My curiosity leads me to research 2012’s International Year of Cooperatives, where I learn that a major sponsor was Rabobank. Ah, I think, you gotta have money; that leaves me out. But isn’t there some way I could’ve participated? I decide to check out the closing ceremony.

I get a feel for the year’s activities by watching a three-minute video, apparently the winner of the International Cooperatives Short Film Festival. There are pictures of people, presumably cooperating, along with a few statistics and some sleepy piano music. That’s nice, I think, but how did we do? I mean, did we meet our goal to “pursue both economic viability and social responsibility” or not? The answer is probably as elusive as it will be for this year’s International Year of Water Cooperation. After all, how do you measure cooperation?

I suspect the UN is just hoping to increase awareness, as opposed to making real strides in any of these areas. For instance, the first action they’ve taken for 2013’s water issue is a slogan contest. They’ve received a whopping 12,151 proposals, from 5,654 people in 180 countries. According to their website (www.unwater.org), the Selection Committee has “exceptionnally [sic] selected six slogans”—and unprecedented number—“because we received so many and six of them obtained close score” [sic again]. The English teacher in me winces at the errors. Then I remind myself  that this is not about grammar or spelling; it’s about water. Let’s give the UN some slack here. Still, I would gladly volunteer to be on the Website Proofreading Committee.

Luckily, there is another way an individual can contribute. By voting for the best slogan. Here are the contenders:

1. Water knows no borders. (Not terribly inspiring, but makes sense, coming from New Zealand, which is surrounded by water.)
2. 2013 – Don’t let this chance to cooperate evaporate! (I’m a sucker for rhyme.)
3. Hand in hand, drop by drop. (Catchy, visual.)
4. Working together – WhATevER it Takes! (Kinda clunky, but I applaud the effort.)
5. Water water everywhere, only if we share. (Here, I’d award bonus points for knowing the allusion to Coleridge.)
6. Working Together for Water Today, for a Better Tomorrow (This one’s from the Philippines. Probably sounds better in Tagalog.)

Oops, I procrastinate so long, the deadline for voting passes. I turn my attention to other green holidays in 2013, looking for something besides the usual Earth Day (April 22) that my students can sink their teeth into.

1. January 5, National Bird Day. (Wait. Is that Bald Eagle Day? Or a national day to recognize birds in general?)
2. First week in February, Recyclemania. (Anything with the word “mania” is a winner with kids.)
3. Last week of April, TV Turnoff Week. (Most of TV is a turnoff anyway.)
4. May 31, World No Tobacco Day. (Great, but hardly suitable for school kids.)
5. June 15, Global Wind Day. (While I’m a fan of wind power, I refuse to subject myself to the inevitable jokes.)
6. First week of October, Junk Mail Awareness Week. (Oh I’m aware, trust me.)
7. Late November, Buy Nothing Day. (What? Not even from local mom-and-pop shops?)

Hardly an inspiring list. Then it occurs to me, why not declare my own holidays?

The first one is a variation of Take Your Child to Work Day. I call it Take Your Parent on a Fee-Free Play Date. You choose an activity that’s fun and costs nothing, like making mudpies. Your kids will love it and so will you, even if your manicure is ruined.

My other ideas include: The Year of Picking Up Your Dog Poop, Turn Down the Bass on Your Blaring Car Stereo Day, and for the summer months, Really? You Have to Drive to Your Neighbor’s Backyard Barbecue Just Two Blocks Away?

I chastise myself for my cynicism, which is not good, especially around kids. Returning to Planet Pals, I find it. April 27^th, Save the Frogs Day. I’m already ahead of the game. A family of frogs live in my empty, water-wise Jacuzzi.

The good news is you only need to change your daily routine by twenty minutes. That’s only 1.39% of your day. And I know that because I looked it up while sitting here at my computer. Anyway, that twenty minutes can mean the difference between feeling good and feeling like you’ve been hit by a Mack truck.

