Dr. Jonathan Harrington is an associate professor of international relations at Troy University. An experienced teacher and expert on environmental politics and policy, Jonathan has been educating students and the public about environmental issues for more than 15 years. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on environment and development related topics. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Dr. Harrington has spent many years living and working in East Asia and has travelled to more than 35 countries. He has hosted, organized and spoken at international conferences in Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong and the United States.

His most recent book, The Climate Diet (Earthscan 2008), presents a compelling case for the proposition that global warming is in our back yard, is a clear and present danger and will bring even greater suffering to our families, communities and world if we do not take action now. Drawing from his own personal experiences, both at home and overseas, he directly confronts tough questions about how this problem came about and what we can do to overcome it. He offers an optimistic, easy to understand and engaging message; that individuals, organizations and communities can empower themselves to decrease their impact on the climate (and save money). His love for nature and overriding concern about the future of all the “backyards” that he has lived in over the years; Shanghai, London, Hyderabad, Taipei, Tokyo, Honolulu, and Utah among others, are vividly expressed in his book.

(Mercer Island, WA) One of my favorite things about summer in the Northwest is the plethora of fresh, local produce that becomes available in our communities. And there is no better place to partake of these delectable edibles than our nearest farmers market. Why choose a farmers market over a big box store? Let me count the ways!

Eat Healthy/Eat Fresh

First and foremost, farmers markets = fresh food! Nothing beats the taste of newly harvested carrots, lettuce or just picked blackberries. Fresh produce not only tastes better, but a number of studies have shown that it is also higher in nutritional value. Also, local farmers are much more likely to practice safe, humane and sustainable land use and husbandry practices, including better management of insecticides and herbicides, or go completely organic. Why? Because they live in the same neighborhoods we do. They send their kids to the same schools, shop in the same stores and attend the same churches/synagogues. They have a personal stake in being good environmental stewards.

Build Strong, Economically Viable Communities

Buying local has another added benefit, it puts more of our hard earned money to work in our own backyards. Whenever we buy food at a chain supermarket or big box store, most of the revenue from each sale tracks a one way path out of town and into the hands of far away CEOs and shareholders who could care less about local crime rates, schools or parks. Buying our food directly from the farmers who produce it keeps small-scale agriculture alive and well and provides employment and other economic opportunities to our friends and neighbors.

In short, farmers markets bring people together. One case in point is our own newly minted market in my home town of Mercer Island, WA. In 2006, IslandVision, a non-profit group of Mercer Island residents, came up with the concept for the market as a strategy for strengthening the local community and encouraging more sustainable lifestyles. Describing the rationale behind the initiative Callie Ridolfi, Market Director, notes that “on our path to sustainability, we are moving toward a more community-based economy that relies on local relationships (away from industrial efficiencies and corporate structures), and Mercer Islanders are stepping up to share their talents and energy. We are building more personal relationships and reliance on use of local resources. We are getting to know one another and building friendships . . . and it is most gratifying and fun!”

So, the next time you hanker for a juicy heirloom tomato or a slice of organic Swiss cheese, skip the big box store and walk, bike or bus to your local farmers market.

For More Information

You can learn more about the Mercer Island Farmers Market at http://www.mifarmersmarket.org. To find a farmers market in your area visit http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/.

Copyright by Dr. Jonathan Harrington (2008)

All rights reserved

Eat Right, Shed Pounds, And Prevent Global Warming

The End of Food

Dr. Shawn Messonnier, DVM the host of the weekly award-winning radio show, "Dr. Shawn-The Natural Vet" on

In any discussion of holistic, integrative medicine, it’s not unusual to hear the term "evidence-based" medicine thrown around. Usually, this term is used by opponents of a holistic/ integrative approach to health care. One method the fans of a strictly conventional approach use to try to shut down any rational discussion of using holistic therapies is to ask, "Where’s the evidence (proof) these therapies work?"

One of my goals is to start an integrative medicine course at my alma mater, for Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine. A friend of mine, a proponent of integrative medicine, had the opportunity to discuss my proposal with the dean of the veterinary school. His response was that while some of the students and a few faculty members had shown an interest in integrative medicine, most of the faculty was opposed to the idea. He stated that they were a conservative school and only wanted to teach "evidence-based" medicine.

The astounding thing about his response is that there is a large amount of evidence behind the therapies we use in integrative medicine. For example, there are many years of research showing the benefits of joint supplements such as glucosamine for people and pets with arthritis. Not only do the studies show the positive benefits that can be achieved when the proper joint supplements are used correctly, but we have cellular evidence showing exactly how the supplements work in the body.

Omega-3 fatty acids have been recommended for use in pets for over 30 years. Originally proposed to help pets with allergic skin disease, we now know from the evidence obtained through research exactly how omega-3 fatty acids work, and that they bring positive benefits to patients with a number of diseases, including heart disease, joint disease, kidney disease, and even cancer.

I’ve had the pleasure of writing 12 books on the topic of integrative medicine for pets, and have contributed to countless other books and articles on the topic. These books came about after carefully researching the evidence-based medicine that supports the therapies I described. I regularly read textbooks and medical journals in both the human and veterinary medical fields describing evidence-based natural therapies that can be used in place of or in conjunction with conventional medical therapies.

