New studies: cancer linked to milk consumption

My mom was a meat, eggs, and milk gal. To her way of thinking, animal protein was the key to good health. Breakfast was bacon, eggs, and milk, period. If my brothers and I were running late for school, she made us gulp down a blend of raw eggs and milk. I loathed that "yellow milk."

Things have changed since then. My parents both died of cancer and my own children are in their twenties. When my two kids were teenagers, we gave up meat as a family and later gave up eggs and cartons of dairy milk - for environmental, humane, and health considerations.

Cheese was harder

For a while I continued to rationalize eating cheese and ice cream. I told myself it was okay because the cows weren't killed, they were just milked. But while researching and writing our book Veggie Revolution, my daughter Sadie and I learned the truth about dairy cows. It's not a pretty picture - in terms of the planet, the cows, or our health.

A dairy cow at a milking machine. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Humane considerations: "A cow is just a milk factory" he said with a smirk

A dairy scientist we interviewed at N.C. State University told us, "A dairy cow is just a milk factory.  There's not much quality of life." He's right. Modern dairy cows are among the most exploited of all factory-farmed livestock. In order to offer milk at competitive prices in supermarkets, dairymen today push the cows to their physiological limits to produce as much milk as their bovine bodies possibly can. Whereas cows 100 years ago could produce milk for a farmer's family for 10 to 12 years, the typical dairy cow nowadays burns out after only 3 years of milking. She wears out for four reasons: 1) she's pregnant for nine months every year, 2) she's milked for 10 months every year, in spite of being pregnant, 3) most dairy cows are given injections of the hormone BST (also called BGH) to maximize milk production, and 4) her leg joints give out from standing on concrete while she's heavy with pregnancy and a full udder.

So when she loses her ability to walk, or fails to become pregnant, or her milk production drops too low, she's "culled from the herd" and slaughtered. Her meat is sold for low-quality packaged beef products such as potted meat or beef hot-dogs.About 30% of the herd at a conventional dairy is "culled" every year.

Veal is the male calves of dairy cows

Eating dairy products is not more humane than eating beef. Beef cattle spend 5 or 6 comfortable months with their mothers at pasture before heading to the factory-like feedlot to be fattened for slaughter.  Whereas, male calves of dairy cows are often kept tethered and immobile beginning 24 hours from birth, to be sold in a few months as veal. (Veal is muscles that have had no exercise whatsoever; the meat is pale and tender as a result.) The female calves of dairy cows become impregnated at about 1.5 years of age and go "on the milk string" by their 2nd birthday. Calves of both genders are separated from their mothers after 24 hours so the mother's milk can be sold to humans.

 

Dairy cows waiting to be milked. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Environmental issues: Dairy cows win the poop contest

Dairy cows make a lot of waste. One beef steer makes 50-60 lbs of waste per day, but each dairy cow makes about 120 lbs per day, because they're older and bigger. (Beef cattle are slaughtered before or near their first birthday.) Some dairies these days have as many as 1000 dairy cows.Their waste is flushed into open-air lagoons, which can be 25 feet deep and as large as several football fields.These lagoons can spill over during storms, can crack and leak into groundwater. Nitrate contamination of ground and surface waters (and wells) near  livestock-waste lagoons is commonplace and is even legally allowed up to certain limits, although nitrates are toxic for human consumption.  Nitrates and phosphates also cause eutrophication of streams and lakes downhill from the lagoons, which means the nutrients fuel algal blooms that subsequently suck all the oxygen out of the water, suffocating fish and aquatic invertebrates.

51% of greenhouse gases are from livestock

In addition to the waste issue is the fact that the livestock sector worldwide generates 51% of all greenhouse gases - that includes methane from manure, CO2 from the burning of forests to raise livestock feed or to graze the animals, CO2 from the transport of feed or refrigerated animal products, etc. (That figure is from a recent analysis by World Bank scientists, "Livestock and Climate Change," published by Worldwatch institute.)

