Convenient Nutrition – an Oxymoron?

Processed. Over packaged. Preservatives. Hydrogenated. Most people today get that these are indications of food that may not provide the most nutrition. Sometimes, it takes a little reading and extra thought… not what most people would consider convenient. So is “convenient nutrition” an oxymoron? Perhaps.  But then again, since when is coronary illness convenient?

A friend of mine produced a wonderful post on this topic, after noticing “healthy people at the gym” choosing a synthetic product over a natural one for their coffee. I wouldn’t lay blame on most for making this mistake… afterall, there is a tremendous amount of conflicting information out there about what we should and should not eat (e.g. fats vs carbs).

And it’s rare that we fully understand the ways that foods impact our bodies… but Natasha points out something very wise:

“The truth is, a “treat” should make our body feel better, not worse. Or else it really wasn’t much of a “treat”, after all.”

I can’t count how many times I have been dupped into eating something my olifactory sensors thought I would enjoy, only to feel terrible afterwards. So sometimes, it’s not even the label’s fault. So how do we avoid eating “food” that is bad for us, let alone bad for the planet to produce?

Some questions I like to ask when choosing food to eat:

• How far did it wander from the farm? If the farmer wouldn’t recognize it, abstain.
• Would you dare lick it without washing and not worry about ailments to your kidneys?
• Do you know what those ingredients ACTUALLY are?
• Shop the outside isle.
• If you don’t feel great after eating it, don’t buy it again.

How about you? What are your guidlines for buying nutritious food?

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter.

HB

Tyranny of fossil fuels = modern day slavery. Ouch.

In high school I used to think history was kind of useless: bunch of facts about dead guys and broken things and times no longer relevant. In university, Geographers and other more ”practically disciplined” academics chuckle at the History majors, suggesting the only career for one to apply a history degree is that of a history teacher. While that may be somewhat true, I have grown to appreciate insights for the future from examining the past.

Today’s history lesson: cheap and unethical sources of energy enable unsustainable and unequally distributed wealth. From a Knowledge Network TV series (*nerd alert*), I recently learned how colonial slavery fueled the riches of few elite in Britain… and when precedent was set to free slaves who won supreme court cases in Britain, it fueled an ideology of freedom in the US, leading to war and the declaration of independence.

Well, that’s the basic storyline. But the subplot I find enlightening for considering the predicament we are in today: slaves were seen as necessary for producing the commodities (sugar, cotton) that fueled economic growth; today, we rely on fossil fuel.

Notably, today we are reliant on an energy form less directly challenging to our morals and sense of humanity; though just as tortuous, as millions succumb to starvation, disease, natural disasters and increasing violent conflicts. Except this time, we also assault a great number of beings beyond our own species.

Are we bound to this destructive societal norm?

The host of the program noted that the Americans grew weary of high taxation, and desired liberty from British control… But he also surmised that increasingly, awareness of the lavish riches obtained by British merchants fueled a sense of injustice. Americans did not consider freeing slaves until much later, partly because they thought their way of life was reliant on slaves, and they were seeking to advance their society to meet the standard of those in Europe. What does this teach us about our predicament today?

Well, one does not need to look at history to see how unjust distribution of wealth is around the world… And how it is human nature to attempt to balance this inequity. Naturally, China, India and other developing nations will continue to use convenient and undervalued energy to fuel development, just as the US used slave labour (as did many other nations after the US abolished it). I imagine the move to mechanized harvest methods eventually made the transition away from slave labour easier.

This is not unlike the current focus on clean technology. At the individual level, there is friction between the “classes”. Example: what thoughts and feelings does the picture of a rich oil executive create for you? For me:

• Power above others.
• Greed.
• Justified by the current social norm (capitalism, individualism)… to name a few.

When I first started writing this blog post, I got to the line above, and wasn’t quite sure how to finish. It is a tiring subject to contemplate – wrought with the complexities of social justice, economic theories and environmental sustainability. Part of me ran out of steam, and another part just thought: “whoa, this is deep”.

