CBS News Enables FDA to Deceive Public
Posted on 12. Mar, 2013 by Howard Salus in Education, featured, Florida News, Opinions
|
||
|
SAVE THE WOLVES – A MUST-READ
Posted on 13. Nov, 2012 by Howard Salus in Education, featured, Florida News, Opinions
Moments ago the Center for Biological Diversity and allies filed a federal suit against Wyoming’s disastrous policies promoting unlimited killing of wolves across most of the state.
Since wolves in Wyoming lost their Endangered Species Act protection last month, 49 wolves have been killed in state-sanctioned
hunts and unregulated killing in “predator” zones. In the three Rocky Mountain states where wolves have been delisted — Idaho, Montana and Wyoming — 177 wolves have been killed after just one month of hunting and trapping. Many of these wolves are part of highly social groups simply looking for a safe place to raise their families.
Left unchecked, these state policies will result in hundreds more wolf deaths that will damage the species’ recovery.
While we fight these policies on the ground in Wyoming with our allies, we know we need to gear up fast to safeguard wolves throughout the West. That’s why the Center is launching a bold campaign to protect Pacific Coast wolves — and we need your help.
Please make a gift today to the Wolf Defense Fund and help us hire a full-time staffer to organize in defense of wolves along the Pacific Coast.
It’s going to take an all-out, boots-on-the-ground effort through California, Oregon and Washington to ensure state and federal policies put the recovery of wolves first. A passionate defender of wolves is offering a special challenge grant so we can afford to hire for this essential position. He will match every gift between now and Thanksgiving.
Our Pacific Coast organizer will work with other environmental groups, the public, hunting organizations, community leaders and elected officials in defense of strong wolf protections. The Center’s organizer will be at the forefront of a multi-state effort to educate decision-makers, bring wolf advocates and citizens together, and generate positive media about wolves.
The Center has already had some key victories on the West Coast, including getting California wolves a step closer to state protection and saving one of Oregon’s wolf packs from government sharpshooters. But that’s not enough. Wolves on the Pacific Coast deserve a safe future, free from persecution, so that their families can thrive and grow.
We need to raise funds right now to hire our new wolf organizer, and we need your help to do it. As part of this special challenge grant, your gift by Thanksgiving will go twice as far. Please consider giving as generously as you can today to the Wolf Defense Fund, and then share this with your family and friends.
We need to stop the massacre in Wyoming and make sure it never happens on the Pacific Coast. Help us make the most of this generous challenge grant and hit the ground running to save wolves.
Thank you in advance for your support.
For the wolves,
![]() |
|
A vital letter from Bill McKibben (350.org)
Posted on 19. Jul, 2012 by Howard Salus in Climate, Education, Environment, featured, Florida News, Opinions
Dear friends,
There’s a piece of mine on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine today that I think may be the most important writing I’ve done since The End of Nature, way back in 1989. (And no, it’s not the profile of Justin Bieber)
Warning: it’s pretty long, and it’s not entirely cheerful. Indeed, it shows that the business plans of the fossil fuel industry will wreck the planet — that they’ve already got enough carbon in their reserves to drive the heat past anyone’s definition of okay.
Click here to read and share the piece: www.350.org/rollingstone
If you read it, you’ll get a sense of the direction 350.org is headed.
I’ll be hosting a video chat early next week to help cover all of these topics – in particular Keystone and the article I just released – and if you’d like to join that particular conversation, I’m told you can RSVP by clicking here: act.350.org/sign/bill-video-chat-july/
In the meantime: as we see it, we’ve got iconic battles underway in every part of the country, and against all the forms of fossil fuel. And they’re beginning to coalesce into a true movement against the heart of this most dangerous industry.
1) Keystone XL.
