Editors' Blogs
Page 1 of 4
Next
Beam Me In
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
May 2, 2008
July 1 isn’t that far away. When California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation about a year and a half ago forbidding cellphone use without a headset while driving in the state, it seemed far enough into the future to not think about. Not that I make a habit of talking on the cell when I’m operating my motor vehicle, but it’s helpful when I’m running late to let someone know I’ll be there … eventually. And more than once when I’ve been stuck in traffic on my commute, I figure, why not give Mom a call?
I realize that keeping both hands on the steering wheel at all times is probably the safest way to drive. But I’ve avoided headsets as long as using them was voluntary. Most gadgets are just encumbrances to me. And I hate stuff in my ears.
But now it’s down to the wire. The cut-off date for having cellphone in hand while behind the wheel is rapidly approaching, and there’s no grace period (believe me, I checked). So, the fact there’s now a solar-powered Bluetooth on the market caught my attention. Anything to get me excited about the prospect of committing to a headset.
The
Iqua BHS-603 SUN has the courtesy of charging itself. At $100, it’s not cheap, but it’s also not the priciest Bluetooth-enabled headset either. And it is eco, isn’t it?
Sorta, my husband, Dave, said. (I consult with him on all things technological; he’s the kind of guy who assembles his own homemade electrical switches.) “It doesn’t take much power to charge or use a headset,” Dave told me. “But every bit of power we get from the sun rather than from fossil fuel is an environmental bonus.” Continuing to look on the sunny side, he added that it’s a good sign if this product is part of a trend making solar-powered technology more available.
So much for scoring the first solar-powered Bluetooth headset as an impulse buy. But I haven’t given up on it either. I’ve got a few weeks yet to decide.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
I Think I Like It
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
April 30, 2008
Going to the pump these days is just plain painful, even with my compact economy car. I guess that’s why the announcement of a new, affordable electric car that can actually tool along the freeways without getting mowed over made my ears perk.
The Los Angeles Times announced last week that a Norwegian automaker is planning to bring its low-priced electric car (Think City) to the U.S. by the end of next year.
The Think City will travel up to 110 miles per charge, top out at 65 mph, and cost less than $25,000. Perfect for my daily commute.
Other important points are that it seats only two people and has mostly a plastic exterior—to lessen the weight, I suppose. The good news is the plastic is 95 percent recyclable, the bad news might be its safety. Here’s what Think’s
Web site had to say about that:
“The car is equipped with ABS brakes, airbags and three-point safety belts with pretensioners. The advanced frame is designed to absorb energy and distribute it away from the passengers’ compartment. Even the dashboard and knee padding have been developed to absorb impact. To further protect the driver and passengers, both doors have side impact bars and pusher blocks made of shock-absorbent materials.”
Some safety test results might be nice to see. Meanwhile, there are plenty of pics of the car at Think’s
Web site.
—Gabrielle Harradine, Assistant Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Guaco-Matzo
Category: The Dish
April 28, 2008
This Passover, I went seasonal and
schmeered my matzo with guacamole. Here in California, April marks the start of avocado season.
Actually I should say my guacamole
schmeer was “seasonal in spirit.” It would be truly miraculous if the avocados in the Trader Joe’s Fresh & Spicy Guacamole I picked up early in the month were harvested in April. Whether or not the avocados were fresh off the tree when I ate them, the guacamole’s spicy flavor nicely balanced the subtly nutty-sweet taste of the whole-wheat matzo. Plus, the creamy mouthfeel was a welcome yin to the matzo’s yang. Tomato chunks made this guac hard to spread smoothly and evenly, though. Next time, I’m simplifying, and going with a guacamole that’s tomato-free.
“Next time” is a few years away, however. The arrival of Passover shifts between March and April, depending on if the Jewish calendar includes a leap month, as it did this year. March wouldn’t get me to avocado season.