Slavery. Can I really compare the terrible reality of this former societal norm to the prevalence of fossil fuel tyranny? Apparently, I can… because I have peers (who also happen to be peer-reviewed) that have done so before me.

”Today, the United States is as dependent on fossil fuels for its patterns of consumption and production as its South was on slavery in the mid-nineteenth century. It may therefore be unsurprising that US congressmen often rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risk to future generations, just as slavery was rationalised despite ideals of equality.”

(Davidson, Marc. 2007. Parallels in reactionary argumentation in the US congressional debates on the abolition of slaveryand the Kyoto Protocol. Climatic Change (2008) 86:67–82. Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5021x4506k0r622/fulltext.pdf)

From another article:

“Slavery Abolitionists Accused of Threatening a Way of Life… Those people who fought for the abolition of slavery were described as challenging the way of life in the Empire, in the colonies, and abolition would lead to sure economic collapse.”

The way out of this, if we look to history, is a gradual transition. Leaders of change can demonstrate to the “economy crusaders” that we can change how we produce and deliver goods and services. I think we need to show that wellbeing need not need to rely on unethical sources of energy. And the definition of wellbeing… I’ll leave that for another day.

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter.

HB

Reserved parking for veggetarians, anyone?

Seeing this sign, I couldn’t help but ponder the sheer influence it must have on daily passers by. It is attached to a lone parking stall at the entrance to the mall in a parkade. It sends the subtle yet unmistakable message that hybrid drivers are encouraged. No information about why hybrid drivers get special treatment… But there must be a good reason if someone went to the trouble to put up a sign.

I wonder what else this could work for? If we used this concept for encouraging more sustainable food choices (less meat, ethically raised, organic, seasonal, local), what would this look like?

A special checkout for people only buying organic veggies?

Shorter hospital waits for people who accumulate some kind of “healthy food membership points?”

I’m being cheeky here, but really, if we are going to transform our food system, we need to start sending these clear, social norm inducing messages that eating for sustainability really is the right thing to do.

I’d love to hear your ideas (especially if they aren’t totally ridiculous like mine).

From my sphere to yours, here’s to earth on a platter.

HB

Jack Bauer – Scientist and holistic thinker in the making

The video above is of me and my son Jack attending a ‘Science Ventures” day camp at the University of Victoria. If you didn’t know, this year is the “Year of Science” in British Columbia, Canada.

Few can deny the great achievements we have made as a species by expanding our knowledge. But with knowledge, comes responsibility. Sometimes, even responsibility that is too great for us to bear (i.e. nuclear weapons).

That said, learning about our environment (the planet, most broadly) and the elements and physics that define it is important for making good decisions about how we live upon it.

Science is also good for teaching us that things aren’t always what they seem. When you fully observe something, and ask good questions, you’ll often find your initial assumptions were not quite right. This works in the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc) and in the social sciences.

One big caution on science though.. a fundamental flaw with the discipline is that it breaks everything down into individual parts, rather than viewing elements or processes as a part of the systems they operate in. This is called “reductionist science”, and we do it because we are generally flawed in our ability to observe everything at once. Plus, it would take forever to write reports about our scientific endeavors if we considered all the parts of a system connected to the aspect we are studying!

Some of us, say, Geographers like me, are trained to respect and understand scientific methods and results, to take those findings and assess them in real world terms. In effect – to put all the parts back together, because in reality, nothing is separate or isolated.

Trouble is, geographers like me, who take seriously this job of usefully reconstructing all the parts scientists reduce, face a frustrating reality: most of society is now trained to think in reductionist terms.

So, even though examining elements or processes in the real world for positive and effective outcomes requires holistic thinking, the people we communicate it to tend to pick on tiny aspects of the big picture. They get hung up on some part of the system that they understand, or care about.

This tendency to narrowly focus is common – we all do it, even geographers. But it is a dreadful shortcoming that has got us in an awful mess, environmentally, socially and economically speaking.

