Is Third World Worker Safety 100 Years Behind the US??

Sadly, 112 garment workers in Bangladesh died today because there were not adequate emergency exits. Many large companies, including Wal-Mart and Ikea purchase garments from the ill-fated factory owned by Tazreen Fashions Ltd.  This tragedy brings to mind a similar disaster in New York City back on March 25, 1911-- a 101 years ago!  

That infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire killed 146 garment workers. The managers had locked the exits to prevent the workers from leaving during working hours. Laws were written to prevent future disasters of this type, and yet a 101 years later, in another country, it happens again!

The Bangladesh  factory was routinely inspected for safety on behalf of Wal-Mart. While Wal-Mart gets a little slack for at least attempting to ensure worker safety, they seem to have set the bar very low. The factory had been given a high risk rating back in May 2011.  Rather than force safety measures, Wal-Mart has a loose policy of  three strikes and you’re on probation for a year.  Wal-Mart can and should do more to ensure worker safety.  Just because the products are not made in the US, that should not be a license to operate factories irresponsibly in foreign countries.

  This is the dark side of cost driven capitalism. They are seeking out the lowest possible cost for their products, and that means finding the lowest possible wages to pay workers. It also means that factories like the one in  Bangladesh  are doing everything they can to keep their costs low, which results in substandard facilities, and blatant safety risks for their workers. 

Next time you purchase an inexpensive garment from Wal-Mart remember the hardship these people endure. Think about them when you wear the garment. Try to bring your shame  up to the surface of your consciousness  for falling into the “cost-is-king” ethic, and for knowingly supporting such deplorable working conditions.  Then go out and pay more money for an American made garment, and wear it with honor and dignity. You’ll feel better.

When Fresh Food Meant Hunting/Gathering

My Grandfather was likely one of the last of his generation of hunter/gatherers from old New England.  He grew up hunting and fishing in Bedford. He’d hunt anything that was edible.  And he believed that almost everything was edible too. That was his instinctive  driving force- to eat, not to kill, and certainly not to display trophies in some smoky dark paneled den with a billiard table and a fireplace. 

For him, food from the wild was a gift to be sought out and savored. I can remember my Grandfather saying that anything can be made into a tasty stew, rabbit, porcupine, snake, even turtle.  He was a true believer in gastronomic diversity.  Imagine roast pigeon,  tripe, cow’s tongue, chicken feet, and of course-- brains,  to name a few.

He was was equally indiscriminate about fishing. He loved fresh water eel, and any fish really, including smelts. I remember my grandmother cooking up a a batch of sardine sized smelts dipped in cornmeal and fried crispy brown.  I never had any fish as good, and most people will never taste what I experienced.

The key to all these hunter/gatherer foods is freshness. The fish were swimming in the bucket when he cleaned them, and Gram’s frying pan was at the ready with hot oil. Today, we think fresh means, not frozen or canned, but foods that are grown or caught thousands of miles away, packed on ice and trucked or flown across country to a regional distributor, delivered to our local supermarket, then stored in a warehouse sized walk-in  cold storage unit, and finally brought out for display in small quantities to appear as though they were picked and saved just for us, is well, a big fake.  I’ve seen piles of limp, almost rotting Swiss Chard, grown 3000 miles away, drowned from over spritzing, and looking more like something I’d put in my compost pile, being sold as “fresh greens”. Yuk.

Gathering was even more exciting and surprising.  Exciting because it involved a hike or adventure, and surprising because food from the wild is a discovery. Following the seasons, he would relish whatever happened to be there for the taking at the moment. Dandelion greens and fiddlehead ferns in spring were a favorite, but later in the season, he’d find all types of mushrooms and wild carrots (Queen Anne's Lace),  and many other wild root vegetables. Fruits, melon rinds and rhubarb were canned and made into jams of incredible flavor and taste. Wild Blueberries were gathered by the bucket full.  Blueberry pies were made with a gallon of tiny pea sized berries. Summer also meant trips to the beach and buckets of periwinkles or muscles pulled from the rocks, and usually steamed, but often eaten live- - Yankee sushi.

This simple view of food being everything around us has pretty much become extinct in our way of life, and I admit, while I enjoy most of the food from the wild, some wild foods were an acquired taste, and I wouldn’t miss them.  Yet, as we drive to a Whole Foods and other fake replicas of freshness in search of something good to eat, I know my Grandfather would much rather be walking in the woods, or wading in tide pools,  and stumble onto something waiting for him to pluck and eat in a most primordial way, rather than pushing a cart down a crowded isle of busy shoppers-- pretending to be in search of fresh food.

Comments to the Mittersill Expansion

My Letter to the State opposing Mittersill Expansion:

9/28/2012

To DRED:

I would like to offer the following comments in opposition to the proposed Mittersill expansion.  Mittersill has a long history. After Mittersill closed ski operations in 1980 many devoted skiers anonymously volunteered to maintain the trails through unorganized, but dedicated attention.  For thirty years these skiers kept Mittersill from regrowing into forest.  An entire generation of skiers have enjoyed hiking up “the saddle” from the Taft Slalom Trail to gain access to trails that were more difficult to ski, but always worth the softer, natural snow surface that existed there, because the skier traffic was light and the terrain was special. Without this volunteer effort for over thirty years there would be no trails on the mountain today, and the state probably would not have been justified in returning it to operation.

When the state acquired access through the land swap with the National Forest, the sales pitch at that time was: Mittersill would remain a “backcountry like” experience, without grooming or snow making, and without widening the original trail footprint. I use the term “backcountry” loosely because true backcountry requires skiers to hike up  and this was a backcountry downhill experience without earning your turns. Unfortunately, the state has reneged on this promise. 

The first year was pretty good. The Mountain operated a bus shuttle from the Mittersill parking lot and transported skiers back to the main base area.  But after the double chairlift was installed the skier experience changed for the worse. The first year we had plenty of natural snow.  The ski lift operated for most of the winter. But the old narrow trails now had much more skier traffic and the ski conditions deteriorated, as the trails were unable to sustain the heavy traffic.   The very reason good skiers went to Mittersill was ruined. 