Milk consumption linked to cancer

The link between cancer and dietary hormones, especially estrogen, is a major source of concern among scientists. According to Harvard scientist Ganmaa Davaasambuu, a number of studies have correlated the consumption of milk and cheese with higher rates of hormone-dependent cancers (breast, testicular, prostate). Milk from a pregnant cow contains up to 33 times more estrogen and 10 times more progesterone than milk from a non-pregnant cow.  In nomadic societies like Mongolia, where cows are milked only 5-6 months per year, the hormone content of milk is relatively low. The Western practice of keeping cows confined in large numbers and milking them 10 months per year is relatively recent.

Science News article on milk, hormones, and cancer.

Photo: Sally Kneidel

Male hormones (androgens) in cows' milk are cause for concern too. In a recent report in Science News, physician F. W. Danby from Dartmouth Medical School said that certain androgens in cows' milk have the capacity for increasing the number of estrogen receptors in the human body. Extra receptors allow more estrogen - including any from milk - to affect cellular machinery that can turn tumor growth on.  Hormones in cows' milk "are being poured into a system that didn't anticipate them," said Danby, and can't eliminate them effectively.

The same Science News report goes on to say, "One of the most provocative aspects of the milk story is its impact on insulinlike growth factor 1. Many studies have linked elevated concentrations of IGF-1 with cancer risk. Not only is milk a rich source of the substance, but people who drink milk also end up with more IGF-1 in their blood."  Incidentally, I read in another article today that cows injected with BST have more IGF-1 in their milk. Since the year 2000, BST has been banned in Canada, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand. But it's still legal and widely used here in the US.  National Dairy Council lobbyists can be thanked for that.

Do we need cows' milk for good health?

The Science News article concludes with a comment on milk from oncologist Michael Pollak of McGill University:  "Because the body of knowledge about this beverage’s human bioactivity is still in its infancy, people may just have to employ the precautionary principle. In the absence of definitive [safety] data—or the presence of an adverse effect which may be small—you have to decide: Is there anything good about milk? And other than developing children and malnourished adults, people probably don’t need milk."

No indeed. Calcium and protein are both easily available from plenty of plant-based sources.

Great-tasting nutritious alternatives to dairy products at our house. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Alternatives to dairy products

And, yes, we've given up dairy cheese. We found some good plant-based cheese we like at Trader Joe's. There's really no excuse anymore for me. Six years ago, a woman who works for PETA said to me, on the subject of going vegan: "It's not that hard."  What she said was so simple, but it stuck with me. No, it really isn't that hard. And as a person who loves animals, who frets endlessly about our planet, and who wants to stay alive as long as possible....it's one of those small things that I can do, that anyone can do, and if everyone did it, the impact would be huge.

Key words: dairy cancer factory farms livestock and climate change dairy cows dairy waste veal calves vegan

Sources:

Janet Raloff. "Scientists find a soup of suspects while probing milk's link to cancer".  Science News. 2009.

Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. " Livestock and Climate Change."  Worldwatch Magazine. Nov-Dec 2009.

Corydon Ireland. "Hormones in milk can be dangerous." Harvard University Gazette.

Review of new food film: "What's on YOUR Plate?"

This post now on Google News and on the syndicated BasilandSpice.com

Two young girls lead the way

I was asked to review the new DVD, "What's on YOUR Plate? The Film about Kids and Food Politics". The stars of the movie are two 11-year-old multiracial girls in NYC, Sadie Hope-Gund and Safiyah Riddle. The film documents the girls' quest to learn why American diets are often so unhealthy, and why our food travels an average of 1500 miles from farm to fork. Sadie and Safiyah were fantastic in their roles as curious young consumers. They were bright, confident, and completely natural in front of the camera. Great role models for other young girls, who will feel empowered by watching the two in action.
Sadie and Safiyah interviewed a variety of relevant experts: NYC school food executives, an MD specializing in cholesterol management, food author and activist Anna Lappé, a food-conscious diabetic, and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. That was just for starters.