Don’t just take my word for it. According to New York Times Phys Ed columnist Gretchen Reynolds, it’s a health risk to sit around so much. In her book The First 20 Minutes published earlier this year, when you sit for long periods of time, you accumulate fat in your bloodstream, your liver, your heart and your brain. This not only leads to weight gain and fatigue, but to poor health in general.

But my sticking to an exercise program is about as likely as following through on the rest of my New Year’s resolutions, like organizing my closet and learning how to play the harmonica. (Which I can’t find, by the way. It’s probably in my closet.) I’ll do anything to avoid exercising, including cleaning the grout in my shower. Unfortunately housework doesn’t get my pulse rate up or relieve my stiff neck. By early afternoon, fatigue sets in and on really bad days, a migraine headache.

Luckily, I don’t need a gym membership (which I will never use) or a trainer (which my ego and bank account won’t allow). Gretchen Reynolds recommends walking. As little as fifteen minutes a day reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. She says there’s no need to stretch beforehand; in fact, recent studies have shown it can actually be harmful to stretch before a workout. But because I have extra-achy joints and a seriously crunchy neck, I need to take a couple of minutes before my walk to loosen my neck, back and leg muscles. Just a gentle limbering up. Then I’m good to go.

Typically, I’ll do a twenty-minute trek (about a mile) around the block with my dog. He’s a peppy little poodle, so it’s a pretty fast pace. If the weather isn’t cooperating, a great alternative is the treadmill. Mine’s an inexpensive model, parked squarely in front of an old TV-VCR combo next to a stack of videos. I’m not embarrassed to admit it—I watch old shows that don’t tax my brain, like “Rocky and Bullwinkle.” It’s distracting enough to forget that I’m exercising. And one episode is just about the right amount of time for the warm-up and twenty minutes on the treadmill. If a TV screen isn’t your thing, try music. Latin jazz has a great beat for fast walking!

This simple twenty-minute routine helps me do the following:

1. Breathe more deeply
2. Sleep better
3. Feel less fatigued
4. Improve my posture
5. Increase my blood flow
6. Warm up on a cold day
7. Boost my appetite (so I usually walk just before lunch)
8. Drink more water (and a teaspoon of mint chlorophyll in my water bottle helps my digestion)
9. Feel less guilty over the bowl of Rocky Road ice cream I had the night before

My advice is to walk at the same time every day. Also, force yourself to do it even if you feel sick or tired, and do it daily, no “days off.” Do it even if you have company. Friends and family soon realize its importance in your life, and they may even take your lead and start their own exercise regimen.

After the first week of your new walking routine, if you have not skipped a day, reward yourself with an extra cup of coffee or a long hot bath—something you wouldn’t normally give yourself. After a month, make it a lunch at a new restaurant, a shopping trip or a movie. You’ll look forward to these little treats. And you’ll soon learn to enjoy exercising. But the biggest reward is how much better you’ll feel. So good, in fact, you might feel like organizing your closet.

In the midst of the domestic energy boom, livestock on farms near oil-and-gas drilling operations nationwide have been quietly falling sick and dying. While scientists have yet to isolate cause and effect, many suspect chemicals used in drilling and hydrofracking (or “fracking”) operations are poisoning animals through the air, water, or soil.

Earlier this year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca, New York, veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first and only peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals.

The authors compiled 24 case studies of farmers in six shale-gas states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive, and acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed—either accidentally or incidentally—to fracking chemicals in the water or air. The article, published in New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, describes how scores of animals died over the course of several years.

The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning.

Exposed livestock “are making their way into the food system, and it’s very worrisome to us,” Bamberger says. “They live in areas that have tested positive for air, water, and soil contamination. Some of these chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these animals.”

In Louisiana, 17 cows died after an hour’s exposure to spilled fracking fluid, which is injected miles underground to crack open and release pockets of natural gas. The most likely cause of death: respiratory failure.

In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found petroleum residues in 54 of 56 animals.

In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows died, and the remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three survived.

In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing wastewater pit sent fracking chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: Half their calves were born dead. Dairy operators in shale-gas areas of Colorado, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas have also reported the death of goats.

Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants, biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers. At almost every stage of developing and operating an oil or gas well, chemicals and compounds can be introduced into the environment.

