Grazin' Angus Acres' Keith Gibson On Cow Poop & Chickens

Yesterday I wrote about my recent visit to Keith Gibson's extraordinary Grazin' Angus Acres farm and shared a video of Gibson discussing his cows and the grass they eat.
 
In a truly poly-cultural farm like Grazin' Angus Acres, nothing gets wasted and Mother Nature trumps technology every day of the week. In the below video Gibson explains—while surrounded by chickens—how cow poop is fundamental to his farm's existence. 

Look, mom (and Monsanto), no pesticides!
 
(If you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email, click here to watch.)
 

Keith Gibson of Grazin' Angus Acres Talks Cattle and Grass

There are very few people I trust with my food; Keith Gibson, one of the forces behind Grazin' Angus Acres farm, is a member of that select group. His farm is in Ghent, NY (about 30 minutes outside of Albany), but thankfully Keith drives 2½ hours to New York City on Saturdays and Sundays to sell his beef, pork, chicken, milk and eggs at two Manhattan farmers' markets.

I visited the farm last week and came away even more impressed with Keith and the operation. The farm, set amidst beautiful rolling hills, is truly poly-cultural, in the mode of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farms, which starred in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and Food, Inc. The cows are 100 percent grass-fed, the chickens are pastured and the pigs are free to roam; any supplemental feed is organic.

The farm produces sublime food (flavor and nutrition) while respecting the land and animals. No corners are cut and things are done the way they are because, as Keith says, "it's the right thing to do."

Keith gave me a tour of the farm and explained the intricacies of the farm's workings. Here's Keith talking about his Black Angus cattle (originally from Scotland) and the grass they eat. As you'll see and hear, it's not as simple as "cattle" and "grass." Grazin' Angus Acres is the antithesis of a commercial, factory feedlot where the majority of our meat, dairy and eggs is produced.

(If you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email, click here to watch.)

Five-Year-Old Fills Soda All By Herself; Mom Says, "Great Job!"

I just witnessed what one parent (not me) thought was a great teaching moment; I deemed it indicative of much of what is wrong with how we eat in this country. 

The location was a service area—fast food, bathrooms, gas—on the Interstate Highway System. I was having a homemade picnic dinner (chicken thigh on a whole wheat roll with avocado, Dijon mustard, dill and parsley) in the Quiznos's seating area when I went to get a couple napkins.

I passed the self-service soda fountain and saw a girl of about five dispensing neon pink liquid into a huge Coca-Cola cup (it was at least 32 ounces). When she was done, her mom congratulated her: "Great job; that was the first time you did it all by yourself!" 

The girl's drink of choice? Hi-C Poppin' Pink Lemonade, which contains a little less than four grams of sugar (in the form of high fructose corn syrup, from genetically-engineered and pesticide-laden corn) per ounce. 

While the ingredients are awful (but can't be found on Coca-Cola's website), I was more upset knowing that this innocent girl probably thinks that sodas, fruit drinks and sports drinks are normal, everyday beverages. 

I wish her only the best in life, but a part of me knows that her health, intelligence and happiness are being compromised with every sip of Poppin' Pink Lemonade. 

Oh, in addition to fast food, bathrooms and gas, the service areas have water fountains (free!) as well.

"Food Is Love" Commercial Supports Prop 37

Here's a commercial supporting California's Prop 37, courtesy of the side that isn't spending $1 million per day spewing lies and chicanery. (If you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email, click here to watch the ad.) 

Also, this was the lead of the email I received announcing the commercial: 

"Great news, the dark days are over! Today we go up on the air with our beautiful new TV ad that topped the charts in all our polling and focus group tests. We have withstood 25 days of negative attacks; we are still ahead in the polls, and now we are taking our most powerful message to the people."

Question of the Day: Bulk Bins and Hands

When shopping in the bulk section, why do people use their hands to grab/sample food when the scoops are right there, waiting to be used?

Mark Bittman: "Buying the Vote on G.M.O.'s"

What can be bought with one million dollars a day? How about . . . our future. 

The overwhelming support for Prop 37, a California ballot initiative requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods, has been eroding steadily since the pesticide/chemical/seed companies and the processed food behemoths have ramped up their advertising (most of it lies).

Mark Bittman updates the situation in "Buying the Vote on G.M.O.'s" in today's online edition of The New York Times. Here's the meat of the article, but click here the read the entire piece.