After investigating school lunches laden with with fat and empty calories, and the corporate origins of processed foods that fill our supermarkets, Sadie and Safiyah turned their focus to healthy alternatives.

I loved the diversity of local food providers in the film

For me, the exploration of solutions was the most interesting aspect of the movie. I admired the filmmakers' selection of people to represent the local-foods movement in NYC. Three who stood out for me were Maritza Owens of Harvest Home Farmers Markets in Harlem, a Spanish-speaking family of farmers (the Angels) in Goshen, NY, and the founders of Stanton Street CSA (Kevin Walter and Sasha Schulman). A CSA is an agreement that allows consumers to prepay a local farmer for an annual share of his or her produce. All of these people were involved in getting locally-grown produce directly to consumers in NYC. At least some of the produce was organic; it wasn't clear to me whether all of it was.

Organic okra in October. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Ninety percent of farmers need second jobs to support their families

So the movie in a very visceral way illustrated how to seek out and support local farmers and local vendors who provide healthy fresh vegetables. Most such people are barely making ends meet and desperately need community support, so the movie is valuable if it accomplishes nothing more than encouraging support of local farmers. I also appreciated the variety of cultures represented in the film, and the discussions about neighborhoods and demographic groups with little access to fresh produce. The girls' interview with the Manhattan Borough President addressed that problem specifically.

An excellent resource for families and educators

I was impressed with the movie and I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I highly recommend it for families with children and as a tool for educators, especially educators of young people. In fact, the website of the film's distributor offers a 64-page curriculum and 3 study modules that go along with the DVD, entitled School Food, Health and Access, and Local Food.

Although I liked it, I wouldn't necessarily advise an adult foodie who's already knowledgeable about farmers markets and CSAs to seek out the film. And it's not a movie I would have chosen to watch purely for my own enjoyment or for information about food. However, as a food writer with fantasies about making a documentary, I might watch it again as an example of an extremely well-executed film about food. Sadie's mother, Catherine Gund, produced the movie and her expertise as a professional filmmaker was evident. There was not a dull moment, and I can easily imagine a class of 8th graders or 11th graders riveted to the screen during the entire film.

Wish it had mentioned the ominous impacts of livestock

As long as we're examining "what's on our plates", I was a tad disappointed that the documentary didn't address the merits of organic food more forcefully, and didn't mention the fact that Americans eat much more meat per capita than any other country. Our over-consumption of animal products has implications far beyond our health. The livestock sector has a huge impact on global warming - a fact well-documented by scientists worldwide. A recent paper published by Worldwatch Institute attributes more than 50% of greenhouse gases to the livestock sector. Although the film didn't get into environmental issues much, it could easily have incorporated both these issues in relation to health - especially given that both girls are vegetarians.

Hogs for a popular sausage brand, raised on a N.C. factory farm. Photo: Sally Kneidel

Despite omissions, the film is a powerful tool

There are advantages though to covering a few topics well rather than touching on everything. No question that Sadie and Safiyah covered a few topics with pizzazz and aplomb. "What's on YOUR Plate?" invites young viewers to boldly seek answers about their own school food and demand access to healthy produce. We all deserve fresh, local, and wholesome food.

Our books about how our food choices affect our health and the environment:

Sally and Sadie Kneidel. 2005. Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and a Healthy Planet. Fulcrum Publishing.

Sally and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Publishing.

Some of my previous posts about the effect of diet on health and the environment:

"Livestock account for 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions"

"New study: meat impacts climate more than buying local"

"Less meat....smaller footprint"

"Is local food the greenest choice? New study says no"

"Earth Day: 3 things you can do"

"An apple? Bran muffin? or cold cereal? Top ten sources of easy fiber"

"10 hot tips for a green and energy-efficient holiday."