For a dean of a prestigious veterinary school to state that there is no evidence for integrative medicine is illogical and ignores the large amount of proof that exists for the therapies we use every day. If we are going to take the "high and mighty" approach that we will only teach or use therapies based on "evidence," then to be fair we must be consistent in our approach.

There are many conventional therapies that have been used in both human and veterinary medicine before a full understanding of how they worked was known. Even today, certain medications are rushed to market an attempt to help severely ill patients before a full body of "evidence" is obtained.

For those whose veterinarians are opposed to using an integrative approach to health care, citing that they only use "evidence-based" medicine, I would suggest you pose the following question to them:

"Where is the "evidence-based" medicine that
supports the common practice of annual vaccination?"

Of course if you ask your veterinarian this, you may upset him or her so much that you’ll soon be looking for a new veterinarian (which is not necessarily a bad thing if he or she still practices the outdated suggestion that pets need annual vaccinations!)

The easy answer to this important question is that there is no "evidence-based" medicine to support the worn out and dangerous practice of annual vaccination for pets. There is no research proving that pets require annual vaccination for every infectious disease.

Did you ever stop to wander the following: if annual vaccinations are so important for dogs and cats, why we don’t vaccinate people every year against infectious diseases? Shouldn’t we too be protected annually against infectious diseases?

Well there are really two reasons we people do not receive annual vaccinations. The first is that most vaccines produce long-lasting immunity in people (and in pets!) Annual vaccination is not necessary, and would actually constitute malpractice in human medical practices. Based upon years of research we know the approximate duration of immunity each vaccine will produce in a given human patient.

The second reason for not administering vaccinations to people on an annual basis is to prevent serious and possibly fatal side effects. These can include serum sickness (a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine components,) immune diseases of the blood and other organs, and even cancers.

Knowing this, it is tempting to ask ourselves why we vaccinate pets every year.

Research done over the last 10 years shows that the high quality vaccines we use every day in practice produce long-lasting immunity in pets, similar to what is found in people. At this point we don’t know the maximum duration of immunity for each vaccine. Studies have shown that some of our vaccines can produce immunity for five or ten years, and possibly even for the life of the pet.

As is true with people, we see a number of diseases in pets who are vaccinated too frequently.

While current recommendations from veterinary vaccine experts recommend vaccinations every three years, integrative doctors, including me, recommend only vaccinating healthy pets based upon the results of inexpensive blood titer tests.

The other question that’s tempting to ask ourselves is what constitutes "evidence?" How do we know that a therapy works or doesn’t work? How do doctors gather evidence?

Whether we’re talking about a drug or natural therapy, evidence is only obtained by using the therapy in patients. We know for example that ibuprofen works well in people to control headaches, inflammation, and mild pain because millions of people have used many doses of the medication. We know that the NSAID Metacam works well in dogs and cats to minimize inflammation and pain seen with musculoskeletal problems and following surgical procedures. Likewise we know the nutritional supplement choline works very well to help prevent and treat cognitive disorder in pets, and glucosamine, chondroitin, and hyaluronic acid are great therapies to relieve arthritis pain. We have evidence of the effectiveness of these therapies because someone thought they might work, then the therapies were tried in a small number of patients and showed effectiveness and safety, and finally many doses were used which confirmed the initial findings of safety and effectiveness.

So when a conventional doctor with a bias against integrative medicine states that he only supports "evidence-based" medicine, he’s not being honest or fair. He only supports conventional medicine, even when (in the case of annual vaccinations for dogs and cats for example) there is evidence-based medicine showing that this conventional practice is no longer needed!

Finally, keep in mind that medicine is part "art" as well as part "science." While it’s great to have a lot of "science" behind what we do, integrative medicine appreciates the "art" of medicine. There is no one "cookie cutter" approach to treating every patient. Experience obtained by treating large numbers of patients, and being open to trying whatever therapy might help the patient, constitute the "art" of medicine. So often the "art" is what is missing from the strictly conventional approach. Most of what I and my holistic colleagues do is try to find the best therapy for each patient based upon historical and examination data. While I have science to back up everything I do, it’s my application of the science (which is the "art" of medicine,) which determines the outcome of each case.

"Evidence-based" medicine is important, but integrative medicine is "evidence-based" and should be accepted as freely as "evidence-based" conventional medicine.

Keep that in mind the next time someone tries to convince you that only "proven" (conventional) therapies can help you or your pet!

Another Recall: Pet Food--What's Really In It?

7 Things Your Pet Wants To Stay Healthy

Sally Kneidel, PhD, is the author of eleven books on nature, conservation, and science topics. Two books from Fulcrum co-authored by Sally and Sadie Kneidel are Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet (May, 2008) and Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and A Healthy Planet (Nov, 2005). Contact the author at skneidel@earthlink.net.

Beijing's Sustainable Olympic Village Provides Competition for Vancouver And London

China's Growing Appetite For Meat Will Strain World Water Supplies

Author, journalist and public speaker Nancy S. Grant’s newest book, The Pocket Idiot’s™ Guide to Your Carbon Footprint, offers clear explanations of the science and technology behind today’s energy headlines, concise definitions of energy terms, plus practical tips for using energy more wisely in all activities, whether at home, school, work, or play.

