The recent pet food recall of tainted wheat gluten, responsible for the kidney failure and deaths of numerous dogs and cats, underscores the consumer’s need to know what is in the food they are eating, where it comes from, and how it was made.
The incident shows that not all foodstuffs are grown under the same conditions, nor processed according to the same standards. If it is so cost-saving to import our ingredients from across the globe, perhaps we need to ask why.
The recall reveals the lack of oversight being given to imported products, by the companies using them and the government agencies responsible for ensuring public safety. The FDA admitted testing very little of the wheat gluten, a food derivative used in human foods as well as pet foods, entering the United States.
Menu Foods, the maker of most of the recalled food (though later other companies also pulled their products, admitting they used the same wheat gluten), waited an entire month, after receiving complaints, to take action. Not until they themselves had tested the products, not in the lab, mind you, but by feeding it to animals, many of whom died, did they alert the FDA. Imagine if the food was not for your beloved pet, but for your beloved baby.
At the same time the food supply is proving unsafe, the food industry fights simple labeling, the only real tool a consumer has in knowing what their food contains, and where it came from. There is no question that labeling is the responsible approach. The consumer should demand it.
Since the initial brouhaha, melamine has also been found in rice and corn products, and was discovered fed to chickens and hogs destined for human dinner tables.
And it isn't just food. The lethal chemical diethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze, has been found in cough syrup, cold remedies, and most recently, toothpaste.
A final note about the pet food recall: if I were the one buying premium, veterinarian recommended and veterinarian supplied, Hill’s brand pet food, and paying $1.29 a can for the very same thing Krogers sells for 39 cents a can, I would be madder than the proverbial wet hen!
It pays to know thy food--or costs not to.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
G8, or, Bono's in Germany.
So, Bono's going to Germany to lobby the G8 about increasing financial aid to Africa.
In the past, concerts held worldwide drew attention to the plight of the "lesser." Organizer Bob Geldof said he wanted to draw people’s attention to the poverty and suffering of Africa, with a call, he claimed, for “justice,” rather than charity.
I've written before (see "Brad Pitt is One Fine Hunk"), I think this is both noble and possible. Even as Christ told us the poor would always be with us, He also gave us the tools (love thy neighbor) to alleviate poverty, if we could ever get our act together. I’m just not sure about the way we’re going about it.
First of all, Africa is not the only impoverished place in the world. For all its affluence, America has its share of starving children. In fact, there are poor and hungry people in every country, in every part of the world.
Second, I’m not sure it is the job of the wealthy to feed them. While it seems that the rich “have it all,” they don’t--they can’t, nobody can. Christ himself ministered to rich and poor alike. He understood that people of means have their needs too.
It stands to reason that, if by sheer luck, or hard work, one amassed an abundance of worldly goods, and people were always begging them for handouts, one might become suspicious, wonder if they are being used and question just how much responsibility they must bear.
And even if it were the job of the wealthy, I’m not sure they understand the true needs of the impoverished. They aren’t wearing their shoes, after all (or going shoeless, as the case may be).
George W. Bush is hesitant about giving aid to Africa. He’s not sure the governments receiving the aid will actually give it to the people in need. As an "insider," he surely knows a thing or two about government corruption.
But, he’s absolutely right. I remember George Harrison’s Concert for Bangladesh and all the money it raised. Food was shipped to feed those ravaged by famine in that country--and the government held it in customs so long it rotted.
I commend Bono, and Geldof, and others like them, and I would love to see justice done--I just don't think govenmental aid is the best way to bring it about. I think the best way to help the hungry people of Africa, and the rest of the world, is to solve the problem--of hunger and of injustice--for ourselves right here in the United States. We need to all--rich and poor--come to the table with our strengths--and weaknesses--and forge a fair and just system that allows everyone to feed themselves. We need to purge our own governing institutions of corruption and rise like the eagle we hold as our emblem of freedom. When we do this, the world will see our success--and our collective strength--and will want to follow suit. The best leader is, after all, the one who leads by example.
In the past, concerts held worldwide drew attention to the plight of the "lesser." Organizer Bob Geldof said he wanted to draw people’s attention to the poverty and suffering of Africa, with a call, he claimed, for “justice,” rather than charity.
I've written before (see "Brad Pitt is One Fine Hunk"), I think this is both noble and possible. Even as Christ told us the poor would always be with us, He also gave us the tools (love thy neighbor) to alleviate poverty, if we could ever get our act together. I’m just not sure about the way we’re going about it.
First of all, Africa is not the only impoverished place in the world. For all its affluence, America has its share of starving children. In fact, there are poor and hungry people in every country, in every part of the world.
Second, I’m not sure it is the job of the wealthy to feed them. While it seems that the rich “have it all,” they don’t--they can’t, nobody can. Christ himself ministered to rich and poor alike. He understood that people of means have their needs too.
It stands to reason that, if by sheer luck, or hard work, one amassed an abundance of worldly goods, and people were always begging them for handouts, one might become suspicious, wonder if they are being used and question just how much responsibility they must bear.