"Obama to fight consolidation of farms: good news for small farms and consumers"

"Smithfield blamed for swine flu by Mexican press"

"The virus is a swine flu and has its roots in North Carolina, the land of Smithfield"

"Tyson and Smithfield drooling over untapped profits abroad"

"Working in a turkey insemination factory"

"A tasty vegan meat substitute: Tofurkey kielbasa"

Key words: DVD documentary movie film review What's on your Plate Sadie Safiyah CSA farmers markets local food NYC Maritza Owens Stanton Street CSA Catherine Gund organic livestock sector Worldwatch

Trees deaths have doubled due to climate change

This post now on www.basilandspice.com

Climate change is killing our trees.  This is an unfortunate irony, because we rely on living trees to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Dead trees do the opposite - their decomposition releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for global climate change. 

This tree data comes from a study published recently in the prestigious journal Science. The authors examined records of tree deaths from 76 plots of healthy old-growth temperate forests in the western U.S. and Canada, ranging from British Columbia to Arizona.  The scientists reported that trees are falling twice as fast as they were 50 years ago.

The study included only trees that died for "noncatastrophic" reasons.  That is, they were not victims of wildfires or huge outbreaks of pine beetles, but were routine deaths.  Overall, more than 58,000 trees were monitored for the study.

Little numbers add up to a big number
The number of routine deaths were relatively small, said co-author Mark Harmon of Oregon State University in Corvallis, but "a lot of little numbers can add up to a big number."

If this trend continues, forests of the future may be composed of younger and thinner trees that store less carbon than the larger trees of today.  Such an effect, in addition to increased decomposition, would speed the rate of global warming.

Warm temps have changed water dynamics
The scientists concluded that the deaths were not due to air pollution such as ozone because many of the trees were in national forests with relatively clean air.  The more likely explanation, they wrote, is that the deaths are occurring as a result of climate change.  Warming temperatures have changed water dynamics in the West, with more precipitation falling as rain than snow, with earlier snow melts and longer droughts. Trees are getting less water.  Also, climate change is giving a boost to tree pathogens that prosper in warmer temperatures.

Scientists in tropical forests have not found the same effect.  In the tropics, the growth of new trees is keeping pace with the death of old ones.

What can be done?  
Author Simon Lewis of Leeds University concluded that "systemic long-term monitoring of forests is essential as a warning system to potentially more dramatic changes."  Yes, monitoring could be useful.

In addition to that, we can all try to reduce our own carbon production: by eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, building passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and see how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:   
Phillip J. Van Mantgem et al.  "Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States." Science 23.  January 2009.

Susan Milius. "Everyday tree deaths have doubled". Science News. Feb 14. 2009

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet: Fulcrum Publishing. 2008.

A few of my recent posts about climate change:

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car

Keywords: trees dying climate change carbon footprint greenhousee gases environmental footprint

Is local food the greenest choice? New study says no

Dairy cows' rear-ends: bad news for our climate.
Photo by Sally Kneidel

"Local" is the mantra in sustainable food these days. But should it be? Is eating locally-produced food the most powerful thing we can do to reduce our ecological "foodprint?"

A new study from Worldwatch Institute says no indeed. I love Worldwatch. They crank out study after study with lots of hard data, evaluating the environmental impact of various consumer choices. So useful! So fun to quote!

Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of local food. We definitely should support small-scale farmers in our own communities who are growing food organically and sustainably. For years now, I've been writing and speaking in support of them, on this blog and in our books and at various conferences.

There's no question that, all other things being equal, buying food grown nearby is better than buying food that's been trucked for long distances. Less transported food means fewer emissions and a smaller carbon footprint. But as Sarah DeWeerdt points out in this new Worldwatch article, we need to look at the whole production picture - not just how far food was transported from producer to market.

As it turns out, when we look at life-cycle analysis, a "cradle-to-grave perspective" on food products, food miles are "a relatively small slice of the greenhouse-gas pie," says DeWeerdt. In fact, according to a comprehensive analysis last year by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University, final delivery from the producer or processor to the retailer accounts for only 4% of the U.S. food system's greenhouse-gas emissions! Materials required for cultivation and processing must be transported too; this transport is considered part of the "upstream" miles and emissions. Such materials include fertilizer, pesticides, animal feed, etc. But the transport of these items, together with transport to market, still accounts for only 11% of the food system's emissions.