A freelance journalist since 1986, Nancy S. Grant researches, writes and speaks about a full range of energy issues, from electricity generation, distribution and reliability, to emerging energy technology, environmental impacts and the carbon cycle, as well as global access to energy supplies and changes in demand for all forms of energy.

Since 2002, Grant’s written the monthly “Future of Electricity” column for Kentucky Living magazine, a publication of the Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives. Her energy columns recently received 2^nd place honors at the 2008 Cooperative Communicators Association Institute in Portland, Maine. 

Nancy Grant--

This morning, my car’s fuel gauge was at the halfway mark, which is roughly ten gallons left in the tank. At 19 mpg, that means I can drive about another 175 miles or so, depending on how many times I get stuck in idling traffic jams, before I really, really need to buy some more gas. But that would be cutting things a bit close.

Here on my laptop computer a little icon tells me I have about 1.3 hours’ worth of electrical charge left in my battery. I might not be able to keep on working until lunchtime without hearing that annoying “beep” that means my system is going to shut itself down. Instead of working straight through, I might need to move to a spot indoors where I can plug in my power cord to an electrical outlet to recharge. Or I might have to switch to old-fashioned pencil on paper.

When I do recharge, that electricity will come from the nation’s power grid.

But how can anyone measure and predict how much power is available in the grid? What’s in there to recharge a laptop battery or a cell phone, provide power for the lights, the air conditioning, the conventional desktop computer and printer, plus the microwave in the kitchen? 

How can anyone predict if that’s enough power in the grid for what I need to do today? What about all the other people who’re busy at their jobs, or at school, or at home doing the chores or watching TV? How much electricity will all of us need?

Is the supply of electricity today equal to the amount of power millions of people will demand?

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) monitors the supply of electricity in the United States and Canada. Originally a voluntary association of electric utility entities involved in the nation’s bulk power supply (the electricity that goes into the grid), NERC’s role changed in 2007. Now many of NERC’s carefully developed protocols for measurement and standards for operations have became mandatory, backed by the force of law.

Now, what does all this have to do with me -- recharging the batteries on my laptop -- or with you -- recharging the battery in your cell phone?

There isn’t some great big grid gauge anywhere, something like the fancy ball sliding down the pole at Times Square on New Year’s Eve, to tell us if we’re running out of electricity. No two-minute warning signal like in the fourth quarter of a football game, either. And no “beep” on our household electric meters to tell us that we’re running low on electricity coming through the wires.

Courtesy Kentucky Living/NRECA

But we are getting dangerously close to a big mismatch between the amount of electricity people want during any particular hour and what we have the capacity to generate. We could run out of electricity very soon. We could have more brownouts and blackouts as early as next year in certain regions.

Why? Three big reasons.

First, as we shift away from the megawatt capacity generating plants fired by fossil fuels (such as coal and natural gas) to smaller kilowatt capacity renewable fuel sources (such as solar and wind), we may decrease the total amount of electricity available during any particular hour in any particular region.

Second, we’re not adding enough transmission lines to connect various kinds of generating stations to bring the electricity we generate from all sources to the areas where people need it.

Third, the demand for electricity just keeps growing.

That last one is something you can do something about right now.

As you adjust your energy habits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, keep this thought in mind: Every “green” step you take to lower the size of your carbon footprint --- by using less electricity ---could also help prevent brownouts and blackouts in the future. That’s the kind of multi-tasking I like.

Some energy terms defined:

Demand --- the amount of electricity drawn from an electric system at any given time.

Load --- another way to describe the amount of electricity drawn from an electric system at any give time.

Peak load is the amount of power drawn at the time of highest demand.

What it all means to you: On a hot humid summer afternoon, when air conditioners are cycling on all over the place in your region, demand for electricity can reach a peak. If your utility doesn’t have enough generating capacity to meet that demand, the system may not function correctly. Power may need to be shifted from one section to another, or the voltage may need to be reduced temporarily.

Brownout --- a small reduction in the voltage flowing through a section of the electric grid to manage the amount of power available during a time of peak demand; the opposite of a power surge (when voltage increases)

Blackout --- a total power failure over a large area, usually caused by major equipment failure

What it all means to you : Transmission lines, transformers, and other parts of the electric grid can overheat when demand is high, causing temporary brownouts or triggering outages that lead to blackouts.

Green power sources such as wind, which often are not steady, make operating the grid a bit more complicated. When wind power generation isn’t contributing kilowatts to the system, it can put too much strain on the other generating sources, leading to brownouts or blackouts.

Your greenest option: Shift the times of day you use electricity away from peak demand hours.

I run my dishwasher at midnight, and try to have the day’s laundry finished by ten in the morning. I usually cook roasts and soups in my slow cooker overnight, not during the daytime. Many evenings I never use my conventional oven or range to prepare supper, and simply re-heat foods for a minute or two in the microwave.

And as often as practical, I re-charge my laptop, cell phone and digital camera overnight, not during peak demand daylight hours.