Cows Lose Weight, Die

After drilling began just over the property line of Jacki Schilke’s ranch in the northwestern corner of North Dakota, in the heart of the state’s booming Bakken Shale, cattle began limping, with swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their calves, and they lost from 60 to 80 pounds in a week and their tails mysteriously dropped off. Eventually, five animals died, according to Schilke.

Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene, and xylene—and well testing revealed high levels of sulfates, chromium, chloride, and strontium. Schilke says she moved her herd upwind and upstream from the nearest drill pad.

Although her steers currently look healthy, she says, “I won’t sell them because I don’t know if they’re okay.”

Nor does anyone else. Energy companies are exempt from key provisions of environmental laws, which makes it difficult for scientists and citizens to learn precisely what is in drilling and fracking fluids or airborne emissions. And without information on the interactions between these chemicals and pre-existing environmental chemicals, veterinarians can’t hope to pinpoint an animal’s cause of death.

The risks to food safety may be even more difficult to parse, since different plants and animals take up different chemicals through different pathways.

“There are a variety of organic compounds, metals, and radioactive material [released in the fracking process] that are of human health concern when livestock meat or milk is ingested,” Motoko Mukai, a veterinary toxicologist at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, says. These “compounds accumulate in the fat and are excreted into milk. Some compounds are persistent and do not get metabolized easily.”

Veterinarians don’t know how long chemicals may remain in animals, farmers aren’t required to prove their livestock are free of contamination before middlemen purchase them, and the Food Safety Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture isn’t looking for these compounds in carcasses at slaughterhouses.

Documenting the scope of the problem is difficult: Scientists lack funding to study the matter, and rural vets remain silent for fear of retaliation. Farmers who receive royalty checks from energy companies are reluctant to complain, and those who have settled with gas companies following a spill or other accident are forbidden to disclose information to investigators. Some food producers would rather not know what’s going on, say ranchers and veterinarians.

“It takes a long time to build up a herd’s reputation,” rancher Dennis Bauste of Trenton Lake, North Dakota, says. “I’m gonna sell my calves and I don’t want them to be labeled as tainted. Besides, I wouldn’t know what to test for. Until there’s a big wipe-out, a major problem, we’re not gonna hear much about this.”

Fracking proponents criticize Bamberger and Oswald’s paper as a political, not a scientific, document. “They used anonymous sources, so no one can verify what they said,” says Steve Everley, of the industry lobby group Energy In Depth. The authors didn’t provide a scientific assessment of impacts—testing what specific chemicals might do to cows that ingest them, for example—so treating their findings as scientific, he continues, “is laughable at best, and dangerous for public debate at worst.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the main lobbying group for ranchers, takes no position on fracking, but some ranchers are beginning to speak out. “These are industry-supporting conservatives, not radicals,” says Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council. “They are the experts in their animals’ health, and they are very concerned.”

Last March, Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called for studies of oil and gas production’s impact on food plants and animals. None are currently planned by the federal government.

As Local Food Booms, Consumers Wary

But consumers intensely interested in where and how their food is grown aren’t waiting for hard data to tell them their meat or milk is safe. For them, the perception of pollution is just as bad as the real thing.

“My beef sells itself. My farm is pristine. But a restaurant doesn’t want to visit and see a drill pad on the horizon,” Ken Jaffe, who raises grass-fed cattle in upstate New York, says. Only recently has the local foods movement, in regions across the country, reached a critical mass. But the movement’s lofty ideals could turn out to be, in shale gas areas, a double-edged sword.

Should the moratorium on hydrofracking in New York State be lifted, the 16,200-member Park Slope Food Co-op, in Brooklyn, will no longer buy food from farms anywhere near drilling operations—a $4 million loss for upstate producers. The livelihood of organic goat farmer Steven Cleghorn, who’s surrounded by active wells in Pennsylvania, is already in jeopardy.

“People at the farmers market are starting to ask exactly where this food comes from,” he says.