So, maybe next Passover for my
schmeer, I’ll try Follow Your Heart’s
vegan cream cheese, which I happily encountered at Expo West. It’s got that rich, whipped texture of the dairy product—to complement the crispy-crunchiness of the stone-ground-wheat matzo.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Eco What?
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
April 22, 2008
Evidently caught up in the excitement over Earth Day to the point of delirium at a Tokyo fashion show the week before, designer Chie Imai billed her collection, which blends recycled polyester with chinchilla and mink, as “ecological fur.”
“Tying ecology with fur is such a fascinating concept,” Imai told AP reporter Yuri Kageyama.
Fascinating is not the word I’d choose. But Imai isn’t alone in this particularly bizarre twist to greenwashing. On its Web site (furcouncil.com), the Fur Council of Canada declares: “Fur is a natural, renewable, and sustainable resource.” It goes on about how “surplus” wildlife must be controlled and how “humans are part of this ‘circle of life.’” (I guess you have to read between the lines to find out about how animals can languish in traps for days or how they can be beaten or stomped to death by trappers to avoid damaging the animals’ fur.) Along with calling wild fur “the ultimate ‘free range’ clothing material,” the Fur Council touts farm-raised fur as a pollution reducer, while dissing synthetic fibers, used in fake fur, as environmentally unfriendly.
But is animal fur really a greener material than synthetic fur? Based on total energy expenditure, maybe not— once you figure in the fuel to check trap lines, the upkeep of farmed animals, the heating of the rooms where the animals are skinned and the pelts scraped, transportation of raw furs to a factory, and the process of tanning fur pelts. Calculations reveal that, in energy terms, a trapped fur coat “costs” over three times as much as a fake fur, and a ranched fur coat over 15 times as much.
Still, all this number crunching may miss the larger point, as articulated by PETA’s Ashley Fruno: “Fur can’t be environmentally friendly because you can’t be concerned about the environment without caring about our fellow inhabitants: the animals.”
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Discovering the Joy of a Clear Conscience
Category: This Just In / Vegetarian News
April 17, 2008
The other day, I came across an article that ran in the
National Post, a Canadian newspaper, entitled
“Rediscovering the Joy of Meat.” With the cheerful subtitle of “Today’s carnivore is ethical, environmentally friendly, and will eat the whole animal,” I kind of knew the sort of article I was getting into, but it still managed to surprise me.
Warning: If the sight of meat makes you queasy, the article leads off with a photo of the co-owners—former vegetarians, no less—of The Healthy Butcher in Toronto posing with slabs of raw meat casually draped over their shoulders, a butcher smiling in the background and while holding an entire pig carcass with one arm. (I’m guessing “healthy butchers” don’t turn around and sell meat that has been worn for a photo shoot, but there was no mention of how wasting meat fits into being an ethical meat-eater.)
The article talks about what it claims is the resurgence of meat, due to marketing campaigns aimed at soothing the guilt of people who eat meat by implying that free-range or organic meats are somehow cruelty-free. But now at least one writer is trying to credit vegetarians with this change.
In his new book, The Shameless Carnivore: A Manifesto for Meat Lovers, Scott Gold tried 31 different meats in as many days—including bull’s penis and squirrel (which he shot himself).
Although he delights in goading vegetarians in his book and on his blog— gushing about eating guinea pig, whiskers and all, and raving about the richness of rabbit—Mr. Gold credits them with helping bring foodies back to more authentic, healthy, and responsible dining.
“Vegetarianism I suppose became equated with being more emotionally or morally evolved, but now the tide is really turning,” said Mr. Gold. “If you try grass-fed, locally, humanely raised meat, it’s not only significantly better for your health, it’s better for the animal. It’s not just good for the environment, but also, ultimately, once again, it all comes down to taste.
Did I miss something? How is being eaten better for the animal? Has Gold checked with animals post-slaughter to see how they rated the process? Or is he just focusing on how this idea eases his conscience? Given that he seems to have attempted to eat every part of every kind of animal, from guinea pig whiskers to—well, you saw the part about the bull—I doubt he’s given much thought to how animals feel about it.