What's the source of all the other greenhouse gases associated with agriculture? Production. Primarily, production of livestock. Weber and Matthews from Carnegie Mellon found that a whopping 83% of food-related emissions occur before the food leaves the farm. Tara Garnett, in a recent analysis of a U.K. food system reached similar conclusions.

What you eat may matter more than where it came from

Numerous studies reviewed by DeWeerdt have found that livestock production generates a much higher volume of greenhouse gases than does plant production. Beef and dairy cattle are the worst culprits; DeWeerdt calls them "agriculture's overwhelming 'hotspots' " in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions. A group of Swedish researchers has calculated that meat and dairy account for 58% of that country's total food emissions. In Garnett's study, meat and dairy accounted for half of the U.K. food system's greenhouse gases. Garnett writes, "Broadly speaking, eating fewer meat and dairy products and consuming more plant foods in their place is probably the single most helpful behavioral shift one can make" to reduce food-related greenhouse gases. Weber and Matthews reached a similar conclusion: "No matter how it is measured, on average red meat is more GHG-intensive than all other forms of food. " The dairy industry, in their study, was the second-biggest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

A large proportion of emissions associated with beef cattle and dairy cows are the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is 23 times more potent at trapping solar heat than is carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide is 296 times more potent (molecule per molecule). Methane comes from the rear-ends of ruminants such as cows. Both methane and nitrous oxide come from manure, especially the vast, open "waste lagoons" associated with factory farms.

Well then, just how much does food contribute to the planet's overall carbon footprint? I reported on that in a previous post. In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a live-wire of a paper entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow." According to that research document, livestock account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. And here's the kicker - that's more than all forms of transportation combined! You can easily google that document for yourself. Just read the 3-page Executive Summary in Part I, which summarizes the the whole 400 page report.

After concluding that red meat and dairy are emissions hot-spots, DeWeerdt does go on to review the merits of buying local food. One clear advantage, which Sadie and I talk about in our presentations, is that local food is in general grown by small-scale farmers who are openly accountable for their treatment of the environment and their livestock. The farmers I know who sell food to their own communities welcome visitors to inspect their methods. This is a far cry from industrial producers who keep their exploitive and often abusive operations shielded from public view.

So buy local. But, if you want to contribute to a liveable planet for your grandchildren, eat low on the food chain too. And join me in a tip of the hat to Worldwatch for another fine study.

by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Sources:
Sarah DeWeerdt. Is Local Food Better? Worldwatch Institute. Accessed May 15, 2009.

Livestock's Long Shadow. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, 2006.

To see my primary post about Livestock's Long Shadow and about Weber & Matthews' research, click here

To see all my, Ken's, and Sadie's posts that mention Livestock's Long Shadow, click here

To see my favorite Worldwatch Institute document, Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry by Danielle Nierenberg, click here

Key words:: Worldwatch Livestock's Long Shadow meat industry local food red meat cattle dairy livestock greenhouse gases carbon emissions food carbon footprint foodprint Sarah DeWeerdt Weber and Matthews Matthews and Weber Carnegie Mellon

Most Earth-friendly Mass Transit?

What kind of mass transit is the most eco-friendly?

Intercity buses. Yup. Most of us don't travel much on intercity buses, and we have reasons for that. Bus routes between cities in the U.S. can be unreasonably long - I think Charlotte to Birmingham takes 1 or 2 days one-way, as I recall from our friend Carra. But other bus routes make a lot of sense. The trip from Charlotte to Asheville NC is only about 3 hours (same as by car), it's cheaper than the gas to drive it yourself, and the bus is remarkably punctual - unlike Amtrak and many airplanes. All in all, buses are not a bad way to go, unless it's a very long route that stops in every burg and holler.