The second season the new chairlift  only spun a few days because we had a poor snow year. This alone makes me question the judgement of the state legislature for approving what became a $3 million expense  for a ski lift that doesn’t operate most of the time. As an aside, the shuttle bus could have continued to operate at almost no additional expense to the state, and in so doing, the state would’ve honored the pledge it advertised when they sought approval for the area in the first place-- to preserve a back country-like experience.

But having foolishly invested in a chairlift that never runs, the state is now doubling down to correct that mistake by making another one-- adding snow making. This is the final insult of the whole project. If the state wanted to develop the Mittersill area into an extension of the same skiing experience already abundantly available at Cannon, why didn’t they pursue it openly from the beginning? Has anyone in Concord ever heard of a Master Plan? Using Mittersill as a dedicated race course with snowmaking and a ski lift was never mentioned, not even once, during all the proceedings that led up to the seeking the initial approval to  acquire Mittersill.

While FSC may “gift” the improvements to the state, there remains a significant annual operating and maintenance cost. I would remind the state that the Tram (the jewel of the mountain) only operates 4 days a week during the high season because of operating costs. Additional ski lift attendants and additional snowmaking will add cost to an operation that doesn’t use the lifts already in place. Maybe the state should require an additional operating fee from FSC for the new facilities and at least make it revenue neutral.

So having expressed my opposition to this proposed expansion, I wish to convey a question to the legislature: What’s next after this? Is there any kind of Master Plan? Shouldn’t you require one? Why should the state and the people tolerate a surprise approach to the development of Cannon? While I don’t like the direction that Cannon is going today, I’d have no complaint if it came from a master plan, had been presented years ago, and followed through in a transparent and prudent manner, with people having been given the opportunity to provide input to the expansion, and see the broader picture. What could be next? I don't think you know. The state should develop a master plan, maintain it, and follow it.

Gary Way

91 Liberty Hill Rd

Bedford, NH 03110

Who are the 47% Romney doesn’t care about?

Mitt Romney has written off 47% of America citizens who don’t pay income taxes (ostensibly the poorest Americans) and he makes them sound like a bunch of government dependent freeloaders who only support Democrats because they all want more government, not less government.  He has written them all off as unreachable in the presidential race. He claims they’re all supporting Obama. He said, “...my job is not to worry about those people.  I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives...” .

 Let’s break down this group of government freeloaders and see who he’s really talking about. It’s actually closer to 46%, but you’ll get the gist of who he’s referring to:

6.9 % are non-elderly, low income earners making less than $20,000 a year. Yep, these are the poorest of the poor, and he’s right, they don’t see any value in lowering taxes on the rich, but he wants them to think that “tinkle-down” economics will be their life raft to the American dream.

10.3% are elderly retired workers.  Did I say workers? Yes, people who worked all their life and now are living out their golden years on their life savings and a modest Social Security check. It is so Republican that Mitt Romney isn’t concerned about this group of big government worshippers. In fact, he’s so uninterested in this group he and Paul Ryan would love to kill Social Security and give that responsibility to Wall St.  Yeah, those people really care about low income people.

27.3% are currently employed workers-- again, let me emphasize “workers”-- people not on welfare, who pay the payroll tax every week, but at the end of the year don’t earn enough to pay income tax. These are our waiters, maids, teachers, farm laborers, factory workers, healthcare workers, garbage collectors, janitors, secretaries, part-time students, day care providers, etc, etc, etc. These people are employed, not unemployed, not on welfare, not on food stamps, and not dependent of government handouts. They work. But if they don’t earn enough money to qualify for an income tax at the end of the year, I’m sure a Republican controlled Congress could fix that. They would love to increase the taxes on these people to fund even more tax cuts for the rich.

1% (the infamous 1%!) earn so much money they manage to avoid paying income tax through off-shore accounts and shady tax shelters only available to the super wealthy. Gee, I wonder if Mitt Romney  realizes he was talking about himself? This is one group of tax dodgers we really should  slam. This is the group who moves jobs to China, kills unions, want to kill Medicare, and destroyed the  lives of millions of Americans with their reckless gambling on Wall St. This is Mitt Romney’s core constituency.  

         These one-percenters need to start taking personal responsibility, instead of chasing unbridled greed and hoarding their wealth in the Cayman Islands, they should start fulfilling their social contract with humanity by contributing their fair share to the society that has enabled them to achieve their American dream.

Rahm Emanuel Stabbing Chicago Teachers in the Back

Chicago teachers have threatened to strike. The teachers complain that the class sizes are too large, the hours are too long, the pay is too low, the benefits are being cut and the infrastructure is crumbling. Who can disagree with them on that? 

 The Democratic Party is the only political organization that even talks the talk about  funding education. What kind of back stabbing is this anyway? They should be threatening to stay away from the Democratic Party dialing-for-dollars phone banks. That would scare the be-jesus out of Rahm Emanuel.

We need more strikes. Strikes are a good thing- a very basic form of democracy and direct participation in addressing grievances. How else can people without a voice be heard in this political world where money talks and the more money you have the louder you can talk?  

The garbage workers, truck drivers, teachers, police and firefighters, laborers and factory workers have no voice- unless they all yell together. That’s what a strike does. It makes a small voice large. Then we hear it. We may get annoyed, even inconvenienced by it, but we hear it.

Stanford Put-Down of Organic Food has Dark Roots

Stanford has made some disturbing news with the publication of a study (http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html) that claims there is no difference in nutritional value between organic food and chemically grown food. On the surface the study may actually be correct. Although many people will cite better taste or texture with organics, the nutritional value may be no different. 

 Yet the study is very careful to say that no other differences were examined- only nutrition. So some of the main reasons people prefer organics were not even addressed, like chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers,  chemically treated water, chemical herbicides to kill or suppress molds and fungus, and chemical poisons (like Round-up) used to retard weed growth. 

People don’t buy organic food to get some kind of nutritional boost that might be missing from the chemical, GMO grown produce. They buy organic food in an effort to be kinder to the environment and to keep potentially dangerous, carcinogenic  chemicals out of their bodies. Other than being a paid put-down of organics, the study serves no purpose.  

One of the key  authors of the study has  intimate connections with the tobacco industry. Stanford is also highly linked to big money financing from Cargill and Monsanto. Is the American public really going to fall for this kind of anti-science, anti-organic rhetoric coming from financial deep pockets of Monsanto? This is like the old studies funded by the tobacco industry that told us there was no link between smoking and cancer. The article below provides more background on the questionable credibility of the authors.