Another gem from this article:
Perhaps more significant, even some vegetarians are abandoning the moral high ground to emerge from their meatless exile.
“Meatless exile?” Does the writer picture vegetarians as standing on the outskirts of town (at the base of Moral Mountain, perhaps), carrots in hand, gnashing their teeth over the “taste” they’re missing? When I went veg, rather than feeling like my eating choices were depressingly reduced, my eyes were opened to so many healthful, delicious foods that weren’t on my radar in my drive-thru days. Don’t focus on what you aren’t eating, focus on all of the wonderful things you can eat.
Bottom line: If you feel guilty about eating meat, stop eating it.
“Now I can at last look at you in peace; I don’t eat you anymore.”
—Franz Kafka
—Lisa Barley, associate editor/web editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Weird Science
Category: This Just In / Your Health
April 10, 2008
A waking nightmare is how I remember my first experience with the Monsanto-sponsored Adventure Through Inner Space ride at Disneyland. As my 11-year-old self waited in line for the now defunct ride, my anxiety grew as other guests appeared to enter one end of a “Mighty Microscope,” emerge near the opposite end mere inches tall, and then disappear entirely. Once I passed through the microscope on my “Omnimover,” I continued to “shrink” (in relation to the giant virtual snowflakes surrounding me) until I penetrated the walls of the oxygen atom and faced an enormous glowing nucleus that threatened to swallow me up. It was terrifying.
Monsanto is terrifying me again. An advocacy group it supports, American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), is fighting the use of labels that declare dairy products free from the synthetic bovine growth hormone rBST, which Monsanto produces. Injecting cows with the hormone causes them to produce more milk, which means the dairy industry can produce more products at lower costs.
The problem for consumers of these products, as suggested by medical experts such as the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, is that rBST increases cancer risk. In addition, consuming dairy products with rBST could cause people to become resistant to antibiotics, making them prone to bacterial infections. Evidently, cows injected with the hormone have higher rates of udder infections, and when they’re treated with antibiotics, they can develop resistant bacteria; those who consume dairy products from these cows could also build up resistance.
The European Union and Canada have banned the use of rBST. Still, it’s met with FDA approval, and since products on store shelves contain it, consumers are asking that those products be identified. AFACT is lobbying state legislators to introduce bills that would restrict such labeling, and you have to ask yourself why. Why don’t they and their Monsanto backers want us to know we’re consuming rBST? Why do they want to keep us in the dark? It’s one thing to induce people to suspend disbelief on a ride in Disneyland; it’s another in real life.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Time Travel
Category: Stuff We Love / Food
April 4, 2008
In the animated film
Ratatouille, a bite of a classic veg dish has the power to transport a world-weary critic to a happy childhood. A sip of juice recently worked the same magic for me. Mind reeling, senses numb from the onslaught of noise and crowds at Natural Products Expo West—an extravaganza of food, personal care products, housewares, etc.—I was handed a paper cup of what the smiling booth attendant informed me was
blood orange juice.
Its tartly sweet taste took me back to a sun-drenched café in Rome. My mother, brother, and I were seated around a table laden with food, neither of us kids yet crazed by our teens. Laughter flowed freely at the table. Thousands of miles away from what was familiar, the three of us felt as at ease as in our own home. I started leisurely peeling an orange. The first glimpse at the flesh stunned me. It was red. I removed a section and tasted it. It was amazingly good.
That was the first time I’d tasted a blood orange. And here, now, more years later than I care to count, the fruit’s burst of tangy flavor tasted as wondrous as that first time. And, too, I felt that rush of joy I felt then, a little girl and citizen of the world. Physics may question time travel, but physiology knows different.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Spring is here!
Category: The Dish
March 31, 2008
There’s definitely reason to celebrate. An added hour of sunlight, the beginning of spring, Easter, Purim, and a full moon all in the last two weeks. All of this reminds me—gardening season is fast approaching.