So, I suggest you encourage your kids to appreciate science, and learn some yourself – just be aware of its limitations as well.

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter.

HB

Why Canadians should be Angry. Really angry.

If you didn't know, Harper likes cats. If cats knew what he was up to, they would not like him.

Last Tuesday Bill C-311, a bill to set serious climate change reduction targets for Canada, was voted down in our Canadian Senate without even passing into committee for debate. This might not seem like a big deal – legislation dies all the time – however, not without due consideration, especially after elected representatives pass a bill after months of deliberation only to be killed by a body of unelected officials.  (Read “people hired for their special interests and political alignment”).

This has not happened in  almost 100 years, and as Elizabeth May (Leader of the Green Party) puts it, even then, it did not happen “without notice”.

Essentially, this event is a disaster for anyone who values democracy in our country. Every Canadian should be downright pissed, even if they are not educated about the importance of addressing Climate Change. (BTW, this bill would have called for greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – consistent with what the science is calling for and way beyond our current non-targets of ~3 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020).

And on that note, why would said government quickly kill this bill, when so much of the rest of the world is coming to terms with the reality of climate change and is desperate to find a way to stop it? Quite plainly, Harper realizes that if parliament even entertains a debate on the matter, his government will have to provide a position. He will have to come out and say exactly why Canada is not going to produce any serious targets or take concerted measures to address this monumental challenge.

Yes, we know it is difficult for Canada to meet stringent targets, especially being dependent on the oil sands. But Canadians will not be willed to find a way to make this work, if their leadership isn’t even acknowledging the problem… the really, really big, “nothing else matters, even oil sands, if we don’t solve it” problem.

It is what Canada is NOT saying about the need to act on climate change that is the problem. Yes, Canada is present at the international climate change negotiations. But if you examine the accounts of the proceedings, you will find Canada very quiet. You can also find references to “draft” climate change “plans” and programs… none of them come to fruition.

It’s as if the government thinks that if the public (you) hear “Canada” and “addressing climate change” in the same sentence once a year, you will complacently, and politely assume the good nature of “Canada” (of which you are part) is doing the right thing, as per usual. Sorry folks, Lester B Pearson is no longer running the show…

It is hard to express anger in ways that resonate, rather than alienate. I think poetry is a means for overcoming this.  Unless you are into serious heavy metal, I suppose.

Stemming from my last post, my reading of Lester B. Pearson’s biography, recent events in the Canadian democracy, and my daily studies on climate change and intergovernmental relations, I’ve felt the need to express a whole collection of thoughts:

Are the people of my country gone?

Long since Lester B.

Succumbed to tyranny

Of mass media and trade economy?

What people, where?

Could I identify

That see,

Boldly,

A future, fair and safe?

Do we condemn our children and beyond

To a fate

Deserved by shareholder greed,

GDP psyche,

Ignorance, contempt

And false entitlement?

The sight is lost,

Spatially, temporally,

At scales beyond ourselves.

Are the people of my country

Resigned to feel

The heat and pains  brought by this hell?

“Not here, but there”

Perhaps they think.

And futile is that feat.

For Lester B.

Well does he see

Immortally, that tyranny

Which chafes against the meager and the great.

For our counterparts “out there”,

Beneath the covers

Irritants and assaults run deep, long

In a bed that we all share.

Yes,

Certainly my nation stands

To lose like all the rest.

Yet,

In breaking free with principles that speak

For all humanity,

We may well find the people of my land

So loved, painted, defended,

By Lester B.

Who would see us

Take that stand.

Hunger and art are quite dissimilar – one derives from the need to consume, or to take in, and the other from the need to express, or put out. One requires food, the other provides food… for thought. So there’s the food connection in this blog about food security. Er, um… yeah.

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter.

HB

Reflection on peace, security and identity.

This Remembrance Day, we enjoyed and appreciated our freedom: a safe, carefree walk to the park; indulgence in the comforts of our sanitary and well furnished home; several nutritious and tasty meals.

