jasmenigma

2011-09-16T22:16:00.000-07:00

Muenster Three Bean Salad

This delicious salad/salsa is sweet and filling with the delicate flavor of mild and nutty muenster cheese.

Image and recipe adapted from
Whole Foods'
"Gouda Three Bean Salad."

Prep Time: 10 minutes
Inactive Time: 24 hours

Serves: 8-10

Ingredients:

2 Tbsp. Agave Nectar

1 1/2 Tbsp. Dijon or Spicy Brown Mustard

1 Tbsp. Red Wine Vinegar

1 Tbsp. Extra-Virgin Olive Oil

1/2 Tsp. Sea Salt, finely ground

1/4 Tsp. Black Pepper, or to taste

1 15 oz. can unsalted Black Beans, thoroughly rinsed and drained

1 15 oz. can unsalted Kidney Beans, thoroughly rinsed and drained

1/2 Cup Corn (frozen, thawed and drained, or freshly cooked)

1 1/2 Cup Yellow, Purple, or Green Pole Beans, chopped and
blanched (or cooked to desired crunchiness)

1 Tomato, diced (or halved grape tomatoes)

1 Cup Muenster cheese, diced

1/2 small Red Onion, chopped

2 Tbsp. Cilantro (or to taste)

Tortilla Chips, or Cracker Chips for dipping (optional)

Procedure:

In a large bowl, stir together agave nectar, mustard, vinegar, oil, salt and pepper, until well blended.
Add remaining ingredients and toss. Cover and refrigerate overnight.
Adjust any seasonings and serve with tortilla or cracker chips if using.

Eat Your Fruits and Veggies... Do We Really Need to Say This?

2011-04-12T21:48:00.000-07:00

2010 study shows that high fruit and vegetable consumption reduces risks of coronary heart disease (CHD)

A study performed by Linda M. Oude Griep et al at the Division of Human Nutrition at Wageningen University in The Netherlands found that those who consumed higher amounts of fruits and vegetables in their diets (amounts greater than 391 grams a day compared with less than 235 grams a day) resulted a 17% lower risk of CHD.

As explained in the research article, "Raw and Processed Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and 10-Year Coronary Heart Disease Incidence in a Population-Based Cohort Study In the Netherlands,"appearing in the PLoS One journal, random samples of both men and women, aged 20 to 59, were assessed from two different towns, with a collection of risk factors including lifestyle, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, as well as cardiovascular issues taken. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire, disclosing their current food habits, which was then validated by the participants' levels of plasma ϐ-cryptoxanthin and lutein that indicated fruit and vegetable intake.

More interestingly, the study sought to include any statistical difference between the consumption of both raw fruits and vegetables, as well as processed fruit and vegetables. Processed fruits included blended juices, while processed vegetables included home cooked (boiled, canned, and frozen) vegetables. The sample did not include potatoes or legumes since there is such a large difference in the nutritional value of these foods compared to most other vegetables.

The study found that "Participants with a high intake of fruit and vegetables were more often women, had a higher educational level, were less likely to smoke, used alcohol less often, were more likely to be physically active, used vitamin supplements more often and were more often vegetarian compared to participants with a low intake of fruit and vegetables." In addition, those participants with higher fruit and vegetable intake had larger amounts of energy, fruit fiber, Vitamin C, and potassium when compared to those with lower fruit and vegetable intake.

The result of the study showed an inverse relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and incidences of CHD and states that "This inverse association was present for both raw and processed fruit and vegetables, although these findings did not attain statistical significance." The study reinforces the importance of processed vegetables, rather than fruit, explaining that the heating of raw vegetables "enhances the bioavailability and strengthens the beneficial health effects of lycopene, as well as carotenes, and folate." This is an important consideration in regard to the rise of diets promoting the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. Although, no statistical distinction was made between raw, verses processed, fruits and vegetables as it pertains to the relationship between their consumption and CHD, the article continually stresses the need to "heat treat" certain vegetables in order to obtain better access to their nutritional benefits.