Dr. Jonathan Harrington is an associate professor of international relations at Troy University. An experienced teacher and expert on environmental politics and policy, Jonathan has been educating students and the public about environmental issues for more than 15 years. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on environment and development related topics. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Dr. Harrington has spent many years living and working in East Asia and has travelled to more than 35 countries. He has hosted, organized and spoken at international conferences in Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong and the United States.

His most recent book, The Climate Diet (Earthscan 2008), presents a compelling case for the proposition that global warming is in our back yard, is a clear and present danger and will bring even greater suffering to our families, communities and world if we do not take action now. Drawing from his own personal experiences, both at home and overseas, he directly confronts tough questions about how this problem came about and what we can do to overcome it. He offers an optimistic, easy to understand and engaging message; that individuals, organizations and communities can empower themselves to decrease their impact on the climate (and save money). His love for nature and overriding concern about the future of all the “backyards” that he has lived in over the years; Shanghai, London, Hyderabad, Taipei, Tokyo, Honolulu, and Utah among others, are vividly expressed in his book.

Jonathan Harrington--

(Seattle, WA) Not a day goes by without the release of some new study about the threat of global warming. Indeed, the world’s scientists are pretty much in agreement that human activities contribute to the problem. Less known is the fact that the food we eat also affects our climate. But I have good news. Some of the most nutritious, high fiber and low fat foods long advocated by diet gurus are also better for our atmosphere. Eating right not only reduces the size of your waist line, but can also cut your ‘carbon footprint,’ or your personal contribution to the growth of greenhouse gasses that are warming our world.

A group of Danish scientists (www.lcafood.dk) recently came up with a new and exciting way to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production, distribution, storage, packaging and transport of different types of food. Did you know that producing 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of beef results in more than 11.4 kg (25.2 pounds) of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent emissions (CO₂e) vs. only 2.95 kg (CO₂e) for the same amount of chicken?

Chicken definitely beats out beef when it comes to your carbon footprint. It is also generally lower in calories and fat. But most vegetables and grains are even better. Let’s take a look at a few more examples.

Source: Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) (2006) “LCA Food Database,” Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, which can be accessed at www.lcafood.dk.

One more thing to keep in mind is that the farther our food has to travel to get to our plates, the more energy it takes to transport and store. So, when possible, try to buy food produced closer to home. It is not only good for the climate, but it also helps the local economy by stimulating jobs and investment in your own community.

Overall, Americans produce about 20 tonnes of CO₂ per person per year, one of the highest rates in the world. Food is a big contributor to this legacy. For a family of four, food consumption can have as big an effect on the climate as driving a small car for a year (and this does not even include impacts from cooking). So, the next time you hear a story about the threat of global climate change, don’t just sit on your duff and shake your head in frustration. Do something about it. Cooks of the world unite, now is the time to rise up and join the fight against global warming!

CO2 e=Carbon dioxide equivalent is determined by adding up the relative contribution of different greenhouse gases to global warming (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) as measured in carbon dioxide units.

Copyright by Dr. Jonathan Harrington (2008)

All rights reserved

The End of Food

Aussies Move Toward Eating More Kangaroo To Combat Greenhouse Emissions

China's Growing Appetite For Meat Will Strain World Water Supplies

Juliana Sloane--

Dr. Shawn Messonnier, DVM the host of the weekly award-winning radio show, "Dr. Shawn-The Natural Vet" on

Shawn Messonnier--

As a holistic veterinarian, I take the time to review all aspects of a patient’s lifestyle and health care. Many of my clients are “first-timers,” coming to me for either a second opinion, for help with a chronic problem that conventional medicine has not solved for them, or (ideally) with a new pet that they want to raise as “naturally” as possible. As part of my evaluation, I take the time to discuss the pet’s diet and any supplements the pet might currently be taking. When it’s time for me to detail my treatment (or disease prevention) plan, recommending the proper diet and supplements is high on my list of health care priorities. In fact, feeding the proper diet and using the correct supplements are so important to my health care plan that these 2 areas of pet care each have their own separate week in my book, 8 Weeks to a Healthy Dog.

While many doctors often overlook diet and supplements, I believe they are critical to any health care plan. Truthfully, feeding the proper diet and using the proper supplements are two easy parts of a health care plan that owners can control and follow. In this article, I’ll highlight some of the things you need to know about diet and supplements to help you get started on your own health care plan.

When it comes to diet, you really have two choices. First, you can prepare food at home. About 25% of my clients make food for their pets, either a raw diet or a cooked diet. There are some great homemade diets in my book, The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats (Prima.)

The other 75% of my clients choose to feed their pets one of several brands of food I recommend to maintain health and fight off disease. The choice is of course up to you. If you choose to use a prepared food, it’s important to know what you’re feeding. Learning to read the pet food label will help you decide if the food is a good, wholesome diet for your pet. I suggest you use the guidelines presented in the following table when making your decision. Since your pet really is what he or she eats, and since everything else a veterinarian does builds upon a solid foundation of a good diet, try to find the best diet possible for your pet!

Here are some guidelines to help you learn some of the ingredients that you may find in your pet’s food. These definitions are adapted from the AAFCO definitions as explained in my award-winning book, The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats.

