Campaign for Safe Cosmetics : Video: A Closer Look

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics : Video: A Closer Look

Newt Gingrich: Impeach judges - Crush and Replace the Left - 2012 "Victory or Death!"

Why is range-fed and grass-fed meat and poultry better?

The natural behavior of cows, chickens turkeys, pigs, and other animals commonly eaten for food in the United States is to live outdoors and to consume food that is part of the natural habitat. For example, in the case of ruminant animals like cows, there is a long history of development in which the digestive system of the cow has adapted to foraging and consumption of plants often referred to as "forages." These plants include many grasses and legumes.

When cows are fed in a non-natural way, digestive tract problems can develop, and medications may be needed to offset problems caused by the cows' non-natural diet. For example, when being raised to provide non-organic beef, it is not unusual for a cow to be fed more than 10 pounds of corn per day. Since the cow's digestive system is poorly matched to this large volume of grain in the daily diet, it is placed at risk for certain problems including bursting of the stomach from excessive amounts of gas that can be produced by fermentation of grain. In the case of non-organic beef, medications that prevent gas formation (like poloxalene) may be given to cows on a preventive basis as part of their standard diet to prevent this gas formation. However, the routine administration of a medication like poloxalene cannot be carried out in the raising of certified organic beef. Research studies have made it clear that cows remain healthier when they are fed and raised in a natural way. Healthier cows also mean healthier meat for all individuals who include meat in their diet.

One great benefit of grass feeding is the increased presence of omega-3 fatty acids in beef provided by grass-fed cattle. I've seen two studies on Australian beef that clearly document this trend, which stems from the natural presence of alpha-linolenic acid (also known as ALA, the omega-3 fatty acid that serves as the building block for all other omega-3 fats) in pasture grasses and legumes. While more complicated omega-3 fats like EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) are not present in pasture crops, these critical omega-3 fats are produced in the cow's body from the ALA present in the pasture plants and you can receive substantial amounts of EPA and DHA from pasture-fed beef along with its ALA. These amounts are still very low, however, in comparison with the far greater amount of EPA and DHA provided by an equivalent amount of an omega-3-containing fish like salmon. The amount of ALA in grass-fed beef is also very much lower than the amount of ALA provided by plant foods like flaxseeds and walnuts, which are rich in this omega-3 fatty acid.

I want to point out that the purchase of certified organic beef, poultry, and other meats does not guarantee range-feeding. Unfortunately, the livestock living conditions spelled out in the National Organics Program only includes "access to the outdoors" and "access to pasture" and does not specify any required period of time for natural outdoor living. Nor does it require any amount of foraging crops in the diet. For this reason, you'll need to look for the terms "range-fed" or "grass-fed" on the label in addition to the organic certification. Organic meat that is not labeled either "range-fed" or "grass-fed" is still a very good option for you in the market, but if organic combined with range-fed or grass-fed is available, I encourage you to consider that combination as your best option.

--George Mateljan

It's that BPA baby! Ick!

This vid took a turn I wasn't expecting...