Mom put a lot of effort into creating a usable and aesthetically pleasing yard. Vegetables, fruit trees, cactus gardens, roses, epiphyllums—we had them all. I toddled after her, watching, in awe of her conviction. She was fearless and tireless in the way she tackled the soil, the weeds, the slope of the landscape, the tilling and the watering. Growing up, I remember thinking, “I’d never put that kind of time and energy into plants.”

For Mom, home has meant Washington State, then Southern California, next the high desert, on to Southern Oregon, and eventually California’s Central Coast. With every move, she left a little bit of greenery behind, including some very non-indigenous trees.

Take the Torrey Pine, for example. It’s a rare majestic beauty normally found in only two locations: San Diego and the Channel Islands. But, because of Mom, there is one in a backyard in the high desert, one on a goat farm near Medford, Oregon, and now a potted one we named “Torrey” that sits on the back porch of our home in San Luis Obispo County. Torrey’s growth, slow but steady, has been photo-documented from a mere seedling. The little transplant is blissfully unaware of its adoptive home, being raised alongside a Monterey Pine and a Mediterranean Dwarf Palm.

“You’re like Johnny Appleseed,” I tell her one day as I plunge a shovel into an area designated for a mini-orchard. “Now, what are these again?” I point to several two-foot saplings we’d just unearthed from the vegetable garden.

“I’m not sure,” Mom says. “I think they’re peach or nectarine. When I saw them growing near the tomatoes, I knew they weren’t weeds, so I left them alone. Sure enough, they’re fruit trees. Must’ve come from some pits in the compost I buried there.”

Many of our successes are these “volunteer” plants. Seeds dropped by birds have resulted in some strange and beautiful bits of unplanned landscaping: multi-colored linaria, towering sunflowers, and a type of sorghum called Milo that likes to fool people into thinking it’s a cornstalk. For most of them, my mom takes the “live and let grow” attitude.

Through the years, I’ve picked up a lot of gardening tips from Mom, about things I never thought I’d have any interest. Like the importance of crop rotation, even in a tiny backyard garden. And something called “companion gardening,” that is, planting varieties together for mutual benefit, such as lemon balm and potatoes.

I don’t know what drives my mother to garden. At 87, she tends to her plants on a daily basis. She knows more about the benefits of organic gardening—and the dangers of GMO’s—than anyone else I know. She grows her own herbs, fruits and vegetables, because “at least I know it’s free of toxic chemicals.”

As for me, I still follow her around like I did as a kid, marveling at her stamina. Like Mom, I’ve grown to love our various trees and gardens but, unlike her, I hate yardwork. On a day off from my job, as I haul bags of potting soil, pull weeds, combat snails and pray for rain, I wonder how it’s come to this. Ah yes, I think to myself, it’s those yummy little baby carrots.

It all started when we moved three hundred miles to California’s Central Coast. After hurriedly unpacking, we were left with scads of empty boxes—from wardrobe to shoebox size. We could cram only so many flattened boxes into our curbside recycling bin. Unless we wanted to pay extra for bundled cardboard, it would take weeks of cramming before they’d all be gone.

No, I would find a way to make use of those boxes. My first inspiration came with the discovery that our poodle had developed an aversion to car trips. Apparently he was suffering a kind of PTMD—Post Traumatic Moving Disorder. Actually, we all were, but his particular manifestation was a pronounced anxiety when riding in any vehicle. This was a problem; I couldn’t have a whimpering, panicky dog running loose in my car.

I sprang into action. I grabbed a good-sized box and cut the tops off on all sides but one, which became the side over which the seatbelt would fasten. Then, on the side opposite the door, I cut out a poodle-sized opening for easy entering and exiting. An old pillow fit snugly in the bottom of the box. I stood back and looked it over. It needed something. That’s when I had the idea to cover it in contact paper. It not only looked good, but firmed up the box even more.

Finally, I tested my new dog crate. In went my dog, and it worked perfectly. Now, whenever we take a car ride, he sits in his box, just high enough to see out the window, secure in the containment of a comfy crate.