"All of this could begin to change on Election Day, when California’s Proposition 37 — which would require the labeling of most foods containing G.M.O.’s — goes to a vote. On Sept. 15, I wrote that 'polls show Prop 37 to be overwhelmingly popular: roughly 65 percent for to 20 percent against, with 15 percent undecided.' But thanks to an infusion of big bucks by the opposition (led by Monsanto, DuPont and the Grocery Manufacturers Association[2]), support for labeling is eroding. By some accounts the 'no' advocates are spending $1 million a day, and a recent poll says the margin is now just 8 percent.
 

"A million a day is not much for the chemical companies, who are and should be panic-stricken — because labeling G.M.O.’s is inevitable. It’s already the norm elsewhere: more than 50 countries require it, including the entire European Union and China, which, despite being notoriously lax on food safety, sees the light on this.
 
"And the trend is toward more caution, not less: just last week a court-appointed panel in India recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of genetically modified food crops to allow time for strengthening regulation and research.
 
"We should have such luck. The closest we have to a G.M.O. oversight agency is the United States Department of Agriculture, probably the friendliest watchdog imaginable. The U.S.D.A. has consistently declined to regulate G.M.O.’s and in many cases has helped them become dominant in much of American agriculture.
 
"When asked about Prop 37, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said: 'Obviously we’re watching it…. Maybe it’s time to think about it from a national perspective.'
 
"Vilsack and his boss (who once supported labeling, or said he did) will certainly give more consideration to labeling G.M.O.’s than would their wannabe replacements, who have in fact shilled for the biotech industry, but right now a 'yes' vote on Nov. 6 is the best way we can move toward having a choice about consuming G.M.O. foods. Which probably makes Prop 37 the most important popular vote on food policy this decade. If California resists the chemical companies’ scare tactics and votes 'yes,' G.M.O.’s in food could be over."

"It's Not Stale Bread If You Are Starving"

I heard a great saying recently, one that has helped me appreciate what I have: "It's not stale bread if you are starving."

Thankfully, I've never been starving, but thinking about this axiom has helped me look at things in a different light.

During the summer, my garden produced dozens of beautiful turnips, beets, carrots, scallions and tomatillos, plus plenty of dark leafy greens (kale, mustard, chard, etc.), lettuces, broccoli and other vegetables. I never took this bounty for granted, but I probably wasn't as grateful as I could have been.

Now, as the growing season concludes, a small, ugly turnip or beet that I pull from the ground is a prized possession. The other day, when I harvested my last three carrots, I felt a tinge of sadness knowing that winter is on the horizon. Yet, this was countered by the knowledge that I will savor every bite of these three carrots, something that I may not have been wont to do while eating summer's seemingly endless supply.

"It's not stale bread if you are starving."

Asleep at the Wheel, with the Engine Running

I'm sure these two Rip Van Winkles—plus everyone else who does it—have great reasons for keeping the engine running while in a parked car. Thanks for nothing. (If you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email, click here to watch our air quality go up in smoke.)

Mark Bittman: "A Simple Fix for Farming"

Just posted this afternoon in the online edition of The New York Times is a piece, "A Simple Fix for Farming," by Mark Bittman, who discusses how conventional farming can use far less pesticides than it does now by simply extending its planting cycles. Of course, our friends at Monsanto will do anything and everything in their power to mute or lie about the research.

The first half of the article:

"It's becoming clear that we can grow all the food we need, and profitably, with far fewer chemicals. And I’m not talking about imposing some utopian vision of small organic farms on the world. Conventional agriculture can shed much of its chemical use — if it wants to.

"This was hammered home once again in what may be the most important agricultural study this year, although it has been largely ignored by the media, the three leading science journals and even one of the study’s sponsors, the often hapless Department of Agriculture.

"The study was done on land owned by Iowa State University called the Marsden Farm. On 22 acres of it, beginning in 2003, researchers set up three plots: one replicated the typical Midwestern cycle of planting corn one year and then soybeans the next, along with its routine mix of chemicals. On another, they planted a three-year cycle that included oats; the third plot added a four-year cycle and alfalfa. The longer rotations also integrated the raising of livestock, whose manure was used as fertilizer.

"The results were stunning: The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.

"In short, there was only upside — and no downside at all — associated with the longer rotations. There was an increase in labor costs, but remember that profits were stable. So this is a matter of paying people for their knowledge and smart work instead of paying chemical companies for poisons. And it’s a high-stakes game; according to the Environmental Protection Agency, about five billion pounds of pesticides are used each year in the United States."

Click here to read the entire piece.