We thought about how there were times and places where these things were not taken for granted. And how many people fought and died to provide our freedom, safety and comfort.

Remembrance not only conjures a sense of appreciation for me, but it also evokes reflection upon current times and where we might be headed. It raises questions. Then again, for me, nearly everything does.

On peace, Lester B. Pearson (“The Greatest Canadian”, former Prime Minister, veteran) was a grandmaster, and was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize for his remarkable diplomacy. The acceptance speech he gave is an important read on a day like today.

My Great, Great Grandmother and Lester B. Pearson  share the same grandfather (so they were cousins). My connection to the Pearson side of the family is in blood only, as I’ve not had  contact with the extended family in Eastern Canada. However, I am struck to the core by the resemblance my father has to the images I’ve seen of Lester B, who commonly went by the name Mike. This remarkable resemblance to my father, whom I am very much like,  has begged me to learn more about this great Canadian: a true Global Citizen. Could there be anything we share?

In reading a biography, I have learned that Mike Pearson had some significant dealings in agriculture and food policy. He was actively involved in the creation of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which was the beginning of his international career. This organization came to be for several reasons, which are outlined here. This excerpt strikes me exceptionally (my emphasis added):

The two-year, three-month process which launched the FAO occurred when the world was caught in an incredibly destructive global war, to be marked near its close with the drop of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Allied nations and public opinion were strongly concerned with ensuring that global peace be gained and maintained. There was a global sense of despair, hope and urgency — that there would be either one world or none; that nations must and could cooperate to prevent further conflicts; that humanity could achieve global abundance and lasting peace if beneficial science was available to all. And the first issue that the allied nations tackled to meet that end was food and agriculture — a basic need with largely non-political implications and jurisdictions.

Though Pearson had little knowledge of the subject of agriculture, at the founding conference to form the organization he provided “unique abilities as mediator, and his exceptional ability to approach topics with a long-term, forward-thinking view.”

Declaration at the conference that formed the FAO

From reading more about him, I’ve seen that I have many similarities in outlook and in personality, but perhaps, none so strongly as the long-term, forward-thinking view.

I’ve always felt, and been told, that I am different from my peers. Most have suggested that perhaps I’m just more “mature for my age”. Some suggest I have a wisdom or principles that set me apart. Maybe it is this – that seeing wholes, and feeling the need to steward the future, are not common approaches, and people like me and my buddy Mike can serve others with this skill.

My notion, shared with many others, that food security is of utmost importance, touches not only the realm of agriculture, nutrition and food distribution policy, but also of economic stability, social security, and ultimately, peace. I also observe the state of our global environment and human population as threatening the sustainability of our food systems.

I’ve written before about the need to support and aid those regions experiencing the pangs of climate change (foreign aid is also something Pearson wholly supported and directed). And while nations with many more mouths to feed than ours increasingly suffer from the devastating impacts of climate change on basic human needs, can we ignore the political instability this will exacerbate? I fear we are already observing the impacts of the hungry and desperate human element in the middle east.

In North America, our tunnel vision has us on the tracks to address restoring the economy. To resume growth and prosperity, while competition overseas threatens a previously held “death grip” on wealth and supremacy. Strong words perhaps… but this is what the United States stands to loose. So long as Americans retain faith and buying power, and markets continue to hold water, the economic fabric may well sail the US to the front of the fleet in the future.

However, should a most important foundation, a global system that provides abundant and affordable food, suffer any greater turmoil than it has recently, all bets are off. All indications are that the risk of this happening are high and increasing. Food comes first, and any other GPD growth supporting purchases will fall short of mending the economy.

As a Canadian, I pay respect to the Canadian Veterans especially because I live in a unique nation that has the ability to seek a balance of freedom and social support and that regards the welfare of the citizens of other nations as necessary to global security. I am also keen to keep this identity, and not to have it co-opted. Thank you Lester B. Pearson, for helping to validate this sentiment, though dim in the Canada I see today. Let us pray  it will be refurbished without the ills of hunger or the threat of war.