The research also claimed that "It has been demonstrated that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables favourably affects blood pressure levels. These effects may be explained by dietary fiber and potassium, which have been shown to reduce blood pressure levels" and that "Fiber from fruit has been consistently associated with a lower risk of CHD, probably through the reduced serum total and LDL cholesterol levels."

So what does this all mean? Well, duh! Eat your fruits and vegetables! This study was especially important as there appears to be no research performed specifically regarding the relationship between both raw and processed fruit and vegetable consumption and CHD incidences. The study's aim was to uncover, if any, distinctions between processed fruit and vegetable intake as it relates to CHD only. It is important to note that by "processed" foods, we are not referring to anything other than fruits and vegetables, whether canned, frozen, boiled, or baked. This does NOT mean that the frozen pizza you may have been considering eating all night offers no increased risk of CHD. But you already knew that, didn't you?

What else is there to say, except maybe, happy garden grazing!

To see the review as it appears at PLoS One, click here!

Green Jeans

2011-01-24T20:40:00.000-08:00

Levi's makes its denim with less water

Back in 2007, Levi's did a cradle-to-grave assessment of the resources required for its famous 501 denim and found out something surprising: its jeans were practically made of water. The San Francisco-based company discovered that over the lifetime of its jeans, from the cotton fields needed to make the fabric to consumers' tossing their dirty dungarees in the washing machine, each pair used up 3,480 L of water, which is the equivalent of running a garden hose for 106 minutes.

There wasn't much Levi's could change about cotton farming or consumer hygiene, but company executives realized they could use ozone processing to reduce the amount of washing needed to soften jeans before they're sold — i.e., the wash in stonewashed. The result is Levi's Water‹Less jeans, a new line that hits stores in January. On average, the jeans, which will cost the same as conventional ones, use 28% less water in the finishing process. Multiply that by the more than 1.5 million pairs of Water‹Less jeans Levi's expects to sell this spring and the savings add up to approximately 16 million L of water. "It took a different way of thinking, but the results are kind of amazing," says Carl Chiara, director of special projects at Levi's.

If You Can't Trust Scientists, Who Can You Trust?

2011-01-06T21:34:00.000-08:00

study shows link between funding source and conclusions of nutrition related scientific research

A research article entitled "Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles," available at PLoS Medicine, shows "industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health," as the article states. The purpose of the study, performed by Lenard I. Lesser et al. at the Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital, in Boston, Massachusetts, along with other notable institutions, was to discover whether or not nutritional study results are compromised by the type of funding the study receives (industry, no funding, or mixed funding). As presented in the article, "industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition research."

The study was performed by collecting all published literature, within a five year period, relating to nutrition related scientific results in the form of interventional studies, observational studies, and scientific reviews of soft drinks, juices, and milk and sorting the articles by funding source and conclusion. The article explains that the researches use six inclusion criteria in study article selection:

1. The topic relates directly to soft drinks, juices, or milk, or an inherent component of one of these beverages (e.g., calcium in milk)
2. At least one main endpoint relates directly to health, disease, or a disease marker. For example, an article demonstrating a health benefit of antioxidants in juice would be included, whereas an article describing manufacturing techniques to maximize antioxidant concentrations in juice would be excluded
3. The article involves or considers research with humans or clinical materials derived from humans
4. Conclusions relate directly to the beverage under study
5. The article is classified as an interventional study, an observational study, or a scientific review
6. The article was published in the 5-y period between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2003

Financial sponsorship was broken down into several categories as well:
1. all industry - including for profit and nonprofit affiliations
2. all non-industry, or no industry - including governmental agencies with no industry association
3. mixed, with industry associated or unknown funding - including governmental agencies that work with an industry to promote consumption of specific foods or commodities

The study found that funding sources were significantly related to study conclusions, especially in the interventional studies, with industry funded research resulting in a 0% unfavorable conclusion, compared with a 37% unfavorable conclusion for non-industry funded research. Overall, the study determined that "articles sponsored exclusively by food/drink companies were four to eight times more likely to have conclusions favorable to the financial interests of the sponsoring company than articles which were not sponsored by food or drinks companies."