Trapped in Traditional Thought by Scott McKain

In this recent blog, McKain points out that a thirty second spot on the number one television show, "NCIS" costs $133,304 while a thirty second spot on "Grey's Anatomy" costs $240,462. Given the fact that "NCIS" has four million more viewers than "Grey's Anatomy", why would the ads cost less for "NCIS"?This contradiction points to the traditional agency approach and thinking when it comes to what population segments to target. The demographics for "Grey's Anatomy" are younger and the agencies believe that younger viewers will be more easily influenced and become brand loyal over time. McKain points to the fact that his brand choices during his younger years have indeed changed over time. In his younger years, he drove a Chevy and now he drives a BMW, he drank Pepsi and now drinks Diet Coke, he listened to a Sony Walkman and now listens to an iPod, etc.Matt Thornhill, in his book, Boomer Consumer, states that Baby Boomers are no where near done consuming. They will be buying things marketed to them for the next 20 years. And they represent a very large segment of the population. He also points out that with age comes wisdom and that Boomers are not particularly brand loyal. They are ripe for conversion, if a product appeals to their needs.So why should the advertisers and ad agencies focus more on Boomers than the younger generations? Let's start with the fact that Baby Boomers spend $2 trillion a year on consumer products and services. That is $400 billion more annually than their younger generation counterparts. Baby Boomers represent one of every three adults in America. Almost 80 million Americans are Boomers!Boomers like to travel, they buy lots of tech gadgets, they are still buying cars and homes, they are into fitness, and they eat out regularly. Given that a large portion of the Boomers are empty nesters with disposable income, they should be the prime targets of the marketers and advertisers in this country. And even the Boomers who aren't empty nesters, keep their kids clothed, fed and supplied with plenty of music and electronics.Baby Boomers control 70% of the wealth in America. So why don't the advertisers and ad agencies target them more? It is beyond comprehension. And as a Boomer, believe me when I say, we would really prefer fewer advertisements about erectile dysfunction and bladder issues. Keep in mind, Baby Boomers on average feel like they are 14 years younger than their actual age. Treat them as seniors or older Americans and you won't sell them anything.Use words like mature or senior in your ad and the Baby Boomers will tune you out in a New York minute. So if you expect to capture their attention, don't try to take them back to the sixties or seventies or use age related content. Most Boomers still believe that they are young and vital. Treat them as such and you will be more successful. Don't over do it, though. If you treat them like twenty or thirty year olds, then you will miss the boat and waste your ad dollarsThe characters portraying Boomers in advertisements should be cool, hip, and youthful, not grandpa or grandma. Baby Boomers remain idealistic, eager to embrace change, and believe in self empowerment. Don't expect them to march in lockstep or be influenced or persuaded by traditional approaches. If an ad agency expects keep its clients, it had better begin targeting this segment of the population and use non-traditional, innovative approaches when designing the campaigns.Finally, when creating the ads, the agency should understand that Boomers are more receptive to the ads that tell a story. Boomers expect the ad to appeal to their generation, so make sure you personalize the pitch to them. When using personalities in an ad, ensure that the Boomers can identify and relate to the personalities. Be sure to include a "what's in it for me" connection. Follow these simple rules, create a compelling ad and you should be able to capture this lucrative market segment.

I agree with the majority of what this article says...

Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Ditch the Climate Change Debate by Ron Jones

A recent editorial cartoon that I ran across cleverly expressed a great deal of my own thoughts around the climate change debate. The cartoonist (Joel Pett, Lexington Herald-Leader) depicts an obviously unconvinced audience member at a presentation where benefits of clean energy are being displayed on the stage screen. The attendee is shown demanding an answer to a question similar to the following:

"What if it turns out that climate change is all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

The presenter he is questioning has a list of goals on the screen including:
• Energy Independence
• Preserve Rainforests
• Sustainability
• Green Jobs
• Livable Cities
• Renewables
• Clean Water, Air
• Healthy Children

In a single frame, and with surgical irony, the cartoonist has masterfully steered us to the question I have been asking myself and others for a long time, which is essentially, why are we not able to shift the dialog onto a productive level that leaves the polarization and bickering behind so we can just get started on the enormous task of cleaning up the mess we've been helping to make?

We don't have to reach some final, indisputable conclusion on the "climate" debate to know that there are plenty of good reasons to take steps to replace 18th and 19th century technologies and the polluting energy sources that have been fueling them.

The answer must reside somewhere deep in human nature. There seems to be an irresistible force of passion that makes us dig in our heels and refuse to budge when we feel strongly about something. In this case, it doesn't really matter if we're talking about those who view "climate change" or "global warming," as some prefer to refer to it, as the great challenge of our time or those who are absolutely convinced that it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
It seems that those who have taken a passionate stand either way are prepared to fight over this for as long as takes, and unfortunately, the fact that people in both camps seem determined to drive to an "all or nothing" resolution keeps getting in the way of potential progress on the things we could agree on.