Centered along the pipeline route in the middle of the country, this battle against opening Canada’s vast tarsands has been in a holding pattern for a while, but that’s changing. On the southern half of the pipeline, our friends in Texas are actively planning for civil disobedience. Meanwhile, thanks to your efforts, a narrow Congressional plurality has blocked GOP attempts to force through the northern half of the pipeline this year. Now the ball is back in the State Department’s court — and so far they’re fumbling it. They need to conduct a new review, but they’ve not even agreed to look at the climate effects of the project (my take on how Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is mishandling this particular issue is here). We’re going to need your help to put pressure on them — and also to help mobilize against metastasizing tarsands pipelines, like the so-called Trailbreaker project across New England. Mitt Romney has promised opening Keystone will be his first act; we’re by no means certain Obama wouldn’t bend to corporate power either. We may need to go back to jail; no matter what, we’ll do our best to keep figuring out the incredibly murky Washington politics and trying to work out useful plans.
2) Coal ports.
Stymied by great organizing against coal-fired power in this country, the mining giants are scouting new markets in Asia — and building the ports along the Pacific to let them send that carbon overseas to be burned. People are mobilizing effectively to try and block those plans (and three coal-train derailments last week made it a little clearer to everyone what a bad plan this is). Meanwhile, mountaintop removal foes continue to press their case across Appalachia. Together we’ve all managed to blacken coal’s name considerably, and we can’t let up.
3) Fracking.
Opposition to fracking for gas has been loudest along the East Coast, atop the Marcellus Shale. We’ve been working in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York (and other places, like Vermont, where a statewide ban on fracking was enacted this spring). Given the deep pockets of the gas companies it’s a hard battle, but you’d be amazed at the depth of the local organizing; the drillers are being met by an aroused citizenry wherever they go!
So — oil, coal, gas; Midwest; Pacific; East. These fights are all crucial, but they’re also all part of the much larger battle, which is against carbon in the atmosphere. We’ve got to fight them all, but we can’t win one pipeline or port at a time. We’ve also got to change the basic ground rules.
Which is why we’re also engaged, right through election day, in the fight against fossil fuel subsidies. It’s gaining momentum — almost 60 Senators and Representatives have signed on in support of the Sanders/Ellison bill to end the giveaways to the richest industry on earth. Teams of people are fanning out across the country this week and next to ask their public officials: “Where do you stand on removing fossil fuel subsidies?”
All this activity is playing out, of course, against the backdrop of one of the greatest heatwaves and droughts in American history, a constant reminder just how high the stakes are. People are noticing — the polling indicates steady increases in concern about climate change — and now our job is to build that diffuse sentiment into a strong movement.
I’m awfully glad you’re a part of this movement, and hope you’re managing to stay cool.
On we go,
Bill McKibben for the crew at 350.org
P.S. And if you have reactions to and thoughts about that Rolling Stone piece please send them in to “thoughts@350.org“. The analysis — the math — that’s in there is going to form the basis of a lot of our work going forward, and it would be useful to hear how it strikes you.
Important Word from Bill McKibben
Posted on 05. May, 2012 by Howard Salus in Climate, Environment, featured, Florida News, Opinions
Dear Friends—
The Heartland Institute—a main climate-denial front group—chose an interesting day
to put up billboards around Chicago in advance of their next meeting.
This morning—even as the first actions of Connect the Dots day were taking place in
the Pacific—they unveiled the signs, which have big pictures of Ted Kacynzki and Charles Manson, two convicted mass murderers, with the question: “I Still Believe in Global Warming, Do You?”
The message couldn’t be clearer—anyone who’s worried about climate change is
abnormal, weird, sick, twisted.
So our message back need to be just as clear and firm:
in fact, its normal people around the world who are engaged in the fight
against climate change. Some are famous—the pope, the Dalai Lama, the
patriarch of the Orthodox Church—but most of us are just ordinary citizens. And
we’re worried about climate change because we can see what’s going on around us
with our own eyes.
The industry is terrified to talk about extreme weather
that has led a big majority of Americans to back action on climate change, and
they are terrified of the beautiful movement that is growing all across this
country. That’s why groups like the Heartland Institute are so desperate—that’s why they’re insisting that it’s serial killers and not scientists and citizens who care
about climate change.