I am actually ahead of the game this year,
and feeling more ambitious. A few weeks ago when it was still cold and few people had gardening on their mind, I went to a local nursery and bought some seeds and three big pots to grow vegetables in. This will be my largest scale attempt ever. I will be attempting to grow Japanese eggplant, heirloom tomatoes, and bell peppers. I guess I’m feeling optimistic after my cilantro did so well last year. Besides, with all the focus on getting your food local, I figure I can’t get more local then my own backyard.
I have low expectations for my first crop yields, not because I doubt my farming skills, but because it is my first attempt at many of these vegetables, and my pots are only 20 inches deep. But even if the time spent outweighs my veggie yield I’ll still be a proud mom, because the act of farming seems to me to be as character building as the eating of homegrown vegetables is nourishing.
Give your own vegetable, herb, or flower garden a try this spring and let me know how it goes. Send pics of your homegrown “babies” too if they inspire you.
—Gabrielle Harradine, Assistant Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Exercise Your Right to Exercise
Category: This Just In / Your Health
March 17, 2008
Is your health defined solely by what you eat? Before you answer that, I’m talking about physical
and mental health. I don’t think the majority of people would say yes to this question, but there are some who become so focused on the food they consume (or don’t consume) that they forget how crucial exercising is. So, for those people, consider this:
Exercise can lift your mood, boost your energy, make you look and sleep better, and feel stronger. It can in fact, cure the injuries that you use as an excuse not to exercise.
So, exercise you right to exercise. Make the time and consider it
your time. Mix up your workouts if you’re easily bored. If you’re focused on just one activity, you’ll be achieving more than one goal. Problems can be worked out in your head while your body works. Space can be created. Self-confidence can be gained (not to mention vitamin D if you’re in the sun).
Once you’ve started a regular regimen, you’ll notice that those stairs you climb every day become almost effortless. Picking up your child, grandchild, or pet is done with ease. Even something as basic as getting in and out of a chair may change: you no longer need to grab something to help you. Do it for yourself, you’ll be glad you did.
—Gabrielle Harradine, Assistant Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
'Term' Limits
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
March 14, 2008
A week or so ago, I was starting to tell my husband about a report I’d heard on NPR on what I was calling “global warming” when he interrupted me. “Say ‘climate change’ instead,” he suggested, explaining that naysayers are more than happy to point out that cold spells continue to happen, so the world couldn’t possibly be warming up, now could it? He’s probably right about not making it any easier to dismiss a phenomenon that could doom us all.
Soon after, I was reading about a study investigating the “Easter Freeze” of April 5–9, 2007, in the eastern United States; the study’s results implicated an unusually warm March, which preceded the freeze, in the destruction of plants and crops throughout the region. Turns out, the balmy weather coaxed the plants into sending out tender sprouts two to three weeks earlier than normal. “The warm weather was as much a culprit for the damage as the cold,” said the study’s lead author, Lianhong Gu, of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Gu described as a “paradox” the finding that mild winters and warm, early springs make plants particularly vulnerable to late-season frosts. It’s only when you look beyond easy distinctions that you can see the bigger picture a paradox is revealing to you.
I’m making every effort to say “climate change” when I’m linking global temperature shifts with shrinking glaciers and swarming mosquitoes. At the same time, I’m hoping people give up sticking to either-or thinking when it comes to something as susceptible to multiple variables as the world’s climate. It’s a matter of survival.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Click for a Natural High
Category: The Dish
March 4, 2008
OK, you’re reading this blog, which means you’ve embraced the technology that computers have to offer. Like a TV, your PC or Mac can be a positive or a not-so-positive way to spend your time; the information gained can be brain-numbing, highly enlightening, or something in-between (hopefully, our blog is one of the latter).
The great difference between computers and television is the interactive factor. Computers and the Internet give us the ability to be actively involved users. With a simple click of the mouse, and seconds of our time (possibly while waiting for a video to buffer or a site to load) we can actually help someone else, without even leaving the comfort of our chairs.