My cardboard obsession continued after I began working in an after-school program teaching enrichment classes and helping kids with homework. “Homework Club” is conducted in a large multipurpose room. The activity and noise level runs pretty high, often making it difficult to concentrate. It occurred to me that the rest of those big boxes could be cut and fashioned into cubicles. The kids had a great time decorating their cubbies with yarn, magazine cutouts, and stickers. A few of them even attached copies of the multiplication tables and U.S. maps. The cubicles are holding up very well and are helping with the problem of distractibility.

At school, I also found uses for the medium-sized boxes. In my art enrichment class, we used them for a project called “Smithopoly.” We discovered the natural folds of the boxes made for good game boards. The kids then designed their own games, some fashioning standup cardboard people as markers.

Other uses for cardboard pieces include handmade book covers (great for journals), backings for mounting artwork, and “poetry mobiles,” in which student poems are pasted on cardboard pieces that are cut into geometric or organic shapes and hung from a piece of driftwood.

Back to my imaginary reality show, Cardboard Hoarders. “What about the toilet paper rolls?” you might ask and you would not be surprised that I’ve found many uses for those, too. Every art teacher worth her weight in—well, cardboard—knows that toilet paper rolls make great pencil holders. In my version, I cover them with the comics section of the newspaper, which reflects my sense of humor. To make them stand up, I mount them on a base made of—you guessed it—cardboard.

Claim: Prop 37 would give consumers incomplete and misleading information: with a statement by Henry I. Miller, M.D., Stanford University stating that “Prop 37 would impose confusing red tape requirements for labeling food products sold in California that do not exist in any other state or country in the world.”

Why this is false: While labeling of genetically modified foods does not exist in any other state in the US, over 60 countries require labeling including all of Europe, China, India, Brazil, etc… Adding the word genetically modified before an ingredient is not a confusing red tape requirement as food manufacturers regularly change labels. Additionally, Henry I. Miller is part of an ultra conservative think tank and he penned this article about why radiation is good for you. He is also not part of Stanford University as the mailer and many commercials claim. In fact the No on 37 group was forced to pull their TV adds featuring Miller due to complaints by Stanford University. He is actually a member of the Hoover Institute which happens to be on Stanford’s campus but has no affiliation with the University. Read more about that from the LA Times here. Furthermore, Miller is also a former spokesman for a now defunct group that tried to discredit the link between cigarettes and cancer and he also denies Climate Change exists.

Claim: Prop 37′s arbitrary and complicated labeling requirements don’t make sense: with a statement by American Council on Science and Health stating that “two-thirds of the food consumed by Californians would be exempt from it’s labeling requirements. And it’s no coincidence many of the food products exempted are sold by the promotors of Prop 37.”

Why this is false: The initiative covers all food sold at a grocery store, the arbitrary two-thirds number comes from the fact that foods from restaurants and farmer’s markets do not have to carry a label. This was done on purpose because restaurants and farmers markets do not give you ingredients labels and that is where the words “GMO” would appear before the specific ingredient. Requiring restaurants to disclose this information was seen as overreach. The only other exemption is alcohol. While this may seem problematic to some, alcohol is regulated under a separate set of Federal laws and California is unable to alter those rules.

The other so called “exemptions” that they point out are actually not exemptions at all. For example, they state that a chicken pot pie containing GMOs would have to be labeled but the chicken from that same pot pie wouldn’t have to be. That is because GMO chicken does not exist, and when sold separately would not require a label. However, if chicken ever became genetically modified then a label would be necessary. They also point out that milk and meat from animals fed with GMO grains would not be labeled. That is because the animals are not GMO themselves, just the food they eat is. By that logic, all us humans should carry labels because we eat GMOs, therefore we must be genetically modified. Furthermore, California only allows one issue per ballot measure and a proposition covering both GMOs themselves and animals who consume GMOs, are considered separate issues by law.

The last thing they point out is imports being exempt. That is simply not true, any food containing GMOs sold on a grocery store shelf would have to carry the label even if imported. It would be the responsibility of the grocer to place a label on the product if there is not one present due to the manufacturer not being required by their home country.

Claim: Prop 37 means higher grocery bills for California families: they state $350-$400 per year based on a study by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants.