So, what does this mean? We are missing vital nutritional information due to industry sponsorship of nutrition related research. This is increasingly important as the consumption rates of these beverages rises. While the article cannot make claims regarding foods and drinks not evaluated by this particular study, it certainly leads one to question the authenticity of various other nutritionally related research conclusions. The article also states that researchers "made no attempt to obtain independent information about study sponsorship beyond that declared in the articles, nor [...] assess other types of financial support, such as provision of supplies," and, frighteningly, that "inaccurate or incomplete information about financial sponsorship may have caused us [researchers] to underestimate the true magnitude of the relationship between conclusion and funding source." That is a scary prospect indeed, especially since, as explained in the article, "findings of nutrition research influence the formulation of governmental and professional dietary guidelines, the design of public health interventions, and regulation of food product health claims."

The good news, and there is good news, is that changes can be made to ensure the accuracy and validity of nutrition-related results beginning with increased government support for nutritional research. This will decrease industry funded research, allowing for non-biased research conclusions. This may have the most significant impact on nutritional data. The article does list several other ways in which to reduce bias in scientific research, including "voluntary refusal by scientists to accept industrial support, regulations by academic institutions ensuring that publication decisions and editorial control remain with the researcher, and more stringent policies by journals for publication of industry-sponsored studies and scientific reviews."

In order to see the study as it appeared in PLoS Medicine, click here!

Just Say No To GMOs

2011-01-02T15:50:00.000-08:00

Ambassador Stapleton recommends "retaliation list" due to EU's resistance to genetically modified organisms

Cables were WikiLeaked on December 19th of 2010 showing the U.S. Ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton's, recommendation that a "retaliation list" be published due to the EU's resistance to allow genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The purpose of the "retaliation list" is to "make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," Stapleton explains to the U.S. government, as well as "cause some pain across the EU."

In a blatant effort to prevent the EU from making its own decisions about the use of GMO crops, Stapleton states that "Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy, and even the [EU] Commission." He refers to MON-810 BT corn cultivation, expressing his fear that Monsanto's genetically modified corn seeds could be banned by France along with other EU members. In addition, Stapleton expresses concern over the draft biotech law that was submitted to the National Assembly, along with the Senate, stating that it "could make any biotech planting impossible in practical terms" as "the law would make farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift."

Make the farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift??? How dare they!? How dare they hold farmers and seed companies responsible when their pollen drifts over into other nearby organic crops whose farmers work extra hard to ensure are free from GMOs, pesticides, and other harmful substances. His concerns do not stop at the banning of GMO crop cultivation by EU members who choose what should be allowed in their own country, but extends to the idea that if GMOs are banned from being cultivated in any particular country, then banning the importation of GMOs into that country will soon be off-limits too. Stapleton views "the cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban or further restrict imports."

So, what does all this mean? Is Ambassador Stapleton really part of a "Mission Paris" that plans to "reinforce [its] negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by publishing a retaliation list?" Yes, indeed! But if it makes anyone feel any better, it is good to know that Stapleton feels that "our cooperation with France on a range of issues should continue alongside our engagement with France and the EU on ag[riculture] biotech (and the next generation of environmental related trade concerns)" and that "we can manage both at the same time and should not let one set of priorities detract from the other." Awesome, Ambassador Stapleton! Even though one country is crazy enough to care what its population consumes (and I am referring to France here), we can still be friends (sarcasm added).

In order to view the original cable, click here!

Sweat the Small Stuff

2011-01-01T12:21:00.000-08:00

recent research shows significant health benefits of combining 4 simple human behaviors

With so much conflicting evidence on what to eat, how much to eat, how much to exercise, and which exercises to do in order to develop and stay in optimum health, it seems increasingly more necessary to formulate simple and pragmatic solutions for everyday. Maximum workloads, the rising costs of food items (especially healthy and organic items), along with the utter lack of consistency across dietary information boards does not make it easy for individuals to ensure a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, there appears to be minimal attention given to the physical benefits of the very basic behaviors one can do to significantly impact his health situation, which in turn impacts his overall quality of life.