A click-to-give site is one place you can get involved. There you can get an instant natural high by giving every day. One Web site makes it easy by encompassing six worthy causes in one place. You can help feed the hungry, protect rain forests, provide books for poor children, and provide food and care for rescue animals.
As an added bonus, the site was recently improved with the addition of tabs at the top, which makes it even easier for people to click and give.
You can access this multi click-to-give site by using any of these URLs:
theanimalrescuesite.com,
thehungersite.com,
thebreastcancersite.com,
therainforestsite.com,
theliteracysite.com, and
thechildhealthsite.com. And if you’re well-meaning, but forgetful, you can opt to sign up for a daily reminder.
Clicking turns into donations because the ads displayed on the site are paid for by sponsors. For more info on which charities receive the benefits of your effort, go to each site … and click away.
—Gabrielle Harradine, Assistant Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Oil Slicked
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
February 29, 2008
Feathers matted with crude oil, the birds looked sculpted of molten iron— only their faltering movements and blinking eyes indicated they were alive, if barely. Oiling of feathers, as well as fur, can lead to death from smothering, drowning, hypothermia, and ingestion of toxic hydrocarbons, we were horrified to learn nearly two decades ago.
In fact, an estimated 250,000 seabirds, along with 1,000 to 2,800 sea otters and 300 harbor seals lost their lives in the immediate wake of the largest oil spill in U.S. history, resulting from the tanker
Exxon Valdez running aground off the shores of Alaska. The National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the 1989 spill determined that its probable causes included alcohol impairment by the tanker’s captain and negligence by his Exxon Shipping bosses in supervising him and in ensuring a rested and adequate crew.
The shock and outrage felt by those of us who witnessed the catastrophe are again made raw by the news that ExxonMobil is taking its fight to the Supreme Court to overturn, or at least reduce, the 1994 punitive-damage ruling against it for its role in causing the spill. (This is the same ExxonMobil, by the way, that in 2007 broke its own record for annual profit by a U.S. corporation.)
Perhaps one benefit of this craven battle by ExxonMobil is that the spill is again in the news. Given the incredibly shrinking attention span of the media and their audience, it’s worth reminding the public of the damage caused by the spill, and of its continuing harm to wildlife even while the media’s spotlight has shifted elsewhere: Approximately 20 acres of shoreline in Alaska’s Prince William Sound remain contaminated with oil, according to a 2001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study. This persistence of oil produces chronic, long-term exposure risks for some species, scientists say. The affected species won’t be given a hearing at the Supreme Court’s deliberations, of course, but what a day for cosmic justice if they were.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Washout
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
February 28, 2008
The Six Sins of Greenwashing appear to be pushing through a merger with the Seven Deadly Sins lately in scheming to lead corporations astray, their loyal customers trailing after them. Making misleading claims about environmental practices, or about the environmental benefits of their products or services—aka greenwashing—is a powerful temptation for companies in a culture that’s increasingly leaning green.
The Six Sins of Greenwashing were identified late last year—ironically enough, by a marketing firm after it examined the claims of products sold in big box stores. Of the 1,018 products reviewed by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc., all but one committed one of the Six Sins. Of the six—the Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off, the Sin of No Proof, the Sin of Vagueness, the Sin of Irrelevance, the Sin of Fibbing, and the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils—my favorite is the Sin of Irrelevance. You’ve got to marvel at the sleight of hand: A common example is a product’s claim to be free of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) when CFCs have been legally banned for almost 30 years.
This rampant flimflam depends on our ignorance. We’re more effectively programmed as consumers than informed as citizens today, susceptible to advertising campaigns rather than skilled in applying logic and hard facts to our exercise of freedom of choice. But we can still learn to ask pertinent questions, so we don’t fall prey to the Six Sins. For example, to avoid succumbing to the Sin of Irrelevance, we can ask whether all other products in the same category could make the same claim.