Obesity in Pets: Not Surprising Considering Their Food

I don't have any pets, but pamphlets on display outside a pet store caught my attention the other day.  "The Obesity Epidemic" and "Food Allergies in Dogs" were two of the offerings.

I read this from "The Obesity Epidemic":

"Obesity has garnered a great deal of focus in America. Nearly two-third of us are overweight. Both lifestyle choices, and diet, are the chief determining factors. This circumstance has, unfortunately, trickled down to our pets. According to a 2007 study done by the Association for Pet Obesity Prevention, half of our cats and dogs were classified as obese by their veterinarians. This creates stress on the heart and circulatory system, the joints, and creates a propensity to developing diabetes."

This had never crossed my mind before, but I immediately realized that the common denominator for obesity in humans and their pets is the nutrient-poor processed food that has become so prevalent in our society. I went into a supermarket and looked at the ingredients in commercial pet food; no wonder Fido is fat and sick.

• Processed meat by-products marketed as real meat? Check. 
• Harmful preservatives to increase shelf life? Check.
• Emulsifiers and stabilizers? Check.
• Genetically-engineered and pesticide-laden corn used as a filler? Check. 

I started to think about the billions of dollars that must be at play and realized that Spot and Whiskers—who have no say in the matter—are doomed. What a shame.

How to Make Shrimp in Tomato Sauce with Feta, Parsley & Dill

Don't worry; the shrimp are under the feta cheese.

Here are instructions for a Greek-influenced dish, without exact quantities. I don't mean to be a pain, but figure it out as you go. Seriously, it isn't going to make that much of a difference if you use one or two onions or a 14-ounce or 28-ounce can of diced tomatoes.

In a pan, sweat chopped onion until soft and translucent, adding minced garlic halfway through, if desired. Add diced tomatoes (I use the Bionaturae brand) and chopped dill and parsley and simmer for about 10 minutes, until liquid thickens slightly. If pan isn't oven-proof, pour sauce into an oven-proof dish. Add shrimp, mix. Crumble feta cheese on top of mixture and bake in a 350-degree oven until the shrimp are done, about 10-12 minutes, depending on the size of the shrimp. Season to taste with unrefined sea salt, fresh ground pepper and lemon juice. Add more chopped dill and/or parsley to top of dish for added color, flavor and nutrition.

"Hospitals Ditch Formula Samples to Promote Breast-Feeding"

The lead from an article "Hospitals Ditch Formula Samples to Promote Breast-Feeding" in today's New York Times:

"For years, virtually every new mother has been sent home from the hospital with a gift bag full of free product samples, including infant formula.

"Now health authorities and breast-feeding advocates are leading a nationwide effort to ban formula samples, which often come in stylish bags with formula company logos. Health experts say they can sway women away from breast-feeding."

Of course, an argument comes along with this shift, one based on facility, marketing and the so-called nanny state, but the health benefits are unchallenged:

"The debate over formula samples isn’t about whether breast-feeding is healthier. Even formula companies acknowledge that 'breast milk is the gold standard; it’s the best for babies,' said Christopher Perille, a spokesman for Mead Johnson, which makes Enfamil formula.

"Breast-feeding decreases babies’ risk of ear infections, diarrhea, asthma and other diseases, and may reduce risk of obesity and slightly improve I.Q., experts say. The question is whether samples tempt mothers who could breast-feed exclusively for the recommended six months to use formula when they’re exhausted or discouraged if nursing proves difficult."

 Instead:

"The C.D.C., the World Health Organization and breast-feeding advocates say samples turn hospitals into formula sales agents and imply that hospitals think formula is as healthy as breast-feeding. Health experts warn that even small amounts of formula dilute breast-feeding’s benefits by altering intestinal micro-organisms and decreasing breast milk supply, since women produce less when babies nurse less. They say that while some women face serious breast-feeding challenges, more could nurse longer with greater support, and that formula samples can weaken that support system."

Naturally, with the shift to banning formula, we'll hear cries of nanny-stateism. Hogwash. Where are the cries of corporate-controlism? For the sake of nothing but marketing and profits, we are bludgeoned with free baby formula in hospitals, junk food commercials on children's television, soda machines in school cafeterias and funding of university agricultural departments by pesticide companies. Aren't these an infringement on my right not to support our crumbling health care system by paying higher monthly insurance premiums?
 
And the corporate controlists make no excuses about what they are doing:

"Hospitals are 'the ideal setting for new mothers to get information about feeding options,' Mr. Perille said. And 'if they’re going to formula-feed, we would like them to choose our brand.'”