Busted: Co-Author of Flawed Stanford Organic Study Has Deep Ties to Big Tobacco’s Anti-Science Propaganda

Mike Adams & Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
Sept 7, 2012

Over the last several days, the mainstream media has fallen for an elaborate scientific hoax that sought to destroy the credibility of organic foods by claiming they are “no healthier” than conventional foods (grown with pesticides and GMOs). NaturalNews and NaturalSociety have learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an “anti-science” propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

The New York Times, BBC and all the other publications that printed stories based on this Stanford study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine have been victims of an elaborate scientific hoax carried out by corporate propagandists posing as “scientists.”

The evidence we show here (see below) demonstrates how this study was crafted under the influence of known anti-science fraudsters pushing a corporate agenda. Just as Big Tobacco sought to silence the emerging scientific evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoke, the biotech industry today is desperately seeking to silence calls for GMO labeling and honest, chemical-free food. The era is different, but the anti-science tactics are the same (and many of the quack science players are the same!).

Flawed organic food study author Ingram Olkin chief statistical ‘liar’ for Big Tobacco

Here’s a document from 1976 which shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin, co-author of the recent organic foods study.

The so-called “research project” was proposed by Olkin, who was also at one time the chairman of Stanford’s Department of Statistics.

Olkin worked with Stanford University to develop a “multivariate” statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics (or to confuse people with junk science). As this page describes on the use of these statistical models: “Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality.”

This research ultimately became known as the “Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function” and it was a key component in Big Tobacco’s use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe.

This research originated at Stanford, where Ingram headed the Department of Statistics, and ultimately supported the quack science front to reject any notion that cigarettes might harm human health. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: “The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!” (http://andrewgelman.com/2012/09/cigarettes/)

By the way, if today’s “skeptics” and “science bloggers” were around in the 1950′s and 60′s, they would all be promoters of cigarette smoking because that was the corporate-funded scientific mythology being pushed at the time. Back then it was tobacco, today it’s vaccines and pesticides. New century, new poisons, same old quack science.

The evil Council of Tobacco Research

As the evidence clearly shows, Ingram Olkin has a history of collaboration with tobacco industry giants who sought to silence the physicians speaking out regarding the dangers of cigarettes. One such entity known as the Council of Tobacco Research (CTR) has been openly exposed as paying off publication companies and journalists with more than $500,000 (about $3,000,000 today after adjusting for inflation) as far back as 1968 in order to generate pro-smoking propaganda. The kind of “dark propaganda” serves only to deceive and confuse consumers with phony, fabricated “scientific evidence.”

It all seems eerily similar to the organics-bashing story that just recently appeared in the New York Times, written by proven liar Roger Cohen .

CTR was part of the massive Tobacco Institute, which was essentially a colossal group of cigarette corporations using quack science to attempt to hide the true effects of cigarettes from the public. CTR was a key player in attempting to defeat the monumental case known as the Framingham Heart Study (http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/) — a historical research project that linked cigarette smoking to heart disease. It was during this time that Olkin applied to the CTR in order to oversee and conduct a project smearing and ‘disproving’ the Framingham study.

This can be proven simply by examining the words of the cigarette manufacturer lawyers who were desperate to defeat the potentially devastating heart study. In their own documents, they state:

“I met with Dr. Olkin and Dr. Marvin Kastenbaum [Tobacco Institute Statistics Director] on December 17, 1975, at which time we discussed Dr. Olkin’s interest in multivariate analysis statistical models. Dr. Olkin is well qualified and is very articulate. I learned, in visiting with Dr. Olkin, that he would like to examine the theoretical structure of the “multivariate logistic risk function.”

In an even more telling statement, Olvin’s “sidekick” Dr. Kastenbaum, was revealed to be highly knowledgeable “tobacco industry’s participation in the public disinformation regarding the health hazards of tobacco use, the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and the marketing of tobacco products to children.” In other words, these scientists were part of a massive deception campaign intended to smear any real information over the serious dangers of cigarette smoking using ‘black ops’ disinformation techniques.

This deception campaign is being paralleled once again, in 2012, with the quack science assault on organics (and a simultaneous defense of GMOs). Biotech = Big Tobacco. “GMOs are safe” is the same as “cigarettes are safe.” Both can be propagandized with fraudulent science funded by corporate donations to universities.

Dr. Kastenbaum, by the way, went on to become the Director of Statistics for the Tobacco Institute intermittently from 1973 to 1987. Another name for his job role is “corporate science whore.”

Organics study co-author was hired to perform scientific “hatchet jobs”

Further documents (http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/521028845-8850.html) go on to state that Olkin then received a grant from the CTR for his work alongside disinformation specialist Dr. Katenbaum in an effort to perform “deliberate hatchet jobs” on the heart study as described by author Robert N. Proctor Golden in his book entitled Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. Golden explains how Olkin was paid off along with others to falsely testify in Congress that cigarette smoking did not harm the heart:

“George L. Saiger from Columbia University received CTR Special Project funds ‘to seek to reduce the correlation of smoking and disease by introduction of additional variables’; he also was paid $10,873 in 1966 to testify before Congress, denying the cigarette-cancer link…”

This was the same organization that paid what amounts after inflation to over one million dollars to journalists and major publications to disseminate phony information supporting their claims. It’s also important to note that during this time Olkin was still prominently placed within Stanford, remaining so even after openly concealing the truth about the cigarette heart disease link from the public.

Now, Olkin’s newest research fails to address any real factors in the difference between conventional GMO-loaded food and organic. At the same time, it absolutely reeks of the similar ‘black ops’ disinformation campaigns from the 1960′s and 70′s in which he was heavily involved.

• A D V E R T I S E M E N T
• 
  
  

Make no mistake: The Stanford organics study is a fraud. Its authors are front-men for the biotech industry which has donated millions of dollars to Stanford. The New York Times and other publications that published articles based on this research got hoaxed by Big Tobacco scientists who are documented, known liars and science fudgers.

Stanford secrecy, plus ties to Monsanto and Cargill

Stanford receives more secret donations than any other university in the U.S. In 2009 alone, these donations totaled well over half a billion dollars.