I was very much excited to stumble across a recent study performed by Kay-Tee Khaw, et al. entitled "Combined Impact of Health Behaviors and Mortality in Men and Women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study" conducted at the Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, at Cambridge, United Kingdom, which evaluated the effects of four general health behaviors (non-smoking, physical activity, moderate alcohol intake, and consumption of roughly five servings a day of fruit and vegetables) on a population's mortality rate. The findings were definitely promising!

The study, as seen on PLoS Medicine provided by the Public Library of Science, "examined the prospective relationship between lifestyle and mortality in a prospective population study of 20,244 men and women aged 45–79 y[ears] with no known cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline survey in 1993–1997, living in the general community in the United Kingdom, and followed up to 2006," the research article explains. For each behavior adhered to by its subjects a point was assigned, with a combined maximum total of four points possible: one for being a non-smoker, one for not being physically inactive, one for moderate alcohol intake (< 14 drinks per week but not a non-drinker), and one for eating roughly five servings of fruit and vegetables a day. The results were astounding, showing a four-fold decrease in the mortality rate from adhering to all of the behaviors compared to adhering to none. The end result was a 14 year chronological difference.

So what does this mean? The small stuff really does matter! Sure, it is better to get in 5 hours of exercise a week, but for some that seems like a great feat. By showing that simple steps can achieve big results, the study offers a more positive and doable approach to health for the average individual. As the article states, "there is overwhelming evidence that behavioural factors influence health, but their combined [emphasis added] impact on the general population is less well documented." Just being aware of one's day-to-day activities can make a difference. Trying to get in shape can be overwhelming with the multitude of information that never seems consistent from one source to another, our busy schedules, and the current economic conditions. It is good to know that simply combining these good behaviors in our daily life offers significant results. The results of the study give those who don't know where to begin a starting place with easy and pragmatic practices that provide a stepping stone to optimum health.

In order to view the scientific research article, please click here!

Do As I Say, Not As I Do?

2010-12-30T22:48:00.000-08:00

a study at Johns Hopkins University shows little link between child and parental dietary intake

Growing up, I had always heard my parents (upon trying to offer me some good advice that they themselves did not follow) say that infamous phrase, "do as I say and not as I do!" About the time I'd hit my teenage years, the meaning and ridiculousness behind such a statement became glaring as I began to understand that parental behaviors greatly affect the behaviors of children. That is why I was so stunned to discover the results of a study entiltled "Do children and their parents eat a similar diet? Resemblance in child and parental dietary intake: systematic review and meta-analysis" that appeared in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

According to the study performed at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Human Nutrition at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland, the link between what parents eat and what their children eat is moderate to weak, leaving me to question the acceptance of the age-old phrase that titles this article. Is it really okay for parents to offer advice to children without setting a good example? Should I really have been so upset the day I was out shopping and saw a two year old gulping down a 20 ounce Mountain Dew, fearing that the child would grow up doing the same, or maybe graduating to 40 ounces a day? Now I understand the the difference between offering advice and offering Mountain Dew, but it seemed that the Mountain Dew was the least of my concerns. I wondered, if a parent can give their two year old something so bad for them, then how badly were they taking care of themselves, and how would that later affect the child, who begins to accept a poor diet as normal and therefore, okay.

The results of the study almost seem like a blessing. If a parent denies a good example to his/her child, the study suggests that the child has just as much of a chance to eat differently as an adult as as s(he) does the chance to follow in the parents' footsteps. What wonderful news!

But before we all let out a big "phew!" as we remember eating those too-terrible-for-words Cheetos right in front of the four year old, the study does explicitly say that it is based on "small samples" with results varying "remarkably [...] across studies, nutrients, foods and parent–child pairs."