Kerrygold Coupon Leads to Cheap Nutrient-Dense Butter

Nothing in life is free, but I'll take a half pound of delicious, nutrient-dense butter from grass-fed cows for $1—$1!—any day of the week.

Here's the deal. On packages of Kerrygold Dubliner cheddar cheese (available at many stores, including Whole Foods, where it sells for a ridiculously-low $2.84 for a seven-ounce package), there is a manufacturer's coupon good for $2 off one package of Kerrygold butter.

Conveniently, Whole Foods also sells half-pound packages (two sticks) of sublime Kerrygold butter for $2.99; use the $2 coupon and you're paying only . . . oh, you do the math!

Considering that bland name-brand conventional butters (from milk from cows administered hormones and fed feed full of antibiotics plus genetically-engineered and pesticide-laden corn and soy) cost $4 to $6 per pound (four sticks), I'm going to fill my freezer with almost-free Kerrygold butter. (Yes, butter will stay in the freezer for many months, if not longer.)

On Hormones, Baseball and Our Meat and Dairy

With the baseball playoffs gaining steam, I figured I'd repost this blog from a couple years ago. Unfortunately, not much has changed either in sports (see: Lance Armstrong) or in our food supply (see: 95 percent of the beef and dairy sold in this country).

PLEASE MR. COW, COME CLEAN; MARK McGWIRE DID!
(January 13, 2010)

So Mark McGwire finally admitted to using steroids. (Nixon resigns! Lindbergh lands in Paris!)

Now only if our cows would come clean about their continued steroid (hormone) use. However, unlike McGwire, the estimated 90 percent of American cattle which are shot up with drugs don’t voluntarily take hormones.

Yet they do, and just like McGwire (and Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa) they get really big, really fast. They also produce a lot more milk than they would without hormones. And the sooner they get to slaughter size (months ahead of their natural growth cycle), the quicker they can be processed into supermarket-ready cuts of beef.

Ka-ching!

Unfortunately, the public is getting duped, just like we were in the great home run race of 1998. Many doctors and scientists believe that the hormones are leading to early onset puberty in girls (eight years old in some cases), endocrine disruption, certain cancers and environmental issues (androgynous fish).

Mr. Cow, will you please come clean? If you do, I promise to vote for you for the Animal Hall of Fame.

A Spoonful of Molasses a Day Keeps the Doctor Away

It's all about the nutrients! 

Instead of worrying about the nutritionists' holy grail of calories, cholesterol and fat, I am much more concerned with my nutrient intake. I believe that eating a nutrient-dense diet—based on an ever-rotating carnival of fruits, vegetables, meats, seafood, grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fats, etc.—keeps me healthy and happy. 

In addition to the above foods, which are the bedrock of my meals, I'll supplement my diet not with vitamins but with occasional spoonfuls of nutrient-dense foods such as blackstrap molasses, sauerkraut and coconut oil. 

All three can be acquired tastes, but the benefits are immense. My spoonful of organic unsulphured blackstrap molasses provides a quality source of manganese, copper, iron, calcium, potassium and magnesium, all of which help me keep going. Molasses is sort of like a multivitamin, but it actually works. 

There are different kinds of molasses, but blackstrap is considered the healthiest; buying organic helps avoid pesticides. 

From The World's Healthiest Foods website: 

"Blackstrap molasses is just one type of molasses, the dark liquid byproduct of the process of refining sugar cane into table sugar. It is made from the third boiling of the sugar syrup and is therefore the concentrated byproduct left over after the sugar's sucrose has been crystallized. 

"Blackstrap molasses is a sweetener that is actually good for you. Unlike refined white sugar and corn syrup, which are stripped of virtually all nutrients except simple carbohydrates . . . blackstrap molasses is a healthful sweetener that contains significant amounts of a variety of minerals that promote your health."

Click here to read more about molasses's nutritional benefits.

The molasses I buy is made by Wholesome Sweeteners, a brand available throughout the United States and Canada in both larger chains (Costco, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Kroger, Publix, Target, etc.) and independent health food stores

Latest from California: Prop 37 and Prososed Soda Tax

Two quick things to take a look at, both dealing with ballot issues in California:

First, a new video in support of Prop 37 that showcases a handful of celebrities (not exactly A list, but we'll take it) making fun of the reasons Big Food and Big Chem think Californians should vote against Prop 37. (If you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email, click here to watch.
 