There’s little doubt that many of these donations come from wealthy corporations who seek to influence Stanford’s research, bending the will of the science departments to come into alignment with corporate interests (GMOs, pesticides, etc.).

Who is George H Poste?

• Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
• Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
• Served on the Monsanto board since February 2003.
• Former member of the Defense Science Board of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Stanford University has also accepted $5 million in donations from food giant Cargill (a big supporter of the biotech industry) in order to expand Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). “Food security” is a euphemism for genetically engineered crops. Much of the research conducted there is done to try to advocate GMOs.

Cargill has also donated big dollars to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California.

The “scientific” Hall of Shame – a list of scientists funded by the Tobacco industry to fake scientific results

The CRT is the Council of Tobacco Research — essentially a scientific front group that was set up to attempt to invoke “science” to “prove” that cigarettes were not bad for your health.

This list just proves how easily scientists sell out to corporate interests when given grant money. Remember: What Big Tobacco pulled off with fake science in the 20th century, Big Biotech is pulling off yet again today.

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496-4.pdf

Documents reflect that, at a minimum, the following individuals and organizations received funding through Special Account No. 4 beginning in the 1960s and ending in the 1990s:

Able-Lands, Inc.; Lauren Ackerman; ACVA Atlantic Inc.; George Albee; Aleph Foundation; Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Aspen Conference; Atmospheric Health Sciences; Domingo Aviado; James Ballenger; Alvan L. Barach; Walter Barker; Broda 0. Barnes; Battelle Columbus Laboratories; Battelle Memorial Institute; Walter Becker; Peter Berger; Rodger L. Bick; Billings & Gussman, Inc.; Richard Bing; BioResearch Laboratories; Theodore Blau; Irvin Blose; Walter Booker; Evelyn J. Bowers; Thomas H. Brem; Lyman A. Brewer, III; Brigham Young University; Oliver Brooke; Richard Brotman; Barbara B. Brown; K. Alexander Brownlee; Katherine Bryant; Victor B. Buhler; Thomas Burford; J. Harold Burn; Marie Burnett; Maurice Campbell; Carney Enterprises, Inc.; Duane Carr; Rune Cederlof; Domenic V. Cicchetti; Martin Cline; Code Consultants Inc.; Cohen, Coleghety Foundation, Inc.; Colucci, & Associates, Inc.; Computerland; W. Clark Cooper; A. Cosentino; Daniel Cox; Gertrude Cox; CTR; Geza De Takato; Bertram D. Dimmens; Charles Dunlap; Henry W. Elliott; Engineered Energy Mgt. Inc.; Environmental Policy Institute; J. Earle Estes; Frederick J. Evans; William Evans; Expenses related to Congressional Hearings in Washington D.C.; Hans J. Eysenck; Eysenck Institute of Psychiatry; Jack M. Farris; Sherwin J. Feinhandler; Alvan R. Feinstein; Herman Feldman; Edward Fickes; T. Finley; Melvin First; Edwin Fisher; R. Fisher; Merritt W. Foster; Richard Freedman; Herbert Freudenberger; Fudenberg; Arthur Furst; Nicholas Gerber; Menard M. Gertler; Jean Gibbons; Carl Glasser; Donald Goodwin; B. Greenberg; Alan Griffen; F. Gyntelberg; Harvard Medical School; Hearings-Kennedy-Hart Bill; William Heavlin; Norman Heimstra; Joseph Herkson; Richard J. Hickey; Carlos Hilado; Charles H. Hine; Hine, Inc.; Harold C. Hodge; Gary Huber; Wilhelm C. Hueper; Darrell Huff; Duncan Hutcheon; Industry Research Liaison Committee; Information Intersciences, Inc.; International Consultancy; International Technology Corporation; International Information Institute, Inc.; J.B. Spalding Statistical Service; J.F. Smith Research Account; Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan; Joseph Janis; Roger Jenkins; Marvin Kastenbaum; Leo Katz; Marti Kirschbaum; Kravetz Levine & Spotnitz; Lawrence L. Kuper; Mariano La Via; H. Langston; William G. Leaman; Michael Lebowitz; Samuel B. Lehrer; William Lerner; Edward Raynar Levine; G.J. Lieberman; S.C. Littlechild; Eleanor Macdonald; Thomas Mancuso; Nathan Mantel; R. McFarland; Meckler Engineering Group; Milton Meckler; Nancy Mello; Jack Mendelson; Michigan State University; Marc Micozzi; Irvin Miller; K. Moser; Albert Niden; Judith O’Fallon; John O’Lane; William Ober; J.H. Ogura; Ronald Okun; Ingram Olkin; Thomas Osdene (Philip Morris); Peat, Marwick Main & Co.; Thomas L. Petty; Pitney, Hardin & Kipp; Leslie Preger; Walter J. Priest; R. Proctor; Terrence P. Pshler; Public Smoking Research Group; R.W. Andersohn & Assoc.; L.G.S. Rao; Herbert L. Ratcliffe; Attilio Renzetti; Response Analysis Project; Response Analysis Consultation; R.H. Rigdon; Jay Roberts; Milton B. Rosenblatt; John Rosencrans; Walter Rosenkrantz; Ray H. Rosenman; Linda Russek; Henry Russek; Ragnar Rylander; George L. Saiger; D.E. Sailagyi; I. Richard Savage; Richard S. Schilling; Schirmer Engineering Corp.; S. Schor; G.N. Schrauzer; Charles Schultz; John Schwab; Carl L. Seltzer; Murray Senkus (Reynolds); Paul Shalmy; R. Shilling; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Henry Shotwell; Allen Silberberg; N. Skolnik; JF Smith; Louis A. Soloff; Sheldon C. Sommers (CTR); JB Spalding; Charles Spielberg; Charles Spielberger; Lawrence Spielvogel; St. George Hospital & Medical School; Stanford Research Institution Project; Russell Stedman; Arthur Stein; Elia Sterling; Theodor Sterling; Thomas Szasz; The Foundation for Research in Bronchial Asthma and Related Diseases; The Futures Group; Paul Toannidis; Trenton, New Jersey Hearings; Chris P. Tsokos; University of South Florida; Helmut Valentin; Richard Wagner; Norman Wall; Wayne State University; Weinberg Consulting Group; Roger Wilson; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Jack Wiseman; George Wright; John P. Wyatt; J. Yerushalmy; and Irving Zeidman.