Preservatives to Try and Avoid if Possible:

• BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole) is a chemical preservative and antioxidant that, while listed as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) in low concentrations, may cause allergic reactions and affect liver and kidney functions.
• BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene) is a preservative and antioxidant that is also listed as GRAS but may cause liver and kidney problems.
• Ethylenediamine is a solvent, urinary acidifier, and color promoter that can irritate the skin and mucus membranes and may cause asthmatic reactions and allergic skin rashes.
• Sodium metabisulphite, another chemical preservative, has caused weakness, loss of consciousness, difficulty swallowing, and brain damage in people.
• Sugar, sorbitol, ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol are used as preservatives and sweeteners that may contribute to diabetes and obesity.
• Ethoxyquin is a preservative, rubber hardener, insecticide, and pesticide. Depending upon the dosage it may prevent cancer or cause cancer.

Food Terms You Must Know:

Meat:
Clean flesh from slaughtered animals (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs) limited to skeletal muscle or muscle found in the tongue, diaphragm, heart or esophagus, with or without accompanying fat, sinew, skin, nerve, and blood vessels. This can be from any animal species such as pigs, goats, rabbits and so forth. If meat is of a descriptive name (example, chicken,) it must correspond to that species (if the label says chicken, the meat should be chicken and not another animal species.)

Meat meal (e.g., lamb meal):
Rendered (a process where the fat and water are removed) mammal tissue without added blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure and stomach contents, except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices. It can contain meat from "4D" animals (dead, dying, diseased, or disabled,) which comes from animals condemned for human consumption. However, meat meal can also come from dehydrated meat (meat without the water content) and can be of high quality (some manufacturers of higher quality natural dog and cat foods make their own meal,) making this designation somewhat nebulous and confusing. As a rule, it should be avoided unless you contact the manufacturer to find out what exactly is in the "meat meal."

Meat and bone meal:
Rendered (fat and water removed) mammal tissue including bone without added blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure and stomach contents, except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices. This is a by-product with variable amounts of meat and bone (differing between batches) and variable protein quality. Like meat meal, it can contain meat from 4D animals (dead, dying, diseased, or disabled,) which comes from animals condemned for human consumption.

Meat by-product:
Nonrendered (contains fat and water) clean parts other than meat, including lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, stomachs and intestines freed of contents. Meat by-products cannot contain hair, horns, teeth, and hoofs. While this protein source may be more wholesome than meat meal or meat and bone meal (since it comes from nonrendered tissue and from slaughtered animals rather than from carcasses of already dead animals,) there is no way to tell by reading the label how much of which "by-products" are included in the food. Once again contacting the manufacturer is needed to determine what is contained in the meat by-product. Sometimes the by-product is healthy organ meat (liver,) and sometimes it might simply be intestines (not so healthy.)

Similar definitions apply to poultry (any type of fowl):

Animal by-product meal:
Rendered mammal tissue without added hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure and stomach contents, except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices. This definition is used to cover tissue products that do not meet other definitions and is not intended to be used to label a mixture of animal tissue products.

Here are a couple of final points to consider regarding the type of food you feed your pet.

The diet should contain minimal or no "by-products."

Chemical preservatives and additives really have no place in your pet's healthy diet. Instead, look for food with natural preservatives such as vitamin E and C.

The type of protein used in your pet's food, beef, chicken, or lamb, really makes no difference to the pet. And despite advertisements to the contrary, "lamb and rice" diets are not hypoallergenic and offer no special benefits to the pet.

Slowly introduce your pet to the better, healthier diet. I recommend adding about 10-20% each week (and decreasing by 10-20% the amount of the former diet) until your pet is eating the new diet and is not showing digestive upsets (vomiting or diarrhea) that may occur if the food is switched suddenly.

Supplements
I believe that every diet can be improved with the addition of high quality supplements. I begin every pet health plan, whether treating a specific condition or simply starting a health maintenance/disease prevention program on a healthy patient, with a good health maintenance formula. The specific formula I use, Vim & Vigor by Pet Togethers contains the vitamins and minerals your pet requires. It also contains colostrum (to support the immune system,) coenzyme Q-10 (a potent antioxidant that also supports the immune system and supports healthy teeth and gums, the heart, and is one of many supplements useful in treating cancer,) enzymes such as amylase, protease, and cellulase that improve your pet’s digestion and absorption of nutrients from the diet, glucosamine (necessary to support normal joint function,) Siberian ginseng (which helps your pet adapt to various stressors,) and L-tryptophan (an amino acid included in the evening dose which helps ensure restful sleep.) This is my basic supplement, and I add others as dictated by a variety of factors, such as the age of the pet, wholesomeness of the diet, breed of the pet, and presence of disease. Additional supplements I commonly add to the diets of my patients include omega-3 fatty acids (fish oils, designed to reduce inflammation in the body,) choline, and antioxidants (great for decreasing damage to cells caused by aging or toxins.)

Feeding the proper diet and using the best supplement for your pet are so important in fighting disease as much as trying to prevent or minimize health care problems. There is no one best diet or supplement for every pet. Veterinary medicine is as much an art as a science. By carefully talking with each owner and evaluating each pet as an individual, I can recommend the best combination of diet and supplements for each patient.