Second, Mark Bittman, in today's online edition of The New York Times, writes about the proposed tax on soda that two California cities will vote on next month. Here's part of it:

"Now the California cities of Richmond and El Monte have put the soda tax — which has been endorsed by the United Nations, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, the Institute of Medicine and many others, and which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention commissioner, Thomas Frieden, has called 'the single most effective measure to reverse the obesity epidemic' – on the Nov. 6 ballot.

"Both of these are working-class, largely nonwhite cities, with populations of about 100,000. Richmond, ranked sixth-most-obese city in the state, is in the East Bay, north of Berkeley; El Monte – which ranks ninth – is just east of Los Angeles, in the I-10 corridor. Were either to institute a soda tax, the prediction here is that some or even many nearby cities would follow suit quickly, for two reasons. The first, almost immediate, is that these nearly broke municipalities would each gain a new source of income that could, according to the soda tax calculator developed by the economist Tatiana Andreyeva of the Rudd Center in New Haven, be about $3 million annually .

"The cities must decide how to spend these small windfalls. Dr. Jeff Ritterman, a retired cardiologist serving on the Richmond City Council, says that 'for $86,000 we can teach every third grader how to swim at one of our municipal pools, and for $800,000 we can put a nutrition-gardening-cooking instructor in each of our 10 elementary schools.'

"The longer-term benefit, which may take a year, or three, or even five to become evident and accepted, is health. Studies have shown that reduced soda consumption results in reduced weight. How quickly and how significantly a soda tax would reduce consumption remains to be seen. But without this kind of intervention, says Ritterman, 'Our adult obesity rate will go from 24 percent to 42 percent when the present fifth and seventh graders reach adulthood.'”

 Click here to read Bittman's piece in its entirety.

More on Wasted Food and One Town's Wasted Opportunity

On the heels of yesterday's post about wasted food, a friend sent me an email recounting a story that he describes as "a fiscal and environmental shame."  

While many municipalities (including big, bad New York City) are having great success turning food (rotten, leftovers, kitchen scraps, etc.) into compost, cautionary tales do exist. (Full disclosure: my friend was directly involved in the operation of the facility he discusses.) 

Here is his email:

"The fact is that restaurants and retail food stores inevitably have some food that 'goes bad' before it is sold. Currently, that material is treated as non-recyclable waste, and is trucked to distant landfills or incinerators. In addition to the environmental damage caused by trucking, landfilling, and incineration, those processes cost taxpayers huge amounts of money.

"In the 1990s, [a town on Long Island] planned to turn food waste into useful compost. A $7.5-million indoor composting facility was built, and operated successfully for almost five years. It saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in avoided trucking (food waste is the heaviest component in municipal solid waste), and it produced many thousands of tons of Class A compost.

"Subsequent Town administrations -- Democrat and Republican -- refused to spend money on maintaining the plant, and it slowly ground to a halt. The huge building still stands, a monument to municipal stupidity in the name of economy. The most recent, and by far the most idiotic plan, is to turn it into a parking garage. 

"Waste food, combined with yard waste and other materials, can produce excellent compost. There is an almost insatiable local and regional demand for compost, yet we continue to treat it as . . . garbage. Will municipalities ever wake up and see the value in this material, or will taxpayers have to give them a lesson in sustainable economics?"

Later this week I'll write about New York City's successful foray into composting.

Wasted Food: Can We Defeat "Plastic Fruit Syndrome"?

Last year I wrote a post, "Wasted Food: Another Mountain to Climb," that discussed the staggering problem of wasted food. According to Jonathan Bloom, the author of “American Wasteland,” "Americans waste more than 40 percent of the food we produce for consumption. That comes at an annual cost of more than $100 billion.”

Much of this wasted food is discarded by supermarkets or left to rot on the farm, even though it is completely edible. The issue? Fruits and vegetables that don't look like Miss America. I see it all the time (and am guilty of it myself on occasion): the majority of shoppers will not buy a zucchini or an apple because of a little nick here or a small blemish there.

On topic, I saw this article last week, courtesy of Australian Food News. Hopefully it signals a change in attitude:

"UK supermarket chain, Sainsbury’s, has announced a radical change in the marketing of fruit and vegetables, vowing to promote ‘the ugly ones.’ The announcement comes as recent unpredictable weather has affected UK crops, increasing scarring and blemishes on fresh produce.

"For many years, consumer advocacy groups and environmentalists have criticised the obsession of supermarket buying agents around the world to exclude the less-than perfect fruit and vegetables – the so called ‘plastic fruit syndrome.’ The lower quality has been a price bargaining point for supermarkets to play off one supplier from another.