While the study results bring me to wonder exactly how children do make their food decisions (peer pressure, advertisements, and those wonderful prizes they receive in the Lucky Charms box, possibly), it is important to consider the very integral role that a parent plays in the child's decision making. If there are no cookies in the house, the child cannot eat them! And while the study discusses specifically the link between a parent's diet and the child's diet, it does not discuss the child's ability to form life-long habits by eating healthy sooner, rather than later.

To see the review as it appeared in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, click here!

It's a Meat-Eater's World

2010-12-30T00:20:00.000-08:00

a meat-eater's switch to vegetarianism

I was raised to be a meat-eater. Born in Kentucky, from a traditional southern family, I grew up eating just about anything my father could shoot, be it deer, quail, or even squirrel (yes, I said squirrel!). When I reached my 20s, my usual daily meals consisted of a bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit for breakfast, a quarter-pounder with cheese meal for lunch, and some burrito from the nearest Taco Bell (usually the beef mexi-melt). I never saw that a meatless diet was in my near future, and if I had, I don't know how I would have handled the anxiety. The thought of no McDonald's in my life was a scary one indeed. But here I am now, McDonald's-less, and very much alive and kicking. It did not kill me or nearly so, as I may have expected. As such, I decided to write this in answer to the many times I have been asked the question, "How can you NOT eat meat!? I am simply a meat-eater and do not get how you can live without it!"

The first response that comes to mind when posed with this exclamation of utter disbelief is that one can absolutely live without it, and happily I might add, because it is no different than deciding not to eat chips, cake, or any other substance one can think of. And meat is only a food choice, as difficult to stop doing as eating the above mentioned chips or cake, but just as beneficial and rewarding in the end. I think all food is an addiction, at least those foods one grows up eating, because our bodies accept those foods as normal. Meat is no different.

I truly feel that as a previous meat-eater, and a devout one at that, that the ability to stop lies solely in the conscious decision to do so. This is why I do not make attempts to push my lifestyle upon any of my friends or family, as much as I would like them to join me for the multitude of reasons I find to be positive outcomes of a meat-free existence. I am well aware that nobody will change their diet in response to my constant badgering, as I did not change mine due to constant badgering. To be honest, the only reason I quit in the first place was because it was required of me while I underwent a yoga instructor training course. Although I could have made it through that course lying the entire time, eating burgers behind closed doors, I made the firm decision to follow the rules throughout the duration of the course, and see if I felt any different. In the end, I didn't.

I felt EXACTLY the same as before the course, plus a few cravings. For whatever reason, I never went back to eating it. It seemed that I had gone so long without it, why start up again? The thought of eating something so spiritual, once very much alive, never did sit well with me. Once I realized that quitting didn't, and never would, kill me, I never found a reason to go back. I have been without it for something close to four years now, and every craving I have is gone, which makes me view meat more like a drug than anything else. I think that if I truly needed it to live, my body would demand it. But it doesn't, at least not anymore.

I do realize, as I have been told by many people who have attempted to become vegetarian and who failed miserably, that a common problem is the extreme fatigue that follows soon after being meat-free. The biggest problem that I have seen is the failure to maintain protein in the diet, or any kind of nutrition for that matter. I have asked on numerous occasions upon hearing such issues what he/she ate instead, and the answer was consistently, "a lot of salads." Therein lies a gigantic problem! A life based on salads seems to me nearly as unhealthy as a life based on meats. The biggest help for me has been inclusion of vegetables I had never ate before (I am keepin diversity alive) and sufficient amounts of foods packed with proteins, such as nuts, soy products, milk, and cheese.

I do not write this for those who are meat-eaters who do not have any desire whatsoever to become vegetarian. I am writing this specifically for those who are considering it, or who already are and who are struggling with the change. Going meatless was not an easy change for me by any stretch of the imagination. I just constantly chose to bypass the McDonald's. It was never like I didn't see the McDonald's and want it oh-so-badly. It was just a conscious decision in which I said to myself, "not today... maybe tomorrow" every single time. Eventually, my body stopped paying attention to those beautiful golden arches and left me free to choose my food, rather than succumb to its every desire.