Win The War Against Ticks And Fleas The Natural Way

7 Things Your Pet Wants To Stay Healthy

Paul Roberts--

Most of us are pretty familiar with these issues separately. What I discovered in my research is that most of these problems, from food-borne illness and obesity to soil degradation and other food crises, are all part of the same underlying problem—a system of food production that is no longer sustainable.

Until recently, the idea that the system was crashing wouldn’t have made sense to a lot of mainstream consumers. Indeed, according to the conventional view, industrializing our food production was the only reason we’d been able to feed billions of people so cheaply: food prices today are a fifth of what they were in 1900, when the average household spent half its budget on food, and this massive savings has been central the economic success of industrial countries like the United States, as well as “emerging” economies like China and India.

But in recent years, even mainstream consumers have begun to sense that our success has gone too far. For example, at some point, food became too cheap, and it set off a host of problems that humans had never encountered. For consumers, the traditional barrier to over-eating—cost—has disappeared. But this has also been a problem for the food industry: food became so cheap, and profit margins so narrow, that food companies have had to sell substantially more of it to maintain revenues. Whether this “caused” obesity” is a subject of hot debate, but it’s surely no coincidence that the 1980s, when food prices sharply declined, also happened to be the period when obesity rates shot upward.

And consequences go beyond bulging waste lines. What’s important here isn’t just the fact that food prices dropped, but why. Since the 1970s, big food retailers like Wal-Mart and McDonalds have gained so much market share (Wal-Mart alone accounts for a fifth of all U.S. consumer food purchase) that they essentially rule the food chain. They can force their suppliers—big food companies like Nestlé and Tyson, and the farmers and ranchers they buy from—to dramatically slash prices. To meet these demands, food producers have done what producers in other industrial sectors—they cut costs by automating, any by dramatically raising their output. Why? Because the more units you crank out, the lower your costs per unit—whether that “unit” is a bushel of corn, or a box of corn flakes.

Unfortunately, while this high-volume, low-cost model works well for DVDs or automobiles, food has never really behaved like other commodities. Food resists industrialization, and the only way we’ve been able to make food fit this new high-volume, low cost model has been to change it, often in extraordinary ways. For example, because food is physically so unsuited to mass production, we’ve had to reengineer our crops and livestock to make them amenable to mechanical harvest, and then “amend” the finished products added colors, flavorings, and other chemicals to repair the damage incurred by the manufacturing process.

Worse, although industrialization initially made our food safer, it now undermines food safety. Consider the recent outbreaks of E. coli and salmonella, or the scandal over tainted Chinese imports. Early on, regulators blamed specific bad actors—wild boars in Salinas Valley spinach farms, for example, or a few unscrupulous food processors in Shanghai. But look more closely and it’s clear the outbreaks and tainted imports are really symptoms of these larger shifts in the food economy. They’re what happen when food companies try to cut costs too drastically—by raising output beyond what their own safety procedures can handle, or by sourcing their raw materials from the cheapest suppliers, which, in many cases, happen to be those same unscrupulous players in China.

And as if all these stresses were sufficient, now we’re seeing what happens when a food system already under pressure gets hit by two additional stress factors: rising population and soaring input costs. Consider population. It’s not just that regions like Asia are getting more crowded; it’s that people there are rich enough to afford more meat. Meat isn’t an efficient way to make calories. Under our current grain-fed system, you need eight pounds of feed for each pound of meat, which means that as the largely vegetarian economies of Asia get wealthier and buy more meat, demand for grain will grow geometrically. By 2050, grain demand will be roughly half again as much as current levels, and no one is truly certain where all those extra bushels are supposed to come from. Farm land isn’t as abundant as it used to be (much of the “miracle” of Brazil’s agricultural revolution, for example, has come at the expense of its rain forests.) As well, the other “ingredients” needed to make food, like energy and water, are also in shorter supply. Modern farming runs on petroleum, which serves as both as fuel and fertilizer—and yet, forecasts show global oil output peaking by perhaps 2015, which would put a massive crimp in food output just as global food demand is sharpening.

And we don’t need to wait till then to see the effects. Even now, rising oil costs are really hurting long-distance food shipping. Near term, that’ll probably spell the end of routine shipments of luxuries like Chilean grapes, and will make it harder for grocery stories to maintain year-round availability of fresh produce, fish and other perishables. Longer term, however, higher energy prices will pose a serious challenge to countries like China and India, which already rely in imports for non-luxury staples like grain.

So how do we fix this mess? You hear a lot of industry critics say we need to somehow de-industrialize our food—with less mass production, for example, or fewer imports, or less chemicals. But that’s far, far easier said than done. Our population is already so large, our demand trajectories so entrenched, and our resources are so constrained, that turning back the clock to some “golden era” of small farms or pre-industrial methods isn’t an option. Organic farming sounds wonderful, especially when you see what synthetic nitrogen fertilizers or pesticides do to water quality; but where do you get enough manure or other natural nutrients to replace those nasty chemicals? Likewise, you may not like gigantic factory farms, but how else will we generate enough calories for the 10 billion people we’ll have by mid-century with small farms alone? And sure, a local-only food model might work in a place like the United States, which is blessed with millions of fertile acres and reliable rainfall. But vast swathes of Asia and North Africa lack the soils and water to grow even a fraction of their food needs, and thus will always require imports.