This post originally appeared at Natural Society

Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds

BY MICHELLE BRANDT

Crystal Smith-Spangler and her colleagues reviewed many of the studies comparing organic and conventionally grown food, and found little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious.

You’re in the supermarket eyeing a basket of sweet, juicy plums. You reach for the conventionally grown stone fruit, then decide to spring the extra $1/pound for its organic cousin. You figure you’ve just made the healthier decision by choosing the organic product — but new findings from Stanford University cast some doubt on your thinking.

“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

The popularity of organic products, which are generally grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones, is skyrocketing in the United States. Between 1997 and 2011, U.S. sales of organic foods increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion, and many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these products. Organic foods are often twice as expensive as their conventionally grown counterparts.

RELATED NEWS

• » Scope blog: Reaction to organic food study

Although there is a common perception — perhaps based on price alone — that organic foods are better for you than non-organic ones, it remains an open question as to the health benefits. In fact, the Stanford study stemmed from Bravata’s patients asking her again and again about the benefits of organic products. She didn’t know how to advise them.

So Bravata, who is also chief medical officer at the health-care transparency company Castlight Health, did a literature search, uncovering what she called a “confusing body of studies, including some that were not very rigorous, appearing in trade publications.” There wasn’t a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence that included both benefits and harms, she said.

“This was a ripe area in which to do a systematic review,” said first author Smith-Spangler, who jumped on board to conduct the meta-analysis with Bravata and other Stanford colleagues.

For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze. Those included 17 studies (six of which were randomized clinical trials) of populations consuming organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies that compared either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) grown organically and conventionally. There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called “tons of analyses.”

“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Smith-Spangler, who is also an instructor of medicine at the School of Medicine. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.”

The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products. While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the significance of these findings on child health is unclear. Additionally, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is also unclear.

As for what the findings mean for consumers, the researchers said their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. “If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional,” noted Bravata. She listed taste preferences and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons people choose organic products.

“Our goal was to shed light on what the evidence is,” said Smith-Spangler. “This is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations.”

She also said that people should aim for healthier diets overall. She emphasized the importance of eating of fruits and vegetables, “however they are grown,” noting that most Americans don’t consume the recommended amount.

In discussing limitations of their work, the researchers noted the heterogeneity of the studies they reviewed due to differences in testing methods; physical factors affecting the food, such as weather and soil type; and great variation among organic farming methods. With regard to the latter, there may be specific organic practices (for example, the way that manure fertilizer, a risk for bacterial contamination, is used and handled) that could yield a safer product of higher nutritional quality.

“What I learned is there’s a lot of variation between farming practices,” said Smith-Spangler. “It appears there are a lot of different factors that are important in predicting nutritional quality and harms.”

Other Stanford co-authors are Margaret Brandeau, PhD, the Coleman F. Fung Professor in the School of Engineering; medical students Grace Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger and Maren Pearson; research assistant Paul Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH, assistant director for research at CHP/PCOR; Hau Liu, MD, MBA, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Stanford and senior director at Castlight Health; Patricia Schirmer, MD, infectious disease physician with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System; medical librarian Christopher Stave, MLS; and Ingram Olkin, PhD, professor emeritus of statistics and of education. The authors received no external funding for this study.

Information about Stanford’s Department of Medicine, which supported the work, is available at http://medicine.stanford.edu. The Center for Health Policy is a unit of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford.

PRINT MEDIA CONTACT

Michelle Brandt | Tel (650) 723-0272

mbrandt@stanford.edu

BROADCAST MEDIA CONTACT

M.A. Malone | Tel (650) 723-6912

mamalone@stanford.edu

Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. For more information, please visit the Office of Communication & Public Affairs site at http://mednews.stanford.edu/.

The GOP 72 Hour Lie-a-thon Rolls On!

We’ve heard it all this week, but not one statement of truth uttered in 72 hours.

Ryan chastised Obama for doing nothing about the recommendations to reduce the deficit provided by the bi-partisan Simpson/Boles committee. Yet Ryan was on that committee and he voted against the recommendations.

The Republicans are claiming that Obama is cutting Medicare by 700 billion over 10 years. Since when are Republicans opposed to cutting Medicare?! Only when the cuts are to their private for-profit health insurance cronies who have been getting federal subsidies for the Medicare Advantage program that is designed to kill traditional Medicare by making private insurers “appear” more competitive than they really are. The Republicans are honor bound to fight against those  cuts because they’ve been paid by the lobbies to keep those subsidies flowing. 

The Republicans are running ads that claim Obama has eliminated the “work for welfare” requirement that has been in force since Clinton. That is an outright lie. The requirement has not been eliminated. The states wanted relief from the requirement and federal government has said they will consider waivers if the states make a case for doing it that still shows an increase in work for welfare. That’s the farthest thing in the world from eliminating the work  requirement. (I personally believe that forcing a single mom with kids to work for welfare is has negative consequences. If she gets a minimum wage job she has to use it all to pay for childcare while she’s working.)

The Republicans say the whole campaign is about jobs, yet they have nothing to offer that will create jobs  except saying that Government should get out of the way so they can do what?Underpay workers, ignore health and safety regulations, avoid inspections, pollute the air, ground and water with no liability, and kill unions so workers are at the mercy of the corporations and government whims to name a few.

And while they want Government to get out of the way of business, they’re busy getting in the way between doctors and patients by  pushing for anti-abortion laws that require procedural rape with mandatory vaginal probes prior to receiving an abortion, except of course unless it’s a “legitimate” rape.

They also want to slash spending, except for the defense budget, which they want to increase to record levels.  The military industrial lobby is paying politicians dearly to ensure that  defense spending stays untouched. Which means social programs would be the sole means to cut spending, but hey, yet they seem to want to keep Medicare untouched by the way they accuse Obama of cutting Medicare spending. So how are they going to cut spending and reduce the deficit? They aren’t.  They can’t.  Only higher taxes will balance the budget and Republicans will never agree to do that.

Finally, one truism in Tampa. The National Debt is flashed in real-time and below it in larger letters is a declaration, “We Built it!”.