"As well as limited supply of fresh produce in the UK this season, supermarkets around the world have been attempting to tackle wastage of fresh produce. The ‘avoidance of waste’ is attracting strong consumer support following research in the United States. The US research revealed that about 40 percent of the food produced there is wasted, with an estimated loss of $15 Billion a year by supermarkets.

"The August 2012 report by the National Resources Defense Council (US) revealed that abount 19.5 Billion Kilograms of food is thrown away by grocery stores each year in the US.

"To combat waste in the UK, Sainsbury’s is determined to make use of any fruit and vegetables that meets regulations and taste standards, and have been encouraging their consumers to do the same.

"Sainsbury’s spokesperson, Judith Batchelar said that Sainsbury’s would be using the less attractive produce in all of their freshly prepared meals and bakery products.

"Ms Batchelar said that she hoped consumers would make the most of British crops and help reduce waste, despite of the sometimes unusual appearances the fruit and vegetables might have.

"Similarly, US supermarket chain Stop and Shop has implemented strategies to reduce fresh produce waste. Stop and Shop proved that waste was not just a part of the business, saving $100 Million dollars annually by implementing some changes in their 550 US stores.

"Former CEO of Stop and Shop, Jose Alvarez, said that they significantly altered perishable display areas to showcase only a small amount of product, reducing the amount of waste."

Jack LaLanne: Time to Remodel (Your Body)

Here's our October dose of Jack LaLanne, a great man who spoke the truth and wasn't interested in quick fixes (or sound bites). If you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email, click here to view Jack's "Time to Remodel" message. Have a nice weekend. 

TV and Radio Ads Supporting Prop 37 & Our Right to Know

Since the Big Chemical and Big Food companies are outspending the little guys about seven to one in the battle over Proposition 37 in California, I figured I'd narrow the gap a bit by providing a free venue for one television commercial and one radio ad that support Prop 37 and the public's right to know what's in our food.

Here's the television commercial (click here to watch if you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email):


And here's the radio spot (click here to listen if you are receiving The Delicious Truth via email):

I Am Matching First $1,000 Donated to PAN; Are You In?

As many of you know, I am an ardent supporter of Pesticide Action Network (PAN), an organization that "promotes healthy communities and a safe, fair and clean food system. [PAN] combine[s] grassroots science with public will campaigns to replace highly hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound, socially just solutions."

For the third consecutive year, I've made a pledge to PAN and will match the first $1,000 donated via a special "Chef Rob/Donate Today and Double Your Impact" page.

In my mind, ridding our farms of dangerous pesticides is a no-brainer, especially when we consider our children and grandchildren. PAN's work helps us move closer to this goal.

Click here to make a donation; even $5 helps our food, soil and water become a little healthier. Seriously, click here, especially you in the corner who has read this blog for free for almost four years; it's time to ante up for the greater good and the health of future generations!   

Mission: Readiness Says We Are "Still Too Fat to Fight"

When I see someone drinking or eating fake food, I try to figure the real price of a $1.49 Gatorade (plenty of refined sugar and petroleum-based artificial color) or a $3.79 chicken sandwich (chicken's feed full of antibiotics, pesticides and genetically engineered corn and soy). Estimates place the damage to our collective wallets in the hundreds of billions of dollars; the costs, though, are manifested in ways many of us never imagine.
 
We know about the ballooning cost of health care, which we all pay for, no matter how pristine one's diet. But how about this one, courtesy of the "Still Too Fat to Fight" report recently released by Mission: Readiness, a nonpartisan national security organization of senior retired military leaders calling for smart investments in America’s children.

"Because our country has failed to improve fitness and reduce obesity among our youth, the military has had to work much harder than in the past to recruit and retain enough qualified men and women who can effectively serve our country. For example, many accepted recruits are diverted to special training to address their inadequate physical fitness before they can even begin regular basic training. The costs add up. The additional medical expenses for soldiers on limited duty in the Army because of sprains or bone fracture injuries that are caused in part by some soldiers being less fit or overweight than other soldiers total half a billion dollars a year. The military’s TRICARE health insurance system serves active duty personnel, their dependents and veterans. It spends well over $1 billion a year on treating weight-related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease."

Our hard-earned tax dollars at work!

Personally, I'd vote for keeping the local library open every day or keeping the lights on at night at the neighborhood basketball court, but some consider me a little old-fashioned.

Click here to read the"Still Too Fat to Fight" in its entirety. And click here to read its precursor, "Too Fat to Fight," which was released in 2010.