesticide and wait until all the weeds are dead.  Then you plant.  One woman from Third World Network, a very esteemed Asian NGO, said she has seen this corn in terraced plantings where corn could not have been grown before. 

  One funny thing was that the US and Canada were insisting that the phrase "sustainable agriculture" be inserted everywhere possible in the Outcome Document.  And the "Group of 77," which is composed of 138 (not 77) smaller and less powerful countries, was insisting that that phrase be replaced in ever instance with "agriculture for sustainable development."  Many of us were confused.

  It turned out that Monsanto and the rest of the club had had a meeting in Colorado in February where they devised a definition of "sustainable agriculture" that they could live with, as it included everything they planned to do.  With this in place the US was able to insist on the phrase, and UNEP was able to say that the New Green Revolution is based on sustainable agriculture.

  Please, in whatever ways you can, use the IAASDT report as the basis of your opinions, not the Monsanto-developed phrase "sustainable agriculture," which no longer means what we thought it meant.  The head of IAASDT (not remembering his name at the moment - tired-looking Englishman) said. "Can we feed Africa with the knowledge and technology we have now?  Absolutely!  Will we need GMO crops in the future?  That could be possible, but we really don't need them now."

  Mary

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  On Monsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messages posted 6 months ago 30 Responses