We have no idea why companies like Microsoft continue to support the Heartland
Institute, and you can sign a petition here letting them know it’s a bad idea
to encourage this kind of hatred. But the most important thing
you can do is turn out everyone you know for tomorrow’s day of action.
Citizens like us taking action in our communities may be the only way that we can fight
back against an industry with so much money and ill-will at their disposal.
This weekend we can show the real face of climate change – both the impacts
that are already roiling our world, but also the people who are taking action
to stop it.
They’re
getting desperate, which is a good sign.
–Bill McKibben
A main climate change denial front group is comparing believing in climate change with mass murder.
If you agree that’s reckless, we need you to take action to Connect the Dots this weekend, and call out their corporate sponsors by signing on below:
www.350.org/heartland
More Info and Links
- Heartland
Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder | Leo
Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk go.350.org/IJLNlA
Is Sugar Toxic?
Posted on 03. Apr, 2012 by Howard Salus in Education, featured, Florida News, Opinions
(CBS News) If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that the average
American consumes 130 pounds of sugar a year? Sanjay Gupta reports on new
research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your
health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer. Some
physicians go so far as to call sugar a toxin.
The following script is from “Sugar” which aired on April 1, 2012. Dr.
Sanjay Gupta is the correspondent. Denise Schrier Cetta and Sumi Aggarwal,
producers.
The chances are good that sugar is a bigger part of your daily diet than you
may realize which is why our story tonight is so important. New research coming
out of some of America’s most respected institutions is starting to find that
sugar, the way many people are eating it today, is a toxin and could be a
driving force behind some of this country’s leading killers, including heart
disease.
60 Minutes Overtime
Sugar and kids: The toxic truth »
As a result of these findings, an anti-sugar campaign has sprung up, led by
Dr. Robert Lustig, a California endocrinologist, who believes the consumption of
added sugars has plunged America into a public health crisis.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is sugar toxic?
Dr. Robert Lustig: I believe it is.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Do you ever worry that that’s– it just sounds a little bit
over the top?
Dr. Robert Lustig: Sure. All the time. But it’s the truth.
Dr. Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of
California, San Francisco and a pioneer in what is becoming a war against sugar.
Motivated by his own patients — too many sick and obese children – Dr.
Lustig has concluded that sugar, more than any other substance, is to blame.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: What are all these various diseases that you say are linked
to sugar?
Dr. Robert Lustig: Obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease
itself.
Lustig says the American lifestyle is killing us.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And most of it you say is preventable?
Dr. Robert Lustig: Seventy-five percent of it is preventable.
While Dr. Lustig has published a dozen scientific articles on the evils of
sugar, it was his lecture on YouTube, called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” that
brought his message to the masses.
[YouTube Video: I'm standing here today to recruit you in the war against
bad food.]
By “bad food” Dr. Lustig means the obvious things such as table sugar, honey,
syrup, sugary drinks and desserts, but also just about every processed food you
can imagine, where sugar is often hidden: yogurts and sauces, bread, and even
peanut butter. And what about the man-made, often vilified sweetener, high
fructose corn syrup?
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is it worse than just table sugar?
Dr. Robert Lustig: No. ‘Cause it’s the exact same. They are basically
equivalent. The problem is they’re both bad. They’re both equally toxic.
Since the 1970s, sugar consumption has gone down nearly 40 percent, but high
fructose corn syrup has more than made up the difference. Dr. Lustig says they
are both toxic because they both contain fructose — that’s what makes them
sweet and irresistible.
Dr. Robert Lustig: We love it. We go out of our way to find it. I think one
of the reasons evolutionarily is because there is no food stuff on the planet
that has fructose that is poisonous to you. It is all good. So when you taste
something that’s sweet, it’s an evolutionary Darwinian signal that this is a
safe food.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: We were born this way?
Dr. Robert Lustig: We were born this way.
Central to Dr. Lustig’s theory is that we used to get our fructose mostly in
small amounts of fruit — which came loaded with fiber that slows absorption and
consumption — after all, who can eat 10 oranges at a time? But as sugar and
high fructose corn syrup became cheaper to refine and produce, we started
gorging on them. Americans now consume 130 pounds per person a year — that’s a
third of a pound every day.