Why this is false: Prop 37 only requires one line of ink be placed on the labels of food containing GMOs, something that is regularly done for other reasons. It also requires that manufactures keep on hand documentation that the products bought from farmers are GMO free (if they are). This is a very minor task, as manufactures keep extensive paperwork on their products and where the source ingredients come from, as mandated by the USDA and FDA in order to track food born illnesses. The study that they refer to was conducted by a consulting firm hired by the No campaign, so it’s no wonder they came to that conclusion. The reason they give for the increase is that they believe manufactures will change their products to be GMO free rather than comply with labels, which would mean the consumer is getting an entirely different product for the change in price. However, there are also many studies to back the claim up that there would be no impact on food prices, in fact in the countries that have implemented GMO labeling laws, food prices have risen on average two-tenths of one percent, far lower than inflation. Additionally, it is odd that the consulting company’s name is Northbridge, I wonder if that is intentional to confuse people into thinking it was conducted in Northridge, CA, which it was not (Ok, maybe thats a stretch).

Claim: Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers to create a new class of shakedown lawsuits, which allows lawyers to sue family farmers and grocers without any proof of harm. It subjects farmers and grocers to huge litigation costs and lawyer payouts.

Why this is false: The truth is that Prop 37 was written by a group of food industry, farm, science and health experts, including Lundberg Family Farms, the Organic Consumers Association, Food Democracy Now!, Nature’s Path and the Center for Food Safety. Additionally, Prop 37 offers no economic incentives for lawyers to sue. Consumers cannot file a class action lawsuit without first giving notice and if the defendant fixes the labels, then no class action is permitted.  Additionally, any penalties from a violation go only to the state, not the plaintiff or lawyer.

The truth about Prop 37: The initiative was written with care and seeks to give the consumers the right to know important information about their food so that consumers can make informed personal choices. Over 60 countries already do this, and there have been no increase in food costs associated with it. This is why Prop 37 is endorsed by The Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union (Publisher of Consumer Reports), California Council of Churches, American Public Health Association, Organic Consumers Association, California Nurses Association, Sierra Club, Environmental Working Group, Whole Foods, Breast Cancer Fund, California Certified Organic Farmers, Farm Aid, California Labor Federation, American Medical Students Association, National Health Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, and hundreds others. Additionally, despite the claims that GMO’s are required to feed the world’s growing population, the reality of GMO’s in current day is that they are being used solely to maximize profit of the corporations involved in producing them and they provide no benefit to humanity as a whole because crop yields are equal when comparing GMO to Organic farming.

In fact the CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION states that “nurses see people suffering from serious diet-related diseases every day. The potential danger of genetically modified foods is why CNA supports Prop 37.”

The No on 37 campaign is being funded with millions of dollars from pesticide, GMO, and large agribusiness corporations. The largest of all the donations come from Monsanto, the company that produced Agent Orange and DDT, claiming for years that they were safe. Monsanto is now the largest producer of  GMO seeds in the world and has pumped over $7 million into the campaign to date. You can find information on who is funding both sides here.

Do not let the pesticide industry buy the vote, I urge you to vote Yes on Prop 37.

More information about Prop 37 can be found here.

Also, please donate to the campaign here. No amount is too little and they are accepting donations up until 11/5 at 5PM Pacific Time.

Some stores have tried to lessen the pain for those die-hard plastic baggers. Here on the Central Coast, the local Walmart gave away little blue recycled bags the week before. Target reportedly did the same, while also offering a five-cent discount per reusable bag brought in by shoppers. Of course, Trader Joe’s customers are used to the idea, with many already in the habit of bringing their own bags or using the paper bags provided at check-out.

Most shoppers come prepared with their stack of reusable bags. Some are willing to buy the 10-cent paper bags available at the registers. It’s not uncommon to see people unload their unbagged items directly from the shopping cart to the trunks of their cars. Owners of vehicles without trunks often travel with a cardboard box for items they want to contain, such as glass bottles and other breakables. Small towels tucked in between make good cushions for the trip home.