Every food problem we face today is already too complex for some simple, one-size-fits all solution. An elegant little organic farm might be just the thing for a Northern California hobby farmer who supports himself with an office job, but it’s meaningless for a dirt-poor farmer in Ethiopia. The point here is that we’ll need thousands of solutions, tailored to specific places, times, and needs. We’ll need hybrids—farms, for example, that use a mixture of older and newer methods to maximize output while minimizing impacts. We’ll need new food systems—new crops, perhaps, and new tools—but we’ll also need innovation in non-food systems: for example, new land-use laws and transportation systems that can help boost local and regional production. We’ll need to be more global, not less so, creating a more cooperative and fairer worldwide trading to supply those regions that need help. And, of course, we’ll need a massive commitment for funding research to develop these new approaches.

And one more thing: as we start debating how to solve this crisis, we need to keep in mind that many of the problems we’re now confronting began as a solution. Synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics and other additives, the reliance on formerly cheap oil—all were responses to the challenge of growing more food for more people. So as we develop answers today’s challenges, we also need to make sure that today’s miracles don’t become tomorrow’s curses!

To be sure, change won’t be easy. Right now, any attempt to change faces huge resistance from vested interests. Some of these are quite familiar: the big food and chemical companies, along with their allies in government, are terrified of any change that might hurt their bottom line. But there are other resistant communities. Many food advocates are too purist or narrow in their vision of what should be—insisting, for example, that all food be locally grown, or all farming be organic—when such models simply are not adequate to solve this problem. But the biggest resistance is likely to come from consumers themselves, who will need to challenge their own attitudes about how little food should cost or how much meat they need to eat.

But we don’t really have a lot of choice here. Our food systems are already under such strain that even a modest disruption—a sharp spike in the price of oil, for example, or a serious outbreak of avian flu—could be enough to shut down a supply chain that is already stretched pretty thin. And the longer we wait, the greater the potential disruption. Not surprisingly, the more pessimistic observers believe we won’t move until after we’ve suffered such a shock.

And yet… I think we’re already seeing some positive signs of change. Food safety and food quality are now huge issues for Americans—not just hard-core health advocates, but mainstream suburban types who used to be pretty oblivious. That’s provoking changes at some food companies, which are also now panicking over the rising price of raw materials; in a way, the debate over corn-based ethanol may signal the start of a larger, very necessary recognition that we no longer live in a world of infinite acres or resources. The media has begun pushing policymakers. The question now is whether those policymakers can channel these new anxieties into positive change—or whether they simply delay the hard decisions for the next generation. I think the next five years could well turn out to be the most important in history.

Aussies Move Toward Eating More Kangaroo To Combat Greenhouse Emissions

Reduce Deforestation For Cost-Effective Climate Change

A recent study completed by the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia advocates eating kangaroo rather than mutton, lamb, or beef.  Why 'roo you may ask?  

Cattle and sheep are ruminants--chewing their cud and emitting greenhouse gas, producing 11 percent of Australia's emissions.  Published in the journal Conservation Letters, the study states that by increasing kangaroo numbers to 175 million by 2020, greenhouse gas emissions in Australia can be reduced by 3 percent.  A reduction of sheep and cattle by 30 percent must also be completed.

"Kangaroos emit one-third as much methane as ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and goats, which are responsible for 60 percent of global methane emissions.  Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas that is a real threat to global warming and climate change."

A recent report, "Consumer Attitudes to Kangaroo Meat Products" shows a shift in the dining habits of the Aussie population.  Kangaroo is now considered a low cholesterol meat, and consumption of kangaroo is higher than in the past. The meat contains less than 2 percent fat, 40 percent of that being polyunsaturated.  "Nutritional benefits of kangaroo meat for people advised to follow cholesterol-lowering diets were discussed by O'Dea (1988) who conducted research which showed that both Aboriginal Australians and Australians of European origin had 19-24% lower plasma cholesterol levels following 2 weeks on a diet containing 500g/day of kangaroo meat."

Of those polled, 58.5% said they had tried the meat, men more likely than women. (Kangaroo as food was legalized only in 1980, but was used only as pet food until permitted for human consumption by the state of New South Wales in 1993.)

In the past, the United Nations offered a report backing the idea that livestock generates more greenhouse gas emissions, approximately 18 percent (2006) than transportation.  The United States Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the problem as well. "Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities." 

One cow may not seem like a big deal, but there are about 100 million cattle in the United States and 1.2 billion ruminants around the world.  "In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions."

If the Aussies are willing to increase their consumption of kangaroo over mutton and beef, what will Americans be eating?

China's Growing Appetite For Meat Will Strain World Water Supplies

Can A Warmer Planet Feed Us?

New Study: Meat Impacts Climate Change More Than "Buying Local"

 Gary Ginsberg, Ph.D. is a toxicologist who teaches at Yale and the University of Connecticut Medical Schools. He has served on several National Academy of Sciences panels and has testified before Congress on toxics issues. He recently co-authored What's Toxic, What’s Not (Berkley Books, 2006), a layman’s guide to chemical hazards around the home. He can be reached through his website www.whatstoxic.com. Dr. Ginsberg can also be heard live every Saturday from 4-6 PM on “Greener Living with Dr. G” on WTIC AM-1080.