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter

HB

Walking the talk, chewing more greens

I must admit: I am fully aware that eating meat is an environmentally unfriendly thing to do when the alternative – eating just vegetables, legumes and grains – is much better and entirely viable.

However, I continue to purchase animal protein, and cook or prepare it nearly everyday. Part of this habit comes out of respect for my husband, who is not as morally bound to the same causes as I am, and who really likes to eat meat. The other part, is that I grew up eating meat, and I make an effort to purchase ethically raised meats, so I don’t feel so bad…

There are some things in life that are easier to give up than others, and such things vary for each of us. For me, it is really easy to not drive my car, because, well, I hate driving (more so, I hate getting stuck in traffic and searching for parking, and spending stupid money on fuel). So, I get up a bit earlier 2-4 times per week and ride my bike 7k to and from work.  Or, I structure my day around the bus schedule so that I can have someone else drive me while I read the news or a good book.

Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. In BC, it accounts for nearly 40% of all emissions. I feel I am making a difference on this. But I realize I shouldn’t stop there.

So, I’m really careful to turn off lights, not run electric heat, conserve hot water, hang clothes to dry, recycle as much waste as possible, shop local…

Food and diet are such foundational elements of our being. A regular part of our daily existence, that any change in how we meet that need is going to have significant impacts upon our habits and wellbeing. Because we all eat, our habits have great impacts on the source of those calories… some estimates suggest a meat dish, compared with a veggie dish of the same caloric value, will require 16 times more energy to produce, and will release 24 times more greenhouse gas in its production!

I have several vegetarian friends. I also have several really environmentally conscious friends who are not vegetarians.

I’m not convinced eating meat is entirely bad, but I am certain that eating vegetables is better. I am constantly striving to be better – to improve my life and the lives of those I care about. It just makes sense to me to start walking the talk, and chewing more greens.

Today is the first day I will commit to not eating any meat during the weekdays (I’m not ready to give up bacon on Sundays.)

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter

HB

Honesty – blatant, dumbed down, forceful honesty is what we need.

I wasn’t hungry this evening. My stomach is still turning from the days events, and I suppose I feel that because of this, my post may in some way relate to the topic of food. Or perhaps its that I’d like to metaphorically leave my readers (if there are any out there) with something to chew on…

My waking hours began with tentative celebration in a partial victory – California voters defeated one ballot measure that would put their world leading climate change legislation in the toilet (Prop 23), AND they elected a Democrat (Jerry Brown) who unlike his opponent, will not suspend the legislation (AB 32).

I say partial, because leadership is great, so long as you have followers. The rest of the US will be greatly challenged to take any mitigative or preparatory actions for climate change, because science isn’t their strong suit. What is? Complaining about what the government hasn’t done for them while simultaneously wanting the government to disappear. But I digress…

Everyday I see interviews of people taking positions, even passionately, about issues they have NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT. They are not informed, they are influenced.

Part of me wants to suggest that we need to inform people. Okay, all of me does, because that’s just what I value. However, being informed is a two part battle – having the information provided  and making the effort to digest the information AND to consider it’s implications.

1. If I don’t know there are no more pickles left in the fridge, I can’t act on it.
2. If someone tells me “pickles are important and your husband shouldn’t eat them all”, I might say “yeah! Pickles matter to me too! Curse that husband of mine!”
3. If someone tells me “there are no more pickles in the fridge”. I’ll say “I guess I should put them on my shopping list”.

The first example is when the subject just doesn’t have the information. There are no pickles, and its going to suck to be them when they get back from the grocery store and realize they’re out. This is a situation we want to avoid.

Example two does NOT contain any information either. These are opinions, ideals and values. Pickles matter, but so what? Now you’re just all worked up about pickles and you’re going to give your husband a bad time.

Example three contains the information we need: you are out of pickles and there will be consequences if you don’t take action.