One particularly inventive—and unabashed—shopper brought a small red wagon into the store. The image of him driving home, lifting the wagon out of his vehicle and wheeling it into the house is inspiring. No bags, no shopping cart, no transfer of goods from cart to car. It could be a family affair; maybe he has an entrepreneurial child who rents him the wagon for a nominal fee.

The new law has only a few folks grumbling about the inconvenience. For instance, there are those who forget their bags in the car or haven’t quite gotten the hang of judging the number of bags they’ll need per shopping trip. An easy remedy is not bagging larger items, like detergent, cartons of milk and multi-pack toilet paper. In many cases, quick stops for one or two items don’t require the use of a bag at all. One exception: it is still illegal to carry liquor out of a store without a bag.

All in all, it seems everyone is adjusting nicely to the plastic bag ban. Everyone except the plastic bag manufacturers, who are doing more than grumbling. Some have even begun filing lawsuits. It’s not like they didn’t see it coming. Non-biodegradable plastic bags have been littering our highways and plugging up water drains for a long time. Not to mention the harmful effects when ingested by animals. Plastic bag makers might do well to turn to another product, preferably one that doesn’t require petroleum to produce it.

A few ideas come to mind for those companies in search of a new market. How about biodegradable bags for those of us who need to pick up after our dogs during our daily walks? And while we’ve done a lot to reduce our weekly garbage, such as recycling and precycling (buying goods with less packaging) , we’ll still need something to use as trash can liners both inside the house and out at the curb.

It’s great to see people on board with eco-wise efforts like curtailing the use of plastic bags in favor of canvas and paper. As for our cats, they’ll just have to be happy playing with a ball of yarn.

The proposition would require raw and processed foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. This would apply to all food sold with the exception of alcoholic beverages, food sold for immediate consumption in a restaurant, administered for a medical treatment, or for animals fed or injected with genetically modified organisms but not genetically modified themselves. Therefore, under this proposed law nearly all grocery store products containing GMOs would be labeled.

GMOs are food that contain organisms that have had their genetic material changed in a way the could not happen in nature. The most common example is genetically modified corn, where genes from pigs have been implanted in the corn’s DNA in order for corn kernels to produce their own pesticide. There is also widespread use of GMO soy, cotton, alfalfa, beets and other crops. GMOs have been under fire from activists and the organic food industry for a number of reasons. Many organic farmers complain that their crops have been cross contaminated by pollen from neighboring farms, causing their fields to become GMOs and leaving them subject to legal issues. This is because genetically modified seeds can be patented, therefore farmers who plant their crops using GMO seeds are not allowed to use the seeds produced by their current crops for the following harvest. They must pay the company who holds the patent every year in order to keep the farm up and running. If a farmer’s crops are found to contain GMOs, even if it was through cross contamination, they are subject to patent infringement. Additionally, organic standards bar the use of GMOs, so a cross contamination onto an organic farm can be a threat to losing USDA organic certification.

Other issues such as GMOs made to withstand the pesticide known as RoundUp (aka Agent Orange), both made by Monsanto, the arch nemesis of anti-GMO activists, destroys eco-diversty, kills beneficial organisms in the soil, leads to mono-crop farming, and decreases crop yields over time (something that was claimed to be the opposite when seeking approval for their use). There is also no evidence that GMOs are safe for human consumption, as the FDA and USDA do not require extensive safety studies for approval, and the studies are left up to the companies themselves. In fact there is emerging research that hints towards an increase in food allergies as a result of GMO consumption. Furthermore, the FDA is currently hearing arguments for the approval of GMO salmon, potentially the first GMO animal to be put into the wild and into the food supply.

GMOs have many negatives, however the effort is being characterized as a right to know issue, not a pro vs. con argument over the merits of genetic engineering. The organization believes that people should have the information available in order to choose whether or not to consume these products. They ultimately believe that the consumers will decide, and demand food without genetic engineering. It also seems that the public is on their side as a new public policy poll released last week indicates that over 90% of Californians support mandatory labeling of GMOs. The European Union and many other countries have also passed laws for requiring labeling, with France now pushing for an all out ban, in addition to large scale protests and voluntary GMO crop destruction in countries like Haiti and Turkey. For more information visit LabelGmos.org.