Even the most hardcore climate skeptics don't try to make their case by denying or stating opposition to goals like those listed by the cartoonist, they just refuse to go there. At the same time, their counterparts, who are every bit as passionate in their insistence that mankind's activities are at the center of all the problems in the world, often appear to be pushing for absolute and immediate solutions with little or no willingness to explore common ground. The net result is an ongoing bitter conflict that is often stalled by distractions leaving those of us in the middle stranded and feeling like we can't do anything meaningful to influence the outcome.
I am personally convinced that we are indeed witnessing measurable levels of global climate change. I only make this statement based on personal observation and certainly not because I believe the reports of governments, including our own, or the findings of scientists I have never met. I have reached my conclusion because I have observed certain evidence with my own eyes. I've visited glaciers from Alaska to New Zealand that are receding at unprecedented and alarming rates. I have flown over millions of acres of America's western forests and seen the beetle kill that is resulting from milder winter temperatures to the detriment of not only the trees, but also virtually every species in that ecosystem.

What I have no way of verifying on my own is how much of this shift is attributable to the activities of the human species. I seriously doubt that it is the primary factor. Both sides of this debate agree that the scale and complexity of the Earth's atmosphere and its global climate have seen numerous dramatic shifts to one extreme or the other over time.

What I do know is that I have seen the contrast between the air in Beijing and other cities in the Northern Hemisphere with that of still pristine regions of the South Pacific. The calamity is there for anyone who is interested to see. I have also fished a variety of streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs throughout North America where the fish populations face collapse from human-caused pollution and where signs are posted to warn against consuming the fish that are there.
Put simply, we have used our one and only planetary home and all of its natural systems as a garbage dump of one kind or another for practically all of recorded human history. Sadly, the situation has only worsened over the last few centuries as we made industrial "advances" and as human population has swelled. We have treated it like a trash can and no matter how big the can is, it can only hold so much. We are reaching that point and before it's too late we need to revise our practices. It's time to clean up our act and "create a better world"—whether global warming is a hoax or not.

Where are regulations regarding organic foods heading?

It's important for all of us to be aware that the USDA's process for certifying organic foods is constantly evolving. Already, the organics process has seen proposals to allow genetically engineered food and irradiated food within the scope of certified organic labeling. Proposals to allow sewage sludge in the cultivation of organic food have also been introduced. Thanks to widespread public involvement, including letter writing and in-person testimony, none of these proposals were adopted and certified organic food is still free from genetic engineering, irradiation, and sewage sludge. However, many changes will continue to be proposed. For example, much current debate is focused on a proposal to allow organic certification of fish and shellfish products, and the details of this process are still being discussed and formulated. For more information about current issues in organic labeling, or to become more involved in public comment opportunities related to organic regulations, you can visit the National Organics Program (NOP) website. The NOP Newsroom can be a good place to start to learn about recent notices and announcements related to proposed changes in the organic certification process.
George Mateljan

Where can we find the best source of antioxidants?

There is only one place outside the body where we can count on finding the health-promoting combinations of antioxidants that are necessary for optimal health. That place is a balanced diet containing natural, whole, minimally processed and organically grown foods. The reason is simple. We need more than just vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene, glutathione, or other single nutrients for our antioxidant health. We need all of the food components that provide natural colors and flavors to food, the flavonoids and carotenoids and other types of pigments that can only be found in whole natural foods. You cannot get a complete antioxidant team when you take a dietary supplement, no matter how high in quality. Nor can you get a complete antioxidant team when you eat processed foods with artificial flavors and colorings in place of natural flavonoids and carotenoids. It takes a whole, natural foods diet to provide you with genuine antioxidant teamwork. That's one reason I feel so strongly about the value of the World's Healthiest Foods.

George Mateljan

Key Lime Pie -- in the raw :>

Okay. No way does this look like the traditional key lime pie. Well. The truth is, whenever I make these 'raw' recipes, the NEVER work out, or look like, how they're supposed to!

All that said, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that I have sneaked a nibble or two or three while preparing said raw key lime pie -- and it is scrumptious!

Crust: coconut, macadamia nuts, walnuts, sea salt, medjol dates

Filling: avocados, lime juice, honey, blueberries, kiwi

Crust is frozen for 20 min and then filled and then in freezer for at least 2 hours.