Organic Clothing Not Just For Hippies Anymore

2010-12-29T16:17:00.000-08:00

Mainstream retailers buying into eco-friendly fashion

MIAMI — High fashion is going granola. But not the grunge of hippie yoga wear and grainy hemp T-shirts typically associated with organic clothes.

Think soft soy dresses, cropped organic terry jackets and slim fit organic denim jeans to pair with stilettos, not flip flops.

Consumers worried about ingesting harmful pesticides have long been purchasing organic foods...

Read More Here

Study Maps Chemical Residues in European Children's Diets

2010-12-28T21:05:00.000-08:00

A 10-year-old child eating a balanced diet may be exposed to as many as 128 chemical residues of 81 different substances

In a single day, a 10-year-old child in Europe may be exposed through food to 128 chemical residues of 81 different substances. Forty-two of these substances are classified as "possibly or probably carcinogens", and five as "certainly carcinogens". No fewer than 37 substances are endocrine disruptors (ED).
This is the conclusion of a study published this month by a partnership of environmental groups based in France and Belgium: Générations Futures, the Health and Environment Alliance (Heal), Réseau Environnement Santé (RES) and WWF-France. The authors of the study bought food in supermarkets in Oise, north of Paris, and in the French capital, sufficient to give a typical 10-year-old three meals a day and a snack. The food was not organic but was consistent with a balanced diet.

The authors then asked independent laboratories to analyze the food, checking for possible residues of pesticides, dioxins, heavy metals, plasticisers (phthalates, bisphenol A or perfluorinated compounds [PFC]) and for food additives.

Their findings are instructive: 34 chemical substances were found in the fresh salmon, more than half of which are either carcinogens or EDs; the processed cheese contained six substances, all of which are carcinogens and EDs. The unsalted butter, served at breakfast, contained 15 residues, the beefburger (15% fat) contained 10, all of them carcinogens and EDs. Overall 128 chemical residues would have been consumed in a single day. Worse still, substances banned in France were found in a tin of green beans imported from Kenya and one forbidden substance in rice from Asia.

Admittedly in almost all cases products complied with the legal limit for each substance. But "the number of pesticide and pollutant residues found is striking", says Dr Laurent Chevallier, a nutritionist and member of RES. He wants "more controls and research into the cumulative effect of the various chemical substances and the period of exposure".

The results "are worse than we expected", says François Veillerette of Générations Futures, who agrees that the study, the first in a campaign on the environment and cancer by the organization, should be continued in greater detail.

"No allowance is made for the effects of probable interaction caused by consuming a cocktail of contaminants of this sort, and the long-term risk for consumers is probably seriously underestimated," the study claims. "We still know very little about the impact of such chemical cocktails in our food," says Veillerette. "We are calling for the precautionary principle to be applied, in order to reduce [...] contamination of the environment and in particular our food by substances suspected of being carcinogens," the study adds.

"What is harmful is not the intensity of the dose but the repetition of small doses, and consequently the period of exposure," explains Professor Dominique Belpomme of Paris University.

"Governments must find ways of substantially reducing the population's exposure to chemical substances, in particular through food," Veillerette says. There are alternatives, he points out, in particular low-input or organic farming.
Some commentators are nevertheless advocating a more measured response to the study. "We are bound to find chemical substances in our food, but what matters is the amount. Humans can metabolize the xenobiotics [present in food, medicine, indoor air, etc.] to which they are constantly exposed," says Dr Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, the head of research at Institut Gustave-Roussy, near Paris.

This article originally appeared in Le Monde and has been provided here, courtesy of Pascale Santi at Guardian Weekly. The article as it was posted there may be seen at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/28/chemical-residues-childrens-food-santi

The Coming Clean Campaign for Organic Integrity in the Health and Beauty Care Aisle

2010-12-26T22:50:00.000-08:00

The Organic Consumers Association's Coming Clean Campaign has been working to clean up the "organic" cosmetics industry since 2004. Unlike organic foods, many health and beauty products are falsely labeled as "organic". The goal of Coming Clean is to limit organic claims to personal care products that are certified to USDA organic standards.