And even if it were the job of the wealthy, I’m not sure they understand the true needs of the impoverished. They aren’t wearing their shoes, after all (or going shoeless, as the case may be).
George W. Bush is hesitant about giving aid to Africa. He’s not sure the governments receiving the aid will actually give it to the people in need. As an "insider," he surely knows a thing or two about government corruption.
But, he’s absolutely right. I remember George Harrison’s Concert for Bangladesh and all the money it raised. Food was shipped to feed those ravaged by famine in that country--and the government held it in customs so long it rotted.
I commend Bono, and Geldof, and others like them, and I would love to see justice done--I just don't think govenmental aid is the best way to bring it about. I think the best way to help the hungry people of Africa, and the rest of the world, is to solve the problem--of hunger and of injustice--for ourselves right here in the United States. We need to all--rich and poor--come to the table with our strengths--and weaknesses--and forge a fair and just system that allows everyone to feed themselves. We need to purge our own governing institutions of corruption and rise like the eagle we hold as our emblem of freedom. When we do this, the world will see our success--and our collective strength--and will want to follow suit. The best leader is, after all, the one who leads by example.
Friday, May 11, 2007
To Mothers Everywhere--Especially Mine!
Mother’s Day sneaked up on me this year--it seems to have come early--but here it is, the second Sunday in May.
Traditionally, Mother’s Day has been set aside to show mothers gratitude and affection for all they do for us, their families. People mark the holiday with brunches, lunches and special dinners. It is one of the floral industry’s busiest days, and long distance phone lines jam up as children reach out to touch base with Mom.
The day became an official holiday in America in 1914, after intense lobbying by a women named Anna M. Jarvis. Jarvis was moved to mark the day after experiencing the loss of her own mother. According to womenshistory.about.com, Jarvis had an argument with her mom, and the two had not reconciled when her mother died. She began to mark the anniversary of her mother’s death, the second Sunday of May, by passing out carnations in her mother’s church.
Soon, her home city, Philadelphia, was celebrating Mother’s Day, and Jarvis, with others, began a letter-writing campaign to make it a national holiday. Jarvis later decried the commerciality of the holiday--the purchase of flowers, and greeting cards (she felt a handwritten letter was more meaningful).
But Mother’s Day celebrations are found even earlier in history than Jarvis'. Ancients of the Greek and Roman empires both had spring festivals honoring “mother” goddesses--Rhea in Greece and Cybele in Rome.
In the 1600s, England observed “Mothering Sunday,” a day servants and apprentices were encouraged to go home to spend the day with their mothers. They often carried with them special cakes to offer as gifts. This tradition died out with the feudal system only to be revived as American soldiers reintroduced the idea during WWII. And not to be forgotten is Julia Ward Howe, the first to organize Mother’s Day celebrations in the United States--as a day to promote peace.
Personally, I think we should pamper our mothers more often than once a year--how hard is a note, a phone call, or a bouquet of flowers? We may not even have Mother’s Day as a holiday if not for the guilt and grief of Anna Jarvis. To avoid the same trap that snared her--taking our mothers for granted, their love, their comfort, their advice--I suggest we keep our mothers on our minds and in our hearts every day of every year. Then, on the second Sunday of every May, celebrating Mother’s Day will be a greater, grander affair steeped with real meaning.
Traditionally, Mother’s Day has been set aside to show mothers gratitude and affection for all they do for us, their families. People mark the holiday with brunches, lunches and special dinners. It is one of the floral industry’s busiest days, and long distance phone lines jam up as children reach out to touch base with Mom.
The day became an official holiday in America in 1914, after intense lobbying by a women named Anna M. Jarvis. Jarvis was moved to mark the day after experiencing the loss of her own mother. According to womenshistory.about.com, Jarvis had an argument with her mom, and the two had not reconciled when her mother died. She began to mark the anniversary of her mother’s death, the second Sunday of May, by passing out carnations in her mother’s church.
Soon, her home city, Philadelphia, was celebrating Mother’s Day, and Jarvis, with others, began a letter-writing campaign to make it a national holiday. Jarvis later decried the commerciality of the holiday--the purchase of flowers, and greeting cards (she felt a handwritten letter was more meaningful).
But Mother’s Day celebrations are found even earlier in history than Jarvis'. Ancients of the Greek and Roman empires both had spring festivals honoring “mother” goddesses--Rhea in Greece and Cybele in Rome.
In the 1600s, England observed “Mothering Sunday,” a day servants and apprentices were encouraged to go home to spend the day with their mothers. They often carried with them special cakes to offer as gifts. This tradition died out with the feudal system only to be revived as American soldiers reintroduced the idea during WWII. And not to be forgotten is Julia Ward Howe, the first to organize Mother’s Day celebrations in the United States--as a day to promote peace.