Gary Ginsberg--

Our attitude about skin is pretty simple – lets do whatever it takes it keep it looking young, beautiful, tanned, smelling fresh, and free from germs and insect bites. So we coat our skin with 5 to 10 products daily (a few less for guys on average)as if applying layers of paint to protect the exterior of a house. The unfortunate difference is that what goes on the outside of our human house, often gets inside, creating unexpected exposures and risks. When we do stop to think about skin health,its usually about skin cancer, which prompts us to put on yet another coating (sun block) with dubious chemical ingredients.

There are scores of different products, product lines and ingredients, far too much for one quick blog to sort out. Instead I offer some guideposts through the murky colloidal world of skin concoctions that will help you choose what to fuss over and what to relax about in your role as skin painter and yet gatekeeper of your inner world.

The number one skin crème this time of the year is sun block. Its important to pay attention to which one you use. The old stand bys, titanium and zinc oxides, are physical blockers that are effective against UV-A and UV-B rays and are not a risk in their own right. But they have been replaced in many products by synthetic chemical blockers that can be estrogenic. Fortunately, the physical agents are still available so look for these on the label. And the other big summer skin coating is bug repellent, the main ingredient of which is DEET. This is generally safe but there are still some precautions, especially regarding very young children. So, read on and remember, a layer of clothing is often the best way to prevent burns and bites and cut down on unnecessary chemical exposures.

DEET and other Insect Repellents – on a label, DEET looks worse that it is. This multi-syllabled chemical repels mosquitos and ticks by some mysterious mechanism but its not particularly toxic (its not a pesticide and doesn’t kill anything). Typical strength for yard work and hiking is about 10% and this affords protection for several hours. This is safe for children, although not under 6 months of age and don’t apply directly to the face. Also, apply it for them as they may overdo it themselves. In general, avoid higher concentrations unless you are spending the day deep in mosquito country. Its important to avoid mosquito and tick bites for health reasons (West Nile virus, Lyme disease), so do wear clothing or some kind of repellent to protect yourself. Citronella and other essential oils can also repel mosquitos but are less uniformly effective and may not last as long.

Fragrance – this could mean any of hundreds of natural or synthetic ingredients. About 10% of people are allergic to commonly used fragrances. Even if you aren’t allergic, you may not want to be a walking asthma trigger, so cut down on the amount you wear. Fragrance typically comes with a phthalate chaser; the phthalate helps the fragrance cling to the skin to last longer. This is another good reason to cut back on fragrance. More natural, phthalate-free products now are using essential oils as fragrance. Watch out for “parfum”, “fragrance”, “botanical fragrance” as these typically mean you are also getting phthalates.

Oxybenzone and other Benzones in Sunblock – these synthetic chemicals absorb the sun’s UV rays and help keep the skin from burning. However, they look like and act like a weak form of estrogen and so there is a theoretical risk for hormone disruption and breast cancer. While far from proven, it is prudent to read the label and opt for physical blockers, titanim and zinc oxides, which by the way have more complete blocking action against both UV-A and UV-B rays.

Parabens – these common preservatives in lotions and other coatings look like estrogen to the body. Many “natural” cosmetics companies have formulated around parabens and this label ingredient has become a litmus test of the kind of company you are dealing with. If their product contains parabens, they obviously are not concerned with removing questionable ingredients so who knows what else they are using. Avoid parabens – its getting easier to do as more products are going this way.

Phthalates – synthetic plasticizers used in skin products to help fragrance cling to the body and to increase hold in hair spray. Phthalates are endocrine disruptors that, in particular, have anti-male effects, especially during fetal development. Some phthalates are also suspect carcinogens. Cut back on cosmetics, lotions, deodorant, perfume and any products that contain synthetic fragrance. Since they do not need to be listed as an ingredient, the best way to know you are avoiding phthalates is to go with scent-free products or products scented with natural essential oils.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) – an emulsifying and surface-active agent present in many shampoos, conditioners and skin treatments. SLS can be irritiating and worsen pre-existing skin conditions. The more natural companies have moved away from this ingredient (yes it requires labeling) so it should be easy to find SLS-free products if you look in the right stores. The SLS-carcinogen connection is not well founded so don’t use this as a motivating factor even though there are websites which will tell you how lethal SLS is.

Triclosan – liquid hand soap, deodorant, toothpaste – they are increasingly bearing an unnecessary antibacterial agent, triclosan, that is far from benign. Good old soap and water kills germs, so keep it simple. Triclosan is environmentally persistent, concentrates in breast milk, is hormonally active, and may even break down to worse compounds in the environment. Therefore, triclosan should be avoided, especially if its in products that are intended to stay on your skin (deodorant) or are put into your mouth (toothpaste). While useful in certain hospital settings, there is no evidence that the antibacterial action of triclosan does any good around the home. It must be on the label so its pretty easy to avoid if you read the fine print.

BPA Is Hiding In Your Food--Not Just The Baby Bottle

A Shot In The Arm For China: Don't Get Sick While Visiting Beijing