How to avoid organic cosmetics fraud

The word "organic" is not properly regulated on personal care products (example: toothpaste, shampoo, lotion, etc.) as it is on food products, unless the product is certified by the USDA National Organic Program.
Due to this lax regulation, many personal care products have the word "organic" in their brand name or otherwise on their product label, but, unless they are USDA certified, the main cleansing ingredients and preservatives are usually made with synthetic and petrochemical compounds.
Look for the USDA organic seal on personal care products that claim to be organic. Although there are multiple "organic" and "natural" standards, each with its own varying criteria, the USDA Organic Standards are the "gold standard" for personal care products.
If you want a product that is totally organic, look for the USDA organic seal. If it doesn't have the seal, read the ingredient label to find out how many ingredients are truly organic and how many are synthetic.

- article as shown on the OCA website: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/index.cfm

The Ten Most Hopeful Stories of 2010

2010-12-26T21:18:00.000-08:00

I was happy to see Yes! Magazine's "Ten Most Hopeful Stories of 2010" list!

10 Most Hopeful Stories of 2010

There was plenty of disappointment and hardship this year. But the year also brought opportunities for transformation.

It was a tough year. The economy continued its so-called jobless recovery with Wall Street anticipating another year of record bonuses while most Americans struggle to get work and hold on to their homes. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued, and spilled over into Pakistan and Yemen, and more American soldiers died by suicide than fighting in Afghanistan. And it was a year of big disasters, some of them indicators of the growing climate crisis. World leaders, under the sway of powerful corporations and banks, have been unable to confront our most pressing challenges, and one crisis follows another.
Nonetheless, events from 2010 also contain the seeds of transformation. None of the following stories is enough on its own to change the momentum. But if we the people build and strengthen social movements, each of of these stories points to a piece of the solution.

1.    Climate Crisis Response Takes a New Direction. After the failure of Copenhagen, Bolivia hosted a gathering of indigenous people, climate activists, and grassroots leaders from the global South—those left out of the UN-sponsored talks. Their solution to the climate crisis is based on a new recognition of the rights of Mother Earth. Gone are notions of trading the right to pollute (which gives a whole new meaning to the term "toxic assets"). Instead, life has rights, and we can learn ways to live a good life that doesn’t require degrading our home. The official climate agreement that came out of Cancún was weak and disappointing, although it did represent a continued commitment to work to address the challenge. But the peoples' mobilizations, and the solutions born in Cochabamba, continue to energize thousands. Meanwhile, Californians voted to uphold their ambitious climate law, despite millions spent by oil companies to rescind the measure in November's election. And cities—Seattle, for one—are moving ahead with their own plans to reduce, and even zero-out, their climate emissions.

2.    Wikileaks Lifts the Veil. The release of secret documents by Wikileaks has lifted the veil on U.S. government actions around the world. While the insights themselves don't change anything, they do offer grist for a national dialogue on our role in the world—especially at a time when our federal budget crisis may require scaling back on our hundreds of foreign military bases, our protracted overseas wars, and our budget-busting weapons programs. Likewise, the traumas inflicted on civilian populations and on our own military are spurring fresh thinking. We now have data points for a bracing, reality-based conversation on the future of war—the kind of conversation that makes democracy a living reality.

3.    Momentum is Building for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons. The ratification of the START Treaty is an important step in the right direction. And the National Council of Churches, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and others from across the political spectrum have joined UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in calling for an even more ambitious goal: the end of nuclear weapons.

4.    Resilience is the New Watchword. As familiar sources of security erode, people are rebuilding their communities to be green and resilient. Detroit, a city abandoned by industry and many of its former residents, now has over 1,000 community gardens, a six-block-long public market with some 250 independent vendors, and a growing support network among small businesses. Around the country, faith groups and others are forming Common Security Clubs to help members weather the recession and consider more life-sustaining economic models. Communities are becoming Transition Towns as a means to prepare for breakdowns in society that may result from any combination of the triple crises of climate change, an end to cheap fossil fuels, and an economy on the skids.