Disclaimer: Modern Serenity enthusiastically supports this initiative.

Update 6/18/12: The initiative has been officially qualified to appear on the November 2012 presidential election ballot by the California Secretary of State.

Check out some videos on the topic below:

The purpose of the video was to publicize the dangers of drilling for natural gas, also known as fracking. The song highlights that fracking was made exempt from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Bush Administration and remains unregulated. Hazardous chemicals such as benzine and formaldehyde, among a number of secret chemicals considered “trade secrets”, are pumped into the ground to help release the natural gas from rock. These chemicals remain in the ground and can seep into water supplies.

The chorus features the lyric “I think my water’s on fire tonight”, referring to the HBO Documentary Gasland that showed resident’s near fracking wells had such polluted tap water that the water would set on fire if an open flame were held to the faucet. The EPA has began looking into the environmental impacts of fracking and recently released a report stating that hydraulic fracturing was probably to blame for well water contamination in Wyoming.

Check out the video below:

Read more about fracking from our previous article here.

References:

Some may be discouraged by olive oil, since it is a high fat product. However, not all fats are created equal. There are three major forms of dietary fat: saturated (animals), polyunsaturated (plants, seeds, nuts, vegetable oils), and monounsaturated (olive oil). All olive oils are generally made the same: 80% monounsaturated fat, 14% saturated and 9% polyunsaturated. The high percentage of monounsaturated fat is what helps lower ones risk for heart disease by improving related risk factors. For instance, monounsaturated fats help lower your total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. They can also normalize blood clotting, benefit insulin levels and help control blood sugar levels, which can be helpful for those who suffer with type 2 diabetes. In the United States, producers of olive oil may place the following health claim on product labels:

Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 2 tablespoons (23 g) of olive oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the monounsaturated fat in olive oil. To achieve this possible benefit, olive oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the number of calories you eat in a day.

This labeling decision was announced on November 1, 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The monounsaturated fat content is not the only component that gives olive oil its healthy reputation; Olive oil also contains a variety of polyphenols, which are natural antioxidants that provide a cardio-protective effect. The key polyphenol present is hydroxytyrosol, which helps protect the cells that line our blood vessels from being damaged by overly reactive oxygen molecules. In other words, the genetic changes caused by hydroxytyrosol help the blood vessels maintain strong cell walls and enhance their antioxidant defense system. There can be up to 5 mg of polyphenols in 10 grams of olive oil; however this amount varies based on a number of factors. For instance, the time of picking, environmental factors, extraction conditions, storage conditions and refining all have an effect on the level of polyphenols. In particular, oil made from green, unripe olives has more polyphenols and processing techniques such as heating, adding water, or filtering can result in a loss of these beneficial components. Storage in the appropriate container and place is important in preserving the polyphenols. As oil sits in the bottle, the polyphenols will slowly be oxidized and used up. Oils stored in stainless steel containers or dark glass bottles, in a cool place, are better protected against this oxidation.

Another important antioxidant that is found in olive oil is vitamin E. In fact, just one tablespoon can provide 8% of the daily recommendation for vitamin E. Not only does it assist in the protection against heart disease by preventing oxidation of LDL cholesterol, but it also serves as a natural preservative, preventing the olive oil from going rancid.

Even though olive oil provides a variety of health benefits, it is important to remember that it is a high calorie food, providing 126 calories per tablespoon. Therefore, it should be used in moderation and to replace more unhealthful foods like butter and margarine, which contain saturated fat. Remember, just two tablespoons can provide the heart healthy effects.

References 

“Chemical Characteristics.” The Olive Oil Source | Everything but the Olive. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://www.oliveoilsource.com/page/chemical-characteristics#Vitamins>. 

“Olive oil.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil>. 

“Olive oil: What are the health benefits.” Mayo Clinic.Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-and-nutrition/AN01037>. 

“WHFoods: Olive oil, extra virgin.” The World’s Healthiest Foods. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. <http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=132>.