For more schooling in the Six Sins and how to resist them, go to
terrachoice.com/sixsinsofgreenwashing.
—Amy Spitalnick, Associate Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
I Love Coral Reefs, Do You?
Category: This Just In / Healthy Planet
February 26, 2008
One of the joys of life to me is being in the undulating ocean, surrounded by all the beautiful shapes and colors that nature has to offer. Yes, I’m talking about coral reefs and their bountiful marine life. Whether I’m diving or snorkeling, I always end up radiating with awe as my body fluctuates with the tides, just like the fish around me.
Considering my respect for the reefs, you might imagine how I felt the day I was diving in Mexico and the dive master swam up to me and handed me a chunk of coral reef to balance my underwater weight. Let’s just say, I would have choked on the water if I hadn’t had a BC in my mouth. The chunk didn’t look too healthy, but even so, I had been taught to not even rub against the reef, let alone rip chunks out of it to replace weights that should have been in my weight belt.
That was my last diving trip and it left a lingering distaste in my mouth for the possibilities of overuse and underappreciation of the Earth’s treasures.
Tourism dollars have multiplied the number of uninformed and mismotivated guides, but they haven’t changed the fact that the coral reefs are a very sensitive ecosystem. Even a slight change in the water temperature (just a few degrees) can be very detrimental to the reefs. And now a new study published in the journal
Environmental Health Perspectives and explained online at
National Geographic news has shown the harmful effects that many of our sunscreens are having on the reefs.
The good news is that you can avoid the problematic ingredients and help reduce your impact on the coral by using sunscreens that are paraben, cinnamate, benzophenone, and camphor-derivative free.
So spread the word and protect the coral, that way our children and children’s children will be able to see the coral reefs for themselves, rather than in old footage or photos.
—Gabrielle Harradine, Assistant Editor
View comments |
Add a comment
Reader Mail
Category: The Dish
February 25, 2008
We love getting letters from
Vegetarian Times readers—some we publish in the magazine, some go up on a bulletin board in our office so we can all see what our readers are saying. The letter below, in which a longtime vegetarian reflects on the latest beef recall, is too long to publish in our magazine, but I wanted to share it anyway. If you'd like to get in touch with us to share compliments, complaints, ask questions, or just share your thoughts, email us at editor@vegetariantimes.com.
—Lisa Barley, associate editor/web editor
From Tracy Knopf, Twain Harte, CA:
For eighteen years I’ve been a vegetarian. I don’t preach or tell people what to do. However, in light of the largest beef recall in history, I’d like to share why I’m a vegetarian.
1. Animal Cruelty
Beef cattle are treated inhumanely. At the Westland, CA, plant, suffering, crippled animals are picked up and moved with a forklift. Others are kicking in the face, some have had water blown up their noses with a fire hose in an attempt to force them to get up. Cows living in cramped conditions stand in deep manure until they become infected with hoof disease. Then there’s mad cow disease, caused by cows being fed cows. Cattle are injected with antibiotics and growth hormones which end up on the dinner table.
2. The Environment
Motivated by profit, thousands of acres of rain forest are purchased inexpensively and clear cut for grazing by McDonalds, Burger King, and others. Methane from cow manure greatly contributes to global warming. Cows use huge amounts of water for drinking and in growing the food they consume.
3. Personal Health
Mostly I’m asked where I get protein. In fact, most Americans get too much protein, which if not used, is converted to body fat. Read your labels. Protein is found in pasta, beans, nuts, potatoes, eggs, pumpkin, spinach, even tomato soup!
Eating primarily vegetables, grains, fruits, and nuts reduces heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.
Bookstores contain hundreds of vegetarian cookbooks. Experiment with recipes. Vegetarian cooking is not only delicious, it’s great for your body, soul, and our Earth. Talk about a Happy Meal!
View comments |
Add a comment
Page 1 of 4
Next
newsletters
