Following last week’s double dose, this week here are two related searches.
I suspect maybe the 1st searcher is getting married or going on a vacation to the beach? Or maybe they are trying to lose the wrong kind of “wait”!
As for the second person’s search, all I can say is…. I feel your pain!
“how to lose wait when there’s not a lot of time” and:
“eating less, exercising more, can’t lose”
 |
Here is another wake up call to all you couch potatoes out there! The headline above is mine and the article I read that leads me to that conclusion does not mention the idea, but reading of the report published by The Trust for America’s Health, leads to that inescapable conclusion. We have all heard that improving the diet and lifestyle of people will lead to reduced health care costs, but now there is a well researched dollar figure put the idea. According to the report:
"an investment of $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within five years. This is a return of $5.60 for every $1".
The report restates the well known problem that health care costs are a huge drain on the U.S. economy, but claims that this problem is "overlooked". I don’t know about that conclusion. Is it possible that there is a living, breathing soul in the modernized world that does not know that improving their diet and lifestyle will have positive personal and economic results? Maybe, but I hardly think you can sweepingly call the problem overlooked. Maybe the report’s authors mean overlooked by our elected officials and policy makers. Now that I might agree with.
Fortunately the report offers many new ideas and recommendations that, if implemented, may really lead to significant cost savings and overall improvement in health. The bottom line of the report is that before the bottom line of our health care costs can be improved, our diet and lifestyle habits need to be fixed. This is the crux of the well publicized recommendations we have been reading and hearing for years. It is also still the major stumbling block. We all know we should improve our diet and lifestyle, but it is not the easiest thing to do. This report offers some new ideas and suggestions. Let’s hope we can all take them to heart.
|
In 2007, the FDA ruled that meat from cloned cows was safe to eat. Even though this ruling cleared the way for cloned beef, goats, pigs and sheep to be used for food, I don’t any of this meat has yet come to market. Whether you agree or disagree with the eventual introduction of cloned meat into our food supply, there is one part of the ruling that I hope an uproar is created over, the labeling.
The FDA ruled that because their "risk assessment" showed no danger to human health, meat producers will be free to market their products without any distinguishing labels. I have written many times about my belief that labeling of food and health and beauty products need better, much more complete labeling. The FDA, with their varied and repeated rulings that labels in general are not needed, seems to disagree with me. I think they are following the letter of the law, but not using common sense. I also believe they are not doing what the majority of taxpayers would like them to with labeling requirements.
Labels on products serve several purposes beyond the FDA’s belief that they are to warn us of danger. Perhaps the most important function of a labeling on food is to provide information upon which the consumer can make purchasing decisions. This is the crux of food producer’s fear. These companies understand perfectly that a label on a package of meat saying, "cloned", irradiated" or treated with CO2, will cause some consumers to make a different choice. This has nothing to do with whether these products are safe to eat. In fact, some cases, like irradiation, a logical argument can be made that the meat may actually be safer than untreated meat.
Simply because labeling it as such would make it very difficult to sell to us "uneducated" and "fearful" consumers. We would choose not to buy cloned steaks, but would do so for reasons the FDA and the meat producers must feel are invalid. The fact is that many would choose not to buy cloned meat and for what reasons and whether the reluctance is backed up by studies and science is not important. Consumers have the right to know what they are buying and to decide for themselves and their families if they want to buy it.
I know I do. I strongly believe that government should require that all products we eat, or put on our bodies, carry labels listing ingredients. Any new or controversial processing methods also need to be put on labels. The geographic origin of food also needs to be disclosed. We need to be able to make our own decisions about what we eat. Without complete labeling, we can’t easily do that.
Please take the simple poll at the bottom of this post. Then leave your opinions, and reasoning in a comment. This topic really does not seem to create much interest on line or with the general populace. Why do you think that is? Is it not as important an issue as I think it is? Or are people just too distracted by more pressing things in their lives to be concerned?
If you have a website of your own and feels as I do, you could write your own post on this or just write a short note to your readers asking them to come to this post and answer the poll and leave a comment. Maybe we can get some Digg and Stumble Upon readers to do more than a quick scan and move on. If I get enough poll answers and comments to feel the opinion is substantial, and my view seems to be supported by the majority, I will summarize it all and write to Congress and the FDA asking for better labeling.
Loading … |
After a cold wet spring which was great for my lettuce, summer and the occasional 100 degree day have finally arrived. It is too warm for new plantings of lettuce to germinate, but as the picture to the left of my first tomatoes shows, there are other garden crops starting to com on. Of course with the warm weather come tomato diseases, Cucumber Beetles and Squash Bugs. Because I avoid chemicals in my vegetable garden, I plant extra tomatoes, pick off the squash bugs until they get to the point where a spray of weak soap is necessary, and live with the Cucumber Beetles. The beetles seem to be almost kept under control by the birds anyway.
Yesterday while weeding in the garden, I saw many beneficial insects including, Lady Bugs, some kind of small parasitic wasp, and a Praying Mantis. Last night when out there with a flashlight, there were worms and night crawlers all over the place. All of these are signs of a healthy garden and soil and might not be present in healthy numbers in a garden where chemical fertilizers and insecticides are used. Using chemicals in your garden can cause trouble for many more species that the intended target.
On another note - My last post on water being the next oil was viewed by a few thousand readers over three days. The topic must have hit a nerve, am I am flattered that so many people read it, but I was still surprised by something I have noticed a few times before. Lots of readers does not necessarily translate into lots of comments. In addition to comments from a few regular readers, the post did get three comments from new people who have not commented here before. Their comments were great and I do hope they continue to read and voice their ideas. But here is the reason for even bringing this up….
I had at least a dozen email contacts from new people who had something to say about the post. This has happened before and has made me wonder why these obviously articulate and opinionated people decide to email rather than comment? Anyone have any ideas? Maybe they have had problems with commenting on other sites and are just gun-shy. Or maybe in the case of one reader who I will describe below, he just did not want to be critical of the post in the comments. In case anyone else ever feels this way, critical is OK. Fire away! If there are holes in my reasoning or facts, I sure want to know. And, if their are holes in your critique, I sure want to let you know! 
One of the emails said that they thought the post was "stupid" because I was saying in part of it that we should limit water to agriculture and industry so that homeowners would have more water available to water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. There was a comment on Stumble Upon to this effect also. This makes me realize I should follow up with a post being specific in my ideas and opinions in that area, but for now, here is what I meant in the post by saying "We can conserve, and even better, industry and agriculture can be forced to conserve, but we humans will always need a certain amount, beyond what we drink, just to survive in a modern world."
Human society needs a certain amount of water to survive. Some may, but I don’t include lawns of pools in that amount of water. But we could cut off all water to any uses but industry and agriculture tomorrow. No toilets, tap water, lawns, pools, showers or baths. That would still not even make a dent in the U.S. consumption of water because most is used by industry and agriculture. I will research the actual figures and do another post on this aspect of the issue.
Now as to those cows with the backpacks. Thanks to JD, I was alerted to this story. I wonder if PETA knows about this experiment? There must be something unethical about embarrassing cows in this manner. I also think each animal needs a sign on both sides saying "no smoking allowed"! Don’t miss reading the comments either…
A fart tax???
|
Choose from box
