Supersizing You
May 12 at 7:07pm by Aileen
We have all heard the increasing concern among public health officials about the “obesity crisis” in recent years as citizens of all ages get fatter and fatter – including, perhaps counterintuitively, the most financially challenged among us, traditionally considered the most nutritionally needy of all groups. Old pictures from the Great Depression era of the 1930s routinely showed the sunken faces and emaciated bodies of those who suffered most from the economic conditions.
The new Great Recession that became apparent last fall with the collapse of Wall Street and much of the world’s financial systems does not seem to be stemming the tide of obesity, and apparently much of the overall weight gain has occurred in just the past ~30+ years since the 1970s. We have heard about changes in diet to include more high fructose corn syrup instead of refined sugar in cheap snack foods and sodas, about more unhealthy fatty meats produced in factory farm intensives and fed unnatural diets, and we’ve seen the average size of a “single serving” meal at most fast food joints and restaurants practically double, contributing to people eating more and more of high-fat, high-calorie foods.
There has also been much said about increasing sedentary lifestyles, this lack of regular exercise contributing to the epidemic of obesity in children. But new research by associates of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deaking University in Australia was presented to the European Congress on Obesity last week analyzing a variety of factors that show it really is all about how much we eat.
Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise in Obesity in U.S. tested 1,399 adults and 963 children to determine how many calories their bodies burn on a daily basis in normal living. Once this was determined, the researchers were able to calculate how much the individuals needed to eat in order to maintain a stable weight or growth curve in children. The bad news is that we’re eating a whole lot more calories than we burn, thus we get fatter and fatter.
It was determined that in order to get back to average individual weights of the 1970s, adults would have to consume about 500 fewer calories per day, children about 300 fewer calories. That may sound difficult until you realize that a single large hamburger averages 500 calories, and a small order of fries and medium soda amount to about 300. The same effect could be had if people got enough extra exercise to offset the increased calories, but it’s pretty obvious that’s not going to happen.
Professor Boyd Swinburn, the study’s leader, suggested to the WHO conference that while increased exercise should be encouraged for a range of benefits by public health agencies, more could likely be accomplished simply by programs that promote eating less.
Update on Wind and Grid Issues
Dec 17 at 7:07pm by Aileen
As the economy slips ever farther down the black hole of imaginary values and criminal greed, the looming necessity for using this crossroads of history to re-make our energy future has moved the issues up on the To-Do list. America’s automakers are lining up, hats in hand, to obtain enough funding to keep their (union) workers employed, and the funds they want may come attached to serious strings that require more gas-efficient cars, hybrids, flex-fuel and even new lines of plug-in electric cars to help get us off our addiction to other nations’ oil.
Which then begs questions about what sources of electrical energy we need to develop that do not spew greenhouse gases into the air, leave us with millions of tons of toxic or radioactive industrial waste, and cause serious detrimental health effects (and death) to the population. Following on the issue of our choices for future development is the antiquated state of our electrical grid, which is both inefficient and dangerously likely to fail altogether without much trouble.
Fact is, energy use conservation could make a more serious dent in our consumption without doing anything at all. This is what happened this past summer when gasoline prices climbed to around $5 per gallon, and diesel prices became inverted. Millions of people limited their driving, pooled for shopping excursions, and stayed home instead of driving long distances for vacation. Petroleum usage plummeted, which informs us that we don’t really have to use as much as we do. Changing light bulbs and turning off lights and appliances and turning down the thermostat can save quite a bit of our generation capacity too, but that will of course jump when we have to charge our cars at night.
Fill ‘er Up!
Jun 9 at 5:05pm by Aileen
…with Bug Juice, please.
When I started college in the late 1960s in Oklahoma, I could buy gas for my Volkswagon Bug for 19.9ยข a gallon. That’s 5 gallons for a dollar, enough to drive home to visit the folks, drive around town to see friends, and get back to college without having to stop at a gas station. This past weekend I drove our little pickup to Gatlinburg, Tennessee to see an old Navy buddy, a round trip equivalent to that past Oklahoma weekend trek. Gas for the journey cost us right around $50. A dollar’s worth won’t get me to the grocery store and back any more, and it doesn’t look like the price is ever going to come down.