Dr. Lustig believes those sweeteners are helping fuel an increase in the most
deadly disease in America: heart disease. For years, he’s been a controversial
voice.
[Kimber Stanhope: Here is our oral isotope...]
But now, studies done by Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at the
University of California, Davis are starting to back him up. She’s in the middle
of a groundbreaking, five-year study which has already shown strong evidence
linking excess high fructose corn syrup consumption to an increase in risk
factors for heart disease and stroke. That suggests calories from added sugars
are different than calories from other foods.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: The mantra that you hear from most nutritionists is that a
calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Kimber Stanhope: And I think the results of the study showed clearly that is
not true.
Stanhope’s conclusions weren’t easy to come by. Nutrition studies are
expensive and difficult. Stanhope has paid groups of research subjects to live
in this hospital wing for weeks at a time, under a sort of 24-hour lockdown.
They undergo scans and blood tests – every calorie they ingest, meticulously
weighed and prepared.
Kimber Stanhope: They’re never out of our sight. So we do know that they are
consuming exactly what we need them to consume.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And they’re not sneaking any candy bars on the side.
Kimber Stanhope: Yeah, right, exactly.
For the first few days, participants eat a diet low in added sugars, so
baseline blood levels can be measured.
[Research assistant: So remember you guys have to finish all of your
Kool-Aid. ]
Then, 25 percent of their calories are replaced with sweetened drinks and
Stanhope’s team starts drawing blood every 30 minutes around the clock. And
those blood samples? They revealed something disturbing.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And what are you starting to see?
Kimber Stanhope: We found that the subjects who consumed high fructose corn
syrup had increased blood levels of LDL cholesterol and other risk factors for
cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: How quickly did these changes occur?
Kimber Stanhope: Within two weeks.
Kimber Stanhope’s study suggests that when a person consumes too much sweet
stuff, the liver gets overloaded with fructose and converts some of it into fat.
Some of that fat ends up in the bloodstream and helps generate a dangerous kind
of cholesterol called small dense LDL. These particles are known to lodge in
blood vessels, form plaque and are associated with heart attacks.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Did it surprise you when you first got these results
back?
Kimber Stanhope: I would have to say I was surprised because when I saw our
data, I started drinking and eating a whole lot less sugar. I would say our data
surprised me.
So imagine, for these healthy young people, drinking a sweetened drink might
be just as bad for their hearts as the fatty cheeseburgers we’ve all been warned
about since the 1970s. That’s when a government commission mandated that we
lower fat consumption to try and reduce heart disease.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So with the best of intentions, they say, “Time to reduce
fat in the American diet?”
Dr. Robert Lustig: Exactly. And we did. And guess what? Heart disease,
metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing.
Dr. Lustig believes that’s primarily because we replaced a lot of that fat
with added sugars.
Dr. Robert Lustig: Take the fat out of food, it tastes like cardboard. And
the food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: This idea that sugar increases this particularly bad LDL,
the small dense particles that are associated with heart disease. Do most
doctors– do they know this?
Dr. Robert Lustig: No, they do not know this. This is new.
And it turns out, sugar has become a major focus in cancer research too.
Lewis Cantley, is looking at the connection.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: If you limit your sugar you decrease your chances of
developing cancer?
Lewis Cantley: Absolutely.
Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer
Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone
insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers.
Lewis Cantley: What we’re beginning to learn is that insulin can cause
adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer.
Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers — including breast and colon
cancers — have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin
binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose.
Lewis Cantley: This is your body…
Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these
cancer cells also use it to grow.
Lewis Cantley: So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors
on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that’s in the
bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor.
And the tumor uses it to grow.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So you’ve just seen that tumor turn blue which is
essentially reflective of glucose going into it.
Lewis Cantley: That’s right.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So these cancers, much in the same way that muscle will
say, “Hey, I’d like some of that glucose, the fat says, “I would like some of
that glucose,” the cancers have learned how to do this themselves as well?