GOP’s Relentless Goal to Privatize America

 Let’s face it, Republicans want the least amount of government. That’s the Republican credo. They’re proud of it. They want an unregulated free enterprise economy where they can earn as much money as their hard work will produce, and keep what they earn.  That sounds like the America we all live and die for, but what if we look a little deeper? 

While these hard working people are seeking the American Dream, other people are suffering, many through no fault of their own, and through no fault of these hard working folks either, but they are suffering. I assert that we have a social contract with each other, some would also say a religious obligation, to care for these people in need. Before Social Security and Medicare (that are self funded), before Medicaid, before school lunch programs came along, sure, some people were cared for by family and friends, but many were not. And they suffered. As a nation we benignly stood by and looked the other way as they suffered. That was socially irresponsible. 

When these safety net social programs were enacted by the Democrats, people were finally able to live out their lives with a little dignity; the children were cared for; people finally received healthcare they were either too poor or too proud to seek through “handouts”, and our great country became a better place by taking the high road of accepting social responsibility. 

Republicans like to think social responsibility is an individual thing and should be dealt with totally within the private sector, or at the local level, but it clearly didn’t work before Social Security was enacted. As a country, we were morally negligent. 

When President Obama says Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare “as a we know it”, this is what he means- the private sector had over a hundred years to make it work and they failed to do so. Going back to a dependence on the private and local sector to meet our social obligations is a giant step backwards, from the current system of “we’re all in this together”, and back to a system that never worked. That’s what ending these programs “as we know it” means. Americans should fight these relentless Republican attempts to “privatize America” and work to make these programs that have proven to be effective even better in the future.

Ryan/Romney on Medicare- More Profiteering on the Sick and Elderly

Democrats enact cuts to a social program and the Republicans are complaining about it? That's backwards. Let's think about why Republicans are opposed to Medicare cuts and why they want to implement vouchers to the states. 

First of all, it is absurd to think that converting Medicare to a voucher system and having the states provide private for-profit insurance programs for the elderly will provide better healthcare. All private for-profit insurance programs are more expensive than Medicare. The cost of administration, the high salaries of the insurance corporations, the advertising and most significant of all, the profit motive, all make private for-profit insurance plans more expensive than Medicare.  

The only way private for-profit insurance companies can reduce the cost of healthcare is by reducing healthcare. That's what they do. They deny services. They drop sick people from their policies. They refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions. They are the gate-keeper between you and your doctor. They do everything they can to minimize services and maximize their profit. 

Yes, private for-profit insurance companies can save money and reduce cost, but the victims of reduced cost are the patients, you and me. How else can a for-profit healthcare insurer, with a 20 to 30% higher overhead  produce a lower cost? They can't. 

The elements of Medicare that the Affordable Care Act is phasing out is not traditional Medicare (Plans A and B). It's the Federal taxpayer subsidies to private healthcare insurers for Medicare Advantage (Plan C) that are being eliminated. The private for-profit insurance companies can not compete with Medicare without these subsidies. This was a Bush era GOP plan designed to privatize Medicare and begin to "wean" the seniors off traditional Medicare by making private for-profit insurers "appear" to be more efficient. But they are not, and they should be eliminated.  

Ask yourself why Republicans are complaining about Medicare cost reductions? Doesn't that smell fishy? Isn't it ideologically backwards that Democrats proposed cost cuts to a social program and Republicans are complaining about it? It's because the subsidies to their big health insurance corporations are being cut, and the political payola they receive from these fat cats demands that they fight back.That's why Republicans are acting all pious and critical about the cuts.

And some states (all in the south) would take the vouchers and buy dump trucks with the money. They'd exercise their 10th Amendment states right to do nothing, or worse, implement a program that takes care of the rich and ignores the poor (immigrants and African-Americans), as they do today with education.

The healthcare system will continue to be broken until we adopt Medicare for everyone and eliminate all private for-profit health insurance companies.  The very notion of profiteering on the sick and the elderly is obscene, unethical and shameful. 

Focus on Air Pollution, not Climate Change

I'd like to digress from the debate about anthropological vs natural global warming, and challenge our thinking about why we should care.  Does it really matter whether the planet is warming naturally or because we played a part in stoking the global furnace?  Consensus is building that the planet is getting warmer. But just because the planet is getting warmer, are we compelled to do something about it, regardless of whether it's a natural event or manufactured by human activity? 

I remember when air pollution was the rallying cry of environmentalists.  And so much has been done to clean up our air. But when did the world turn away from our seemingly united focus of fighting air pollution and redirect all of our energy towards  fighting climate change?  I don't understand what happened. The arguments for and against climate change, and what, if anything, should be done about it seems to obscure a more fundamental problem- good old fashioned air pollution. I realize that there are health impacts of having a warmer planet, but hey, we lived without air conditioning for all but the last fifty years. We can adapt to temperature change, but we can't adapt to poison in our air.

We've been living with the Clean Air Act for over forty years.  Our air is cleaner today than it was back in 1970, despite our continued and much greater use of fossil fuels. The cars and power plants are all running cleaner today than ever before. Is that battle won? Is it good enough?  Is that why we have swung our  focus over to climate change?  

I don't know.  But dirty air is something everyone could rally behind and did support for the most part. Climate change isn't. The pros and cons of climate change are vigorously defended, and we seem to be in a political stalemate. Perhaps the naysayers are on to something here. Perhaps climate change isn't the life or death issue that air pollution is.

My personal view of climate change is we have to live with it, whether we created it or not, and little can be done to avert it except to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions.  The carbon stored in the ground originally came from vegetation. Granted, it took a long time to collect and store the carbon - possibly millions of years - and we're hell-bent to pull it all out of the earth in hundreds of years. That could be a troublesome discontinuity for the planet. But the earth  has endured continuous and dramatic climate change in the past, without us.  

Our moral outrage today seems to stem from a view that we sinned against the planet, and therefore we should undo it, as some kind of mea culpa to mother nature. From my perspective, that alone is not a good enough reason to spend inordinate amounts of time, resources and money to try and make amends. We have better and more life threatening issues to deal with- like poverty, literacy, healthcare, infrastructure, and human coexistence on a shrinking planet.