5.    Health Care—Still in Play. The passage of the Obama health care package seemed to lock us into a reform package that maintains the expensive and bureaucratic role of private insurance and props up the mega-profits of the pharmaceuticals industry. But the story is not over. The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson to strike down the individual mandate in the health care reform may begin unraveling the new health care system. As insurance premiums continue their steep climb, some are advocating expansion of Medicare to cover more people—or everyone. Thom Hartmann points out this could be done with a simple majority vote in Congress—expanding Medicare to everyone was what its founders had in mind in the first place, he says. Vermont is exploring instituting a statewide single-payer healthcare system. The United States may wind up following Canada’s path to universal coverage, which began when the province of Saskatchewan made the switch to single-payer health care, and the rest of Canada, seeing the many benefits, followed suit.

6.    Corporate Power Challenged. Small businesses are distancing themselves from the Chamber of Commerce, which promotes the interests of mega-corporations over Main Street businesses. And there are more direct confrontations to corporate power. The citizens of Pittsburgh, Penn., passed a law prohibiting natural gas “fracking,” and declaring that the rights of people and nature supersede the rights of corporations. Other towns and cities are adopting similar laws. The biggest challenge will be undoing the damage of the Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to wealthy special interests to spend what they like on elections. Groups around the country are gearing up to take on the issue, with a constitutional amendment just one of the potential fixes.

7.    A local economy movement is taking off as it becomes clear that the corporate economy is a net drain on our well-being, the environment, communities, and even jobs. A “Move Your Money” campaign inspired thousands to close their accounts with predatory big banks, and instead, to open accounts at credit unions and locally owned banks. Schools, hospitals, local retailers, and families are increasingly demanding local food. Farmers markets are spreading. Independent, local stores have huge cachet as people look local for a sense of community. And the experience of one state with a budget surplus and very low unemployment is capturing the imagination of other states—North Dakota’s state bank is creating a buzz.

8.    Cooperatives Make a Comeback. A new model for local, just, and green job creation is gaining national attention. Leaders in Cleveland, Ohio, created worker-owned cooperatives with some of the strongest, local institutions (a hospital and university) promising to be their customers. The result: formerly low-income workers now own shares in their workplace and earn family-supporting wages. They can plan for their families’ futures, knowing that their jobs can be counted on not to flee the country. The model is spreading, and people now talk about how to bring "the Cleveland model" to their cities.

9.    A Turn Away from Homophobia. The revoking of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is just the most dramatic sign that the country has turned away from homophobia. A widespread anti-bullying campaign sparked by the suicide of Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi led to an “It Gets Better” campaign with videos created by celebrities and others.

10.   Social Movements Still Our Best Hope. Thousands gathered in Detroit in June for the second US Social Forum, an event that galvanized grassroots social movements from across the United States. In Toronto, the meeting of the G20 was greeted by thousands of protesters, many of whom were subjected to police beatings and gassing. The Cancún climate talks brought caravans of farmer/activists and global justice activists as well as greens to press for a meaningful response to the climate crisis. Social movements are alive and well, even though they are disparaged or ignored by the corporate media, which choose to instead shower attention on the well-funded Tea Party. And movement leaders are connecting the dots between Wall Street’s plunder, growing poverty, and the climate crisis, and setting priorities instead for people and the planet.

The turbulence of our lives is increasing, spurred by the crises in the economy and the environment, growing inequality and debt, military overreach, deferred peacetime investments, and species extinctions. Turbulent times are also times when rigid belief systems and institutions are shaken, and change is more possible. Not automatic, and definitely not easy, but possible. The question of our time is how we use these openings to work for a better world for all life.

- author: Sarah van Gelder; article as appeared in Yes! Magazine @ http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/sarah-van-gelder/10-most-hopeful-stories-of-2010