Convenient or not, bus travel is green, we have to give it that. Michael Brower and Warren Leon of the Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that intercity bus travel is by far the least polluting mode of personal travel per passenger-mile. Intercity buses are 2 to 4 times less polluting than cars and trucks, per passenger-mile. Intercity buses are also less polluting than passenger trains and air travel, per passenger-mile.

You might guess that cars and trucks are the most polluting form of travel. And you'd almost be right. But motorcycles are actually worse. A motorcycle generates the same amount of greenhouse gases as a car, per passenger mile, but twice as much toxic air pollution and 3-4 times as much toxic water pollution. Even though motorcycles get good gas mileage, their small engines have fewer emissions controls than cars. Also, they're made of a higher proportion of steel and other metals than other vehicles, which accounts for their high toxic air and water pollutant emissions.

The best way to reduce consumer fuel consumption is obviously to travel less, but that’s hard to do when lots of us live in the suburbs and work downtown. Our local newspaper here in Charlotte often features developers who are planning self-contained and mixed-use communities, which in the future will house workers closer to jobs and services. We need more such housing and we need it now, before we pass one of those infamous "tipping points" on our journey toward climatic upheaval.

For now, we could reduce fuel consumption tremendously by making better use of mass transit, especially in cities. Half of the United States' 26 largest urban areas currently fall short of the EPA’s minimum air-quality standards. Increasing ridership on the 35 public transportation systems serving these cities (subways, light rail, intracity buses) would improve air quality, congestion, and the financial strain of building new highways and widening roads.

But... municipal dollars won't be funneled into mass transit unless consumers demand it. So let's start demanding. If you live near a functioning mass-transit system, consider using it, even if just one day per week. Every little action helps. Just doing one little thing can inspire you to tell someone else about it, who might then do it themselves, and might tell someone else. Action generates its own momentum. I believe that.

by Sally Kneidel

Sources:

Michael Brower and Warren Leon, The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists (New York: Three Rivers Press).

Robert J. Shapiro, Kevin A. Hassett, and Frank S. Arnold, “Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation,” American Public Transportation Association, July 2002, www.fypower.org/pdf/RES171664_shapiro.pdf.BKeywords:: mass transit buses motorcycles greenhouse gases climate change global warming

Can a Warmer Planet Feed Us?

Before too long, our most direct link to global warming will be the food on our dinner tables. The vast bounty of our neighborhood supermarkets all depends on cycles of rain and air temperatures in far-off parts of the globe. Now, across the world, those cycles are changing and the effects will be profound — for all of us.

As patterns of wind and rain shift, no one knows exactly where the water will end up or when it will arrive. But most of the big computer models predicting Earth's future climate, including those created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, foresee declining rainfall in the tropics. Harvests in those regions will decrease too. In India and much of Africa, already struggling with food shortages, food production will drop.

Climate change will produce more extreme weather, such as hurricanes and monsoons that can destroy crops and leave people with no food at all.

Most scientists don't foresee major changes in total food production during the next decade or two, as average temperatures increase by just a few degrees. As food production falls in sub-Saharan Africa and India, food production will actually increase (temporarily) in temperate regions such as North America and Europe. As a result, the world will become increasingly dependent on a handful of major food exporters, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

Forty or 50 years from now, as today's children reach middle age, things are projected to get worse. As temperatures continue to rise, along with levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, most models show global food production falling. The areas most affected will be those least able to purchase food from abroad. Foremost among these is Africa. According to some estimates, tens of millions of people could go hungry unless there's a major effort to help these countries adapt.

Agricultural communities can adapt in some ways, but it won't be easy, especially in the poorest parts of the world. The soil in many parts of Africa is highly degraded from overgrazing and overharvesting. There's very little organic matter — decomposed leaves, roots and grass — left in the soil. It isn't replenished because any leftover vegetation is used for fuel. Improving the soil would help Africa prepare for climate change by increasing harvests and also helping the soil store water. Providing alternative fuels for rural households is one way to help improve soil in sub-Saharan Africa.

Anything that increases the wealth of developing nations, especially in the tropics, will help them adapt to coming food shortages.