So I really don't care if the planet warms up. Actually, I don't even mind if gets warmer. I'd care a lot more if the planet cooled down. But I'm from New Hampshire.  I watch videos of melting glaciers and see nothing unnatural about it. What is the impact of melting polar caps? More water, less ice. What is the impact of polar bears and penguins? They move and yes, some may be lost to climate change, but didn't we also lose all of our dinosaurs? Polar bears have been migrating across the earth in search of food in the midst of climate change for a very long time, and they're still around. 

OK, if the sea level rises we have a problem. There will be low land flooding to fend off, but Venice, Holland and New Orleans have been dealing with that for hundreds of years. If we have to address rising seas, it isn't  today's problem, or next year, or not even in ten years. Fifty or a hundred years from now the rise in sea level could be significant, but we're the most adaptable animal on the planet. We can deal with that. There's time to deal with that.

People warn about the cost of climate change. Good point. It may very well have a huge cost impact. But in political terms, that means jobs. Who pays for the jobs will be a long unending debate, but if anything, climate change will be a major economic engine in the next hundred years. And I'm sure that any island or country that is too poor to deal with rising sea level will survive by migrating inland, just as humans have done for 30 thousand years or more. 

We forget that civilizations are building on top of older structures all the time. That's why archeologists have to dig so deep to uncover thousand year old relics and cities. A thousand years from now  archeologists will likely be doing under water exploration of many current seaside communities.

So,  why should we be concerned about global warming or climate change??? I'm not. I will fight for cleaner air, but not against  warmer air.  I can live with warmer air, as long as it's clean.

America- The Best Democracy Money can Buy

This presidential election will likely set a new record for the cost of buying presidential influence. Both candidates may spend close to a billion dollars. When you include the Congressional races, the total cost is closer to 2 billion dollars. And, we the people, are forced to endure a continuous gauntlet of mudslinging TV commercials (where most of the money is spent)  that are mostly lies or half-truths, and all viciously attacking the opponent.  I'm fighting back. I'm turning off commercial TV until after the election. At least there is some solace in knowing their money isn't reaching me.

One has to ask, why do people and corporations donate so much money to campaigns? The answer certainly isn't for unconditional love of our country. Obviously, they expect favors - big favors - or legislation that makes their political investment pay off. Or worse yet, they expect to manipulate the arms of government to bend regulations, ease up on audits and inspections, or have key government employees look the other way so they can maximize their corporate profits at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment, and posterity.

One also has to ask, when did politics become so sleazy, and has it always been like this? I'm afraid to say, "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". In fact there are 535 Santa Clauses in Washington. But unlike the real Santa, all the letters to these Santas are stuffed with money. 

Why aren't people doing anything about political corruption? The answer is they are at the state level, to some extent, but not where it really matters, at the federal level. Public financing of state elections is taking hold little by little, but public financing at the federal level is just never gonna happen. The stakes of special interests are way too high, and their pockets are way too deep to win that fight. Time after time, legislation to reform federal election financing fails to even make it out of sub-committees. The special interest lobbies are in effect, "too big to fail" and too big to kill.

The system is so corrupt, the very idea of election finance reform is shot down as being un-American -- even labeled as a socialist agenda that would undermine the foundation of our American election process. They even accuse politicians who support grassroots election finance reform as demagogues- exploiters of the poor and undereducated class- for their personal gain. They paint the enemy to be the villain so the people won't see the real bad guys- the manipulators of our democracy.

If you compare politics to a baseball game you can get an idea of just how sick and crazy our democracy is. Imagine a baseball game that goes like this. The home team needs a win to stay in the pennant race. The game is tied. It's the bottom of the ninth inning and the home team has the bases loaded with two outs. A walk would bring home the winning run. So the batter comes up the plate, turns to the umpire, and asks, "How much is it gonna cost me for a walk?" They chat about it, and the batter hands the ump a big wad of cash. Then the ump calls four straight pitches "balls", walks the batter and they win the game. 

You might ask, where was the opposition during this? Why didn't they protest? Chances are the other team already had a future deal bought and paid for that was more important to them. They may have even agreed to lose this game in exchange for a win against another team. So they let this one go.  

That would be just like having a Senator vote for welfare subsidies (even though he's opposed to it) in exchange for buying a vote on defense spending (that he cares more about).  It's graciously called compromise, or give and take, but really it's sausage in the making, and it stinks.

If baseball were played like Congress operates, we wouldn't even know the the rules of the game. The rules would change as the special interests funneled their money into every crack and crevasse of government to serve their interests. They are "fracking" the political system in search of the mother lode.

Bill Veeck, the hilarious owner of the old St Louis Browns,  had a field day with baseball rules and did some very funny things to get people into the ballpark. He once set up an outfield fence that was moveable. When his team was at bat, he'd move the fence in. When the opponent was at bat, he'd move the fence out. After that incident, baseball re-wrote the rules to insist the fence stay in a fixed position, but prior to that, there was no rule about the fence, so it was fair game. 

Politics is the same way- all the time.  They manipulate the system for special interests and walk on the very precipice of legality. When it's unethical, yet legal, they try to get away with it, unless somebody makes a big stink. If they get caught, the pious lawmakers scurry around sticking their fingers in the money dike, and extract their pound of flesh by throwing one or more of their own to the dogs as a scapegoat.   The sad thing is, they have to get caught before they'll do anything about it. They know right from wrong. Yet, they have no problem doing the wrong thing if it isn't technically "illegal".

That's how our government works. That's what a billion dollars in election funding is buying. That's the American way. If it was baseball, we'd say they were all a corrupt bunch of sleaze bags. But because it's politics, we accept it. The Supreme Court even endorses the process as an expression of free speech and granted corporations "personhood" so the could contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. 

So, I'm sitting this one out. I plan to write-in Jill Stein from the Green Party. I like her and what she stands for. And you can be sure that a person who has no chance of winning is incorruptible. 

I'll close my rant by quoting what Representative Barney Frank had to say about campaign financing: "We are the only people in the world required by law to take large amounts of money from strangers and then act as if it has no effect on our behavior."

Chick-fil-A Holds a "Let's Hate Gays" Appreciation Day

Conservatives are protesting like crazy and citing how liberals are trying to suppress free speech by boycotting Chick-fil-A. I don't buy it. No one is trying to silence Dan Cathy from expressing his opinion. He is free to say whatever he wants. People are also free to express their support or opposition to his view, and they are. The First Amendment is alive and well. I don't see what the big deal is.