Lewis Cantley: Yes. So they have evolved the ability to hijack that flow of
glucose that’s going by in the bloodstream into the tumor itself.
Lewis Cantley’s research team is working on developing drugs that will cut
off the glucose supply to cancer cells and keep them from growing. But until
there’s a breakthrough, Cantley’s advice? Don’t eat sugar. And if you must, keep
it to a minimum.
Lewis Cantley: In fact– I– you know, I live my life that way. I rarely eat
sugar.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: When you see a sugary drink or if I were to offer you one,
what– with all that you know, what’s going through your mind?
Lewis Cantley: I probably would turn it down and get a glass of water.
But for most of us, that’s easier said than done…
Eric Stice: It turns out sugar is much more addictive than I think we had
sort of realized early on.
Eric Stice, a neuroscientist at the Oregon Research Institute, is using
functional MRI scanners to learn how our brains respond to sweetness.
Eric Stice: Sugar activates our brain in a special way. That’s very
reminiscent of, you know, drugs like cocaine.
That’s right. Cocaine.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Let’s give it a shot…
I climbed into the MRI scanner to see how my brain would respond. That’s a
straw that’s been rigged to deliver a tiny sip of soda into my mouth.
Eric Stice: Stay as still as you can, ok?
Just as it hit my tongue, the scanner detected increased blood rushing to
certain regions of my brain. In these images, the yellow areas show that my
reward region is responding to the sweet taste. Dopamine – a chemical that
controls the brain’s pleasure center – is being released, just as it would in
response to drugs or alcohol.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So dopamine is released. That sort of makes me feel good.
I’m experiencing some pleasure from having this Coke.
Eric Stice: Right, that euphoric effect.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So far be it for people to realize this ’cause sugar is
everywhere, but you’re saying this is one of the most addictive substances
possibly that we have?
Eric Stice: It certainly is very good at firing the reward regions in our
brain.
Eric Stice says by scanning hundreds of volunteers, he’s learned that people
who frequently drink sodas or eat ice cream or other sweet foods may be building
up a tolerance, much like drug users do. As strange as it sounds, that means the
more you eat, the less you feel the reward. The result: you eat more than
ever.
Eric Stice: If you overeat these on a regular basis it causes changes in the
brain that basically it blunts your reward region response to the food, so then
you eat more and more to achieve the same satisfaction you felt originally.
With all this new science emerging, we wanted to hear from the sugar
industry, so we visited Jim Simon, who’s on the board of the Sugar Association,
at a sugar cane farm in Louisiana.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Would it surprise you that almost every scientist that we
talked to in researching this story told us they are eliminating all added
sugars. They’re getting rid of it because they’re concerned about the health
impacts.
Jim Simon: To say that the American consuming public is going to completely
omit, eliminate, sweeteners out of their diet I don’t think gets us there.
Simon cautions that eliminating sugar wrongly vilifies one food, rather than
working towards the long-term solution of reducing calories and exercising.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: You know, a lot of people, Jim, are saying that sugar is
different. That it is bad for your heart and is causing a lot of the problems
we’re talking about. It is addictive and in some cases might even fuel cancers.
What would you – I mean you’ve looked at this. You must have looked at some of
these studies. What do you say about that?
Jim Simon: The science is not completely clear here.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: But some of that’s, but some of these studies exist. I
mean, what is a consumer, what are they to make of all that
Jim Simon: Well, I would say to them, that they’ve got to approach, their
diet in balance.
Dr. Robert Lustig agrees — we need a balanced diet — but his idea of
balance is a drastic reduction in sugar consumption. To that end he co-authored
an American Heart Association report recommending men should consume no more
than 150 calories of added sugars a day. And women, just 100 calories. That’s
less than the amount in just one can of soda.
Dr. Robert Lustig: Ultimately this is a public health crisis. And when it’s a
public health crisis, you have to do big things and you have to do them across
the board. Tobacco and alcohol are perfect examples. We have made a conscious
choice that we’re not going to get rid of them, but we are going to limit their
consumption. I think sugar belongs in this exact same wastebasket.
© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.