What can we do? Decrease our own contribution to greenhouse gases, with our driving choices, our food choices, and how we heat and cool our homes. Our new book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet offers guidelines for these three high-impact consumer categories.

Sally Kneidel

Source: "Will a Warmer World Have Enough Food?" Dan Charles. NPR. November, 2007

Keywords:: greenhouse gases global warming food shortages Africa

Sheep flatulence innoculation developed

By Peter Allen in Paris
Last updated: 3:38 PM BST 05/06/2008

New Zealand scientists claim to have developed a "flatulence inoculation" aimed at cutting down on the massive amount of methane produced by its sheep and cows.
Such animals are believed to be responsible for more than half of the country's greenhouse gases, causing huge environmental problems.

But Phil Goff, New Zealand's trade minister, told an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in Paris yesterday that a solution was in sight.

"Our agricultural research organisation just last week was able to map the genome ... that causes methane in ruminant animals and we believe we can vaccinate against" flatulent emissions, Mr Goff said.

Scientists in New Zealand have been working around-the-clock to reduce emissions from agriculture, such as changing the way fertilisers are used on pasture land, Mr Goff added.

Sheep, cattle, goats and deer produce large quantities of gas through belching and flatulence, as their multiple stomachs digest grass.

Ruminants are responsible for about 25 per cent of the methane produced in Britain, but in countries with a large agricultural sector, the proportion is much higher.

The 45 million sheep and 10 million cattle in New Zealand burped and farted about 90 percent of that country's methane emissions, according to government figures.

In comparison, livestock are responsible for about two per cent of the United States's greenhouse gas emissions, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Under the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming, New Zealand must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

In the past New Zealand's farmers have showed their disgust at government plans to impose an animal "flatulence tax" by sending parcels of manure to members of parliament.

The OECD conference is discussing climate change, trade and the global economy.

Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2076607/Sheep-flatulence-inoculation-developed.html

April 14, 2007: National Day of Climate Action

Photo courtesy of peacecorpsonline.org

Here's your chance to meet other global-warming activists in your own community.

The website Step It Up! 2007 is promoting a "national day of climate action" on April 14, 2007. Great idea, and a desperately needed action. Already 920 events are planned in 50 states. The Step It Up 2007 website has an interactive map that allows you to locate the event closest to your home.

Step It Up! is pushing Congress for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2050, which is just a 2% reduction per year.

Here is Step It Up's explanation of why they've chosen this particular goal. From their website:

"The latest science tells us that temperatures are increasing faster than expected, and the results are showing up in melting ice caps, intensifying storms, and rising sea levels. America's foremost climatologist, NASA scientist James Hansen, has said that we have just a few years to start reducing carbon emissions, and he's endorsed our goal of 80% by 2050. That won't prevent global warming - it's already too late for that - but it may be enough to stave off the most catastrophic effects.

"While few experts have said explicitly 'we need to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050,' we're sticking to this message. Here's why: Scientists have resisted in nearly every case prescribing policy because they don't want to enter the political realm. That's why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others won't suggest policy, but rather leave it up to legislators to do the dirty work. That said, Jim Hansen, the Stern Report, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a number of European countries, the State of California and others (including the new USCAP business-environmental partnership) have either suggested or explicitly referred to 80% carbon cuts by 2050 as a solution commensurate to the scale of the problem.

"And it's possible. The cost of renewable energy is falling fast. New conservation technologies, like hybrid cars, are becoming more available. Many Americans are starting to switch already, but only leadership from Washington can allow this transformation to happen fast enough. And if we begin to get our house in order, then we can play some role in helping China and India steer away from cataclysm as well.

"There are no guarantees we'll succeed. But if we act ambitiously, we have reason to hope."

Step It Up's website (link above) also has suggetions for how to plan an action near you, if there isn't one already planned, and other steps you can take to reduce our contribution to climate change. Americans are right now the world's biggest producers of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. But we're not helpless to stop it.

Keywords:: global warming, day of action, step it up, Congress, 80% reduction, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, climate change