Cathy has expressed a view that many people consider to be arcane, if not bigoted. And like-minded people are showing their support for his bigotry, and other people are also expressing their disapproval of his bigotry. Chick-fil-A (what a stupid name- reminds me of Freedom Fries) held a nationwide Chick-fil-A  Appreciation Day yesterday. People who support his bigoted position showed up in large herds, standing in long (straight) lines, just so they could be seen as "straight and proud of it". 

The whole thing kind of reminds me of the fried chicken owner in Georgia, Lester Maddox, who publicly voiced his bigotry and his opposition to integration back in the sixties. He went on to be elected the Governor of Georgia. Who knows, there are a lot of bigoted people out there. Perhaps Dan Cathy has political ambitions too. 

ps- How does a guy with name like Cathy end up hating gays anyway???

Dr Sally Ride- An Astronaut and Astrophysicist of Distinction

Our first American female astronaut, Sally Ride, died at the age of 61 from cancer, and the obituary cites her long time same sex partner. The news story then becomes she's "outed" in her obituary.

Here's a woman who had a PHD in Astrophysics from Stanford, who led a life that inspired millions of young women by her achievements, and yet, the fact that she was a Lesbian and she didn't tell anybody is the news. How thoroughly sophomoric of the press. 

Dr Ride felt that her achievements were based on her ability, and her gender was not an issue. She would've just as soon have had no more publicity than any other astronaut when she first went into space. Yet, our society demanded publicity, almost as a "see, women can do that too" kind of justification for her participation in the space program. 

Someday society will look upon women only for what they do, and not act surprised by their achievements or even feel the need to comment on their gender.  They  perform equally well in their work. Maybe someday they will even get equal pay for their work; even though we have a law that says they should now. Maybe someday they won't have to be "outed either". They'll just be who they are, doing what they do very well, as Dr Sally Ride would want.

Apple Says "Oops, We Made a Mistake"

Pulling out of EPEAT (the industry's Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool), and a national  measure of a product's "greenness",  may have been the brain child of a number cruncher squirreled away in some dark room trying to maximize profits, but the backlash from the consuming public was swift, and the  company's image as a corporation that cares about the environment turned brown faster than a rotten apple. 

The bean counters evidently hadn't placed enough value on "greenness" in their number crunching.  Surprise, surprise! Obviously, the number crunchers did a quick update based on the massive negative reaction from the consumer and Apple changed their position almost overnight. 

They know their market.  Many of their customers have a little more money in their pockets than the average consumer. ( Search engines even steer Apple users to more expensive products and services because they know this). They eat their kale, buy expensive "wild caught" seafood, shop at farmer's markets, drive a Prius, use CFAs, recycle their trash,  own energy efficient homes, and generally spend a little more for things in the interest of having a greener planet. Apple's environmental conscientiousness may be way more perception than reality, but it's perception that counts.

The new Retina  Macbook Pro is the culprit that started the row. The new laptop is not easily serviceable and key parts are not replaceable. The battery and display can't be salvaged and recycled, so rather than sell a product with a bad environmental rating, they decided to flex their corporate muscle and leave the program. In returning to EPEAT, Apple made noises like they will continue to stay in the program for "all eligible products". I interpret that to mean if it's a rotten Apple they won't tell us.

One thing is certain, staying in EPEAT must be more profitable than dropping out, or they wouldn't have come back. That may be the lesson learned by this action. Today, people care enough about the environment to pay a little more for their products if it means having a greener planet, or the perception of one. 

I've enclosed this article for reference:

• Share21
• Email

• Charles Arthur
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 July 2012 03.04 EDT
• Jump to comments (13)

Apple Retina Macbook Pro: has faced criticism as its RAM and storage are not user-serviceable or replaceable

Apple has been forced into an embarrassing volte-face, announcing that it would rejoin the American EPEAT environmental ratings system for electronic products just days after leaving it.

The reversal of the announcement, described by a senior Apple executive as a "mistake", was apparently forced on the company by government agencies, schools and scientists which use EPEAT – the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool – to certify the environmental credentials of computers they are considering purchasing.

Bob Mansfield, Apple's senior vice-president of hardware engineering,wrote in an open letter on Apple's site that "We've recently heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed to learn that we had removed our products from the EPEAT rating system. I recognise that this was a mistake. Starting today, all eligible Apple products are back on EPEAT."

He insisted that "our commitment to protecting the environment has never changed, and today it is as strong as ever".

Apple's move last week looked as though it could lead to a domino effect in which companies and government contractors might stop buying its products due to the lack of EPEAT certification. The city of San Francisco announced that it would stop buying Apple computers, and then to reassessments by US government agencies. Although Apple's corporate sales are far smaller than rivals such as HP and Dell, such contracts are still important both for reputation and long-term stability.

EPEAT only applies to computers, but not tablets or phones. It was introduced in 2006, and is based on the IEEE 1680.1 standard. That covers elements such as the reduction or elimination of environmentally sensitive materials, material selection, design for end of life (wheh the product is replaced), product longevity/life extension, energy conservation (during manufacture and use), end-of-life management, corporate performance and packaging.

Apple has in the past year touted its own green credentials, most recently by announcing an internal initiative to use cleaner energy sources for its data farms in North Carolina. But it has come in for criticism from third parties for the design of its laptop products, notably the top-end Retina MacBook Pro, in which the RAM and storage are glued into the machine and are not user-serviceable or replaceable.

EPEAT bills itself as a global registry to which consumers can turn for information when shopping for greener electronics. According toEPEAT's website, its users include federal and state government agencies, colleges, and several private corporations such as Ford and KPMG.

Apple's decision this month to stop participating in the registry would have affected computer-related purchasing decisions by governments and universities because many them are required to use hardware that has been rated by EPEAT.

The city of San Francisco, for example, has a policy that its computers, laptops and monitors must be EPEAT "gold" rated.

Customers contacted Apple directly, which played a "critical part" in getting Apple back on the registry, said EPEAT chief executive Robert Frisbee.

"The scientific community in the US government are big users of Apple," Frisbee said, adding that they were "particularly influential" in convincing the tech giant to resume its participation.

Mansfield in his letter said that "Our relationship with EPEAT has become stronger as a result of this experience" and that Apple looked forward to working on the underlying IEEE 1680.1 standard used to build the tool.