Personally, I think we should pamper our mothers more often than once a year--how hard is a note, a phone call, or a bouquet of flowers? We may not even have Mother’s Day as a holiday if not for the guilt and grief of Anna Jarvis. To avoid the same trap that snared her--taking our mothers for granted, their love, their comfort, their advice--I suggest we keep our mothers on our minds and in our hearts every day of every year. Then, on the second Sunday of every May, celebrating Mother’s Day will be a greater, grander affair steeped with real meaning.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Discovering the Planet
Discovery Channel’s series "Planet Earth: Portrait of a Planet" has had me completely riveted. The photography is astounding, and I am left awed by the vast and complex systems of life. The show, an eleven-part series, filmed over five years, is roughly divided by ecosystems--Caves, Deserts, Jungles, Shallow Seas, Deep Oceans.
From the Redwoods of California, the oldest living things on the planet, to the Himalayas of China, the tallest mountains in the world, created of limestone (essentially compacted seashells) and thrust into the air by the collision of tectonic plates, from the comical dances of Borneo’s Birds of Paradise, to the habits of Russia’s elusive and almost-extinct Amur leopard, I am amazed by the power, the tenacity and the efficiency of life.
This is no fluffy nature show. It is a comprehensive look at the real worldwide web that is our habitat and the intricate, interlacing systems that allow it to work. As intricate as those systems are, the purpose of it all seems quite simple: it’s all about the children--the survival of the species. In other words, it’s all about life itself.
Anyone who's seen "March of the Penguins," knows the utter extremes the parent penguins go to to ensure their one single egg produces its chick, and that that chick survives to grow and experience its own ordeal to produce its own chick.
Planet Earth takes the principle global, showing the unique extremes to which each species goes to produce young, to send it off with the best possible chance of survival--to promote its species. Sometimes, as with elephants, it takes a herd--that when threatened will form a formidable circle around the calves to keep them safe. Sometimes, as with sea turtles, it isn’t about nurturing, it is about numbers. The turtle lays many eggs in the hope that enough hatchlings, who never see their parents, will make it to the sea and survive to return to the very same beach to themselves breed.
It is heart-wrenching to watch predatory animals stalk and seize their prey. There is no regard for the other’s life, only the singular goal of eating--and feeding their young. It seems brutal to me, but I know it would be just as painful to watch the predators and their offspring starve. As difficult as it is to watch, I am comforted by the fact that animals are not greedy, nor wasteful, nor mean and spiteful. They kill to eat, period. And there is no such thing as a free lunch. From the crabs that clean the ocean bottom to the moths that pollinate the baobabs, each creature gives, as well as takes.
Watching Planet Earth has made me question my own place in the scheme of things. I feel much less "highly evolved." I have realized how little we humans truly understand the planet we call home, and how removing any single component, even the (icky!) cave-dwelling cockroaches which eat bat guano, could have a tremendous, and perhaps grave, consequence--we could, for instance, find ourselves buried in bat guano!
From the Redwoods of California, the oldest living things on the planet, to the Himalayas of China, the tallest mountains in the world, created of limestone (essentially compacted seashells) and thrust into the air by the collision of tectonic plates, from the comical dances of Borneo’s Birds of Paradise, to the habits of Russia’s elusive and almost-extinct Amur leopard, I am amazed by the power, the tenacity and the efficiency of life.
This is no fluffy nature show. It is a comprehensive look at the real worldwide web that is our habitat and the intricate, interlacing systems that allow it to work. As intricate as those systems are, the purpose of it all seems quite simple: it’s all about the children--the survival of the species. In other words, it’s all about life itself.
Anyone who's seen "March of the Penguins," knows the utter extremes the parent penguins go to to ensure their one single egg produces its chick, and that that chick survives to grow and experience its own ordeal to produce its own chick.
Planet Earth takes the principle global, showing the unique extremes to which each species goes to produce young, to send it off with the best possible chance of survival--to promote its species. Sometimes, as with elephants, it takes a herd--that when threatened will form a formidable circle around the calves to keep them safe. Sometimes, as with sea turtles, it isn’t about nurturing, it is about numbers. The turtle lays many eggs in the hope that enough hatchlings, who never see their parents, will make it to the sea and survive to return to the very same beach to themselves breed.
It is heart-wrenching to watch predatory animals stalk and seize their prey. There is no regard for the other’s life, only the singular goal of eating--and feeding their young. It seems brutal to me, but I know it would be just as painful to watch the predators and their offspring starve. As difficult as it is to watch, I am comforted by the fact that animals are not greedy, nor wasteful, nor mean and spiteful. They kill to eat, period. And there is no such thing as a free lunch. From the crabs that clean the ocean bottom to the moths that pollinate the baobabs, each creature gives, as well as takes.
Watching Planet Earth has made me question my own place in the scheme of things. I feel much less "highly evolved." I have realized how little we humans truly understand the planet we call home, and how removing any single component, even the (icky!) cave-dwelling cockroaches which eat bat guano, could have a tremendous, and perhaps grave, consequence--we could, for instance, find ourselves buried in bat guano!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)