I will be tasting this later today, and I cannot wait. The flavors will be outstanding.

Visually though...not so much.

Graffiti Boys..

When you graffiti outside my office door like this...well...on some level I don't mind so much. :>

"Climategate"

December 10, 2009SummaryIn late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there's still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

Factchecker.org

What's the problem with refined grains?

When it comes to grains, most people also eat far too many refined grains. Extensive processing of grains can leave very little in the way of nutritional value. It can also leave grain products that are rich in the simpler carbohydrates and elevate blood sugar levels in a problematic way. Refined grain flours are usually defined in terms of "percent extraction." Wheat flour is 60% extraction when only 60% of the original whole grain remains in the flour, and the other 40% has been removed. Most of the wheat flour products in the United States have been made from 60% extraction flour. Unfortunately, over half of the original nutrients in whole wheat are lost from 60% extraction flour because extraction involves the removal of the germ and bran, which are the primary sites for nutrient storage in the grain. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that refined grain products cannot serve as the basis of a healthy diet.

George Matlin

What type of cookware should I use for microwave cooking?

Pyrex, a special type of glass known as thermal shock resistant glass, is a cookware material we like, especially if you have decided to do microwave cooking. Pyrex is a fairly stable material that includes both boron and silicon, two minerals not present on the 2007 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) priority toxin list.

We are highly concerned about migration of plastics from containers into food. Therefore, we would suggest avoiding its use in cooking situations including in the microwave. (For the same reasons we would avoid using "boil-in-a-bag" type vegetables.)

The George Mateljan Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation with no commercial interests, is a new force for change to help make a healthier you and a healthier world.

2 tomatoes, 1/4 green pepper, handful of parsley and of spinach, and some wheat grass.







And walla! Budweiser! Seriously, this is one of my all time favorite juice drinks. I added a scoop of hemp protein power and sucked it all up.

New study finds synthetic musks in umbilical cord blood.

Today, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics founding member Environmental Working Group released a new study that found 232 chemical contaminants in umbilical cord blood samples from 10 newborn American babies. Among the findings: two synthetic musks, components of fragrance, were found in 7 of the 10 cord blood samples.

Artificial musks commonly added to fragrances and personal care products can be absorbed through skin or inhaled, and concentrate and persist in our bodies - so our many small exposures can add up fast. Synthetic musks have also been found in human breast milk and fatty tissues, and are ubiquitous in wastewater and rivers.

The cosmetics industry and other industries that use "fragrance" in their products use a whopping 9,000 tons of synthetic musk annually, despite the fact that little is known about the safety of these chemicals. Unfortunately, preliminary research raises concerns: musks may disrupt hormones and are toxic to aquatic life.

Because of a loophole in labeling law, the ingredients in "fragrance" are considered trade secrets, so companies don't have to tell us what's in scents - often dozens or even hundreds of synthetic chemical compounds like synthetic musks and other ingredients linked to harm.

Biomonitoring studies like this one make clear that chemicals - many of which have never been tested for long-term safety or are known to be harmful - used in everyday products are ending up in our bodies and in our ecosystem. At the same time, cancer, infertility, and behavioral and developmental illnesses linked to many of these chemicals of concern are on the rise.

As consumers and citizens, we can fight the fragrance loophole. Here are three ways you can make a difference:

Contact the manufacturer of a cosmetic product in your bathroom that lists "fragrance," "perfume" or "musk" on the ingredient label, and ask the maker to use non-toxic ingredients and fully disclose all ingredients on products labels. Click here for contact info, talking points and a short response form so you can let us how your conversation went!

This holiday season, choose gifts free of synthetic fragrance. Consult the list of companies that have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, and use EWG's Skin Deep database to run an "advanced search" of products without synthetic fragrance.
Check out our DIY cosmetics recipes for creative, fresh gifts for you and yours!
Thank you for making a difference in 2009, whether you wrote a letter to a company or Congress, contacted the FDA or switched out your old products for safe alternatives. You're a vital part of our work for safer cosmetics and smarter laws that protect our health.