The going price per barrel of petroleum is pushing $150 hard and will probably go over $200 before the end of the year. Diesel fuel is a dollar more expensive than gasoline, and the price of everything grown on a farm and transported by ship, train or truck must go up accordingly.
The good news – or, at least the hopeful news is that progress is being made in deciding what replacement fuels we should be developing. Most people are skeptical of corn-based ethanol and the diversion of food crops as well as crop land to biofuels. And while new techniques can make biofuels from native vegetation like switchgrass or even algae, the fact is that plants aren’t very efficient at converting solar energy into the biomass required.
Biotech researchers are now turning to engineered microorganisms as both helpers in turning biomass into fuels and as fuel themselves – photosynthetic bacteria that can capture sunlight energy 100 times more efficiently than plants – that can be grown in massive amounts without competing for cropland.
It does appear that the time has finally come when human civilization must change its ways, the only questions being how much it’s going to hurt regular people and which nations and/or multinational corporations will corner the markets. Perhaps biotechnology can be put to good use creating new fuel sources instead of turning staple foods into pesticides. That would be a positive change of focus, help get the tarnish of public resistance off the biotech bus, and maybe even save the planet.
But you and I will probably be paying at least $5 a gallon to fill our tanks, no matter what kind of fuels are developed. Just something we’ll have to get used to.
Links:
New Source for Biofuels Discovered
Harnessing Microbes to Meet Future Energy Needs
Are microbes the answer to the energy crisis?
The ‘08 Farm Bill and Improving America’s Diet
Jun 2 at 4:04pm by Aileen
The 2007 Farm Bill – now the 2008 Farm Bill, was passed by both chambers of Congress, vetoed by President Bush, then the veto was overridden by both houses and is now the ‘Law of the Land’. Politically, the bill isn’t perfect, there is still too much pork and payments to rich agribusiness concerns for their poor farming practices, and not enough clarifying guidelines for biofuels production and organic farming.
But it’s a lot better than no bill at all, which would have kept the last support bill in place for the foreseeable future. The new bill has incentives to clean up residue discharges in important watersheds, and supports for best practices in crop rotations, cover crops and low-chemical input farming. It’s still strong on commodity production (corn, wheat, rice), but does put some real support into farmer’s market promotions and expansion of organic markets. It does somewhat limit subsidies to near-millionaire commodity farmers, requires more fresh fruit and vegetables to be available in schools, increases food stamp benefits as tied to the price of food, allots priority funding to research into the bee die-off situation, and supports rural enterprise and microenterprise investments.
Research into the “typical American diet” and its relationship to serious health issues and obesity informs us that Americans eat way too much junk and not nearly enough healthy food. Which, in a country that rations health care by income level and allows insurance companies to exclude people who actually need health care, would seem to be an important issue to address with education and real food availability in public institutions such as schools.
Read the rest of this entry »
Uneven Ecological and Economic Impacts of Rich vs. Poor
Jan 25 at 4:04pm by Aileen
Where ecological footprints fall. The environmental impacts of high- (red), middle- (blue) and low- (yellow) income nations fall on other income tiers, as indicated by the footprints. The numbers are in trillions of 2005 international dollars. (Credit: Thara Srinivasan/UC Berkeley)
Rich Nations’ Environmental Footprints Tread Heavily on Poor Countries offers a study led by former UC-Berkeley Thara Srinivasan that examined the impacts of intensive agricultural expansion, deforestation, overfishing. loss of mangrove swamps and forests, ozone depletion and climate change between 1961 and 2000.
For the 3-year project Srinivasan teamed up with Richard B. Norgaard, an ecological economist and professor of energy and resources at UC-Berkeley. This allowed the team to evaluate economic impacts as well as ecological footprints.
Not surprisingly, the team noticed that poor nations are much more adversely impacted than rich nations. The calculation of “ecological footprints” of low, middle and high income nations demonstrated graphically that the large ecological footprints of rich nations unfairly impact poor nations whose footprints are small.
Economically speaking, the impact on poor nations is greater than the entire debt of those nations, about which Srinivasan said, “The ecological debt could more than offset the financial debt of low-income nations.” And middle-income nations had impacts on poor nations equivalent to the rich nations.
RECENT COMMENTS