Unfortunately, the world is full of issues and problems far more complex than a shopping list. My friends, you are ignorant of most of these complex matters because who has time to understand them all AND make sure your billion other daily concerns are looked after? I know I don’t – that is what the government is hired to do (and by government, I mean the politicians AND the variously talented and educated public servants).

So, politicians, the ones who are responsible for being aware of all these complex issues, need to validate their decisions without hassling you with all the information needed to address the “pickle shortage” or the “emissions problem”, “healthcare crisis”, “education burdens”, “aging infrastructure problems”, “national security concerns”, “balance of trade issues”… to name a few.

Often, the way politicians validate the decisions they make is by appealing to your sense of “what matters”. Pickles matter, but so what, remember?

Gordon Campbell, Premier of BC – the Province I am proudly a public servant to – resigned today. He didn’t resign because he could’t figure out how to get more pickles in the fridge. In fact, if you look at his record, he’s been quite the bread winner for BC. He resigned because the people of BC couldn’t stop bitching about how much pickles matter to them, without really thinking about the facts of the pickle shortage.

Newsflash: Pickles will continue to get eaten. Just like the economic challenges we face, that problem will not subside. The details of when you will be out of pickles, or how the provincial debt will hurt credit and investment and thus influence future abilities to pay for “what matters” – those are the details of the problem that require the decision makers to take action. Are you aware of those details? Should you be?

I’d like to argue that Premier Campbell didn’t provide enough information. And, if I where he, I likely would have explained to the public more fully why the HST option is on the table before committing to it… but now, after witnessing the “ignorant rage about pickles” on the news today, I’m not so sure.  Maybe he thought it would be too complex for people to understand  (or even try to understand). Perhaps they would not have given it a chance, and if the HST truly is the right thing to do, that winning option would have been down the toilet before it stood a chance.

To go back to the beginning of my day, Proposition 23 (to halt the Global Warming Solutions Law) was defeated for, I’m sure, a multitude of reasons. But, really, at the end of the day, I can see that “no on 23″ votes were cast because of what matters: that California does something about climate change, that big out of state oil companies don’t tell Californian’s what to do, and that the clean technology sector continues to grow and create jobs. Votes were not cast because the hundreds of pages of draft cap and trade rules really make sense and seem to be a good idea.

My advice: if you are going to address a complex issue in government, and you want to make the right decision:

1. Make sure you clarify the problem (we are out of pickles; the economy might end up in the tank);
2. confirm citizens approve the principles that your complex solution is going to address,  (pickles matter and we need them; entrepreneurship, low income taxes and jobs are good); and
3. make sure your solution actually accomplishes the intended outcomes that align with those principles, and communicate the challenges of making that happen (there may be a period of time when we have no pickles; businesses are going to have to rely on their accountants a bit to help them sort out the benefits of the HST, and families are going to have to budget their income tax savings to account for higher costs on some things).

I can’t claim to be a financial expert, or to really know if the HST was the right decision, that it appropriately addresses what matters to people. And I think honesty – blatant, dumbed down, forceful honesty – is what really matters to people. I’m curious to know what you think – agree, disagree, other?

Premier, thank you for your boldness and inspiration; for making difficult decisions for the long term; and for caring enough about the pickles to step down with the hope that we get on with sorting out our shopping list.

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter

HB

Millions of milk cartons ending up in the trash every year

Millions of milk cartons ending up in the trash every year.

This article is the kind that illuminates common sense solutions: why are we packaging our food in a way that creates waste – taking up space and resources that might have been used to create more food?

If you have the option, I encourage you to purchase your milk in glass or plastic, or to recycle your cartons.

Throwing cartons in the garbage is senseless waste and a bad decision.

From my sphere to yours, here’s to Earth on a Platter.

HB

Oil Spill Prompts Genuine Grief

I literally choke up with tears when I see the oil spill reports. Am I the only one? Is anyone else compelled to express grief over this tragedy? Haiti, Chile… I wept for them too. But there is something about this grief… perhaps that it is fueled also by anger…that I am challenged to manage it.