The End of Overeating

Ironically, I, an overweight woman, am writing this blog while munching on a Russell Stover Coconut Cream bunny I got from the discount Easter candy bin at my local pharmacy (double irony?), The End of Over Eating is Dr. David Kessler's intriguing inquisition, expose even, of the way our food is produced and marketed, and the effects of sugar, fat, and salt on our brains and bodies. Science has shown that these 3 ingredients are not only more present in our diets nowadays, but research has shown that they have a drug-like impact on our brains that has effectively shut off the stomachs control that doctors always thought controlled our eating. The increasing weight in America was thought to be a genetic or system malfunction but that was proven to be a false hypothesis. The diet and weight gain may be causing heath problems,such as diabetes and heart disease, but in most cases the weight is not caused by a health problem. The high we get from these foods, which gets stronger when all three are combined, is like that of cocaine. This reaction by out brains hypothalamus (the organ which secretes the hormones controlling appetite and other desire-based functions). tells us to eat more and more, even if the stomach is full (hence is expansion in some people to the point they need bariatric surgery to re-shrink it). This causes us to overeat, which makes us overweight or obese, and for some this enhanced desire is a full blown addiction, just like with any other drug. Manufacturers go looking for ways to exploit this sensation by adding more until its reached maximum pleasure, with no regard for caloric or nutritional value. I must admit that I have seemingly fell into their trap, because though I do have a genetic disorder (Hashimotos Thyroiditis - a form of hypothyroidism), I do also have a "sweet tooth" which is evident by this high calorie, high fat, and high sugar bunny I have devoured (even though it serves 2....oops), and even though I wasn't hungry, just bored.
Food modification is not only present in junk food, bur in every layer of the American diet. As seen in The CAFO Reader, a book about our factory farming system compiled by author and activist Daniel Imhoff, our meat is from genetically modified animasl. Chickens have been altered to have larger breasts, so much so that they cannot walk properly. Cows are given hormones to grow faster and meatier. The documentary Food INC.  shows us how food mega-giant Monsanto has genetically modified (and copyrighted) a new soybean. So as you can see its difficult, if not impossible to have a natural diet.
All of this is alarming because clinical studies have shown a link between these hormones and disease rates and even disorders in our children such as Autism and issues such as earlier onset of puberty development. So maybe next time you go to a fast food joint (joint being apropos considering its aforementioned drug like nature) to have your fatty hormone altered burger, salty fries and high fructose corn syrup (a modified sugar) laden soft drink, the person taking your order should say "would you like some extra chromosomes with that?"

come follow me ;)

https://twitter.com/TaraBridgetM  is my class page

  *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 

If you wanna see my regular one its

https://twitter.com/Psychlone

Farm to Fridge

Every fall I take my recreation group to a local farm to pick pumpkins and see and pet the animals. I have sometimes thought that these animals don’t have as much room as I thought they would. The video “Farm to Fridge” shows that these are the lucky ones. Most cows, pigs, and chickens live a life of pain, suffering and mutilation. What little human contact these livestock have is one of abuse, not affection like their farm counterparts.

Chickens, whether raised for meat or eggs, are kept in pens devoid of natural light and with little or no room to move. Chicks have their beaks cut of in an effort to keep them from hurting each other, but ironically this hurts them more. Male chicks don’t even make it this far, as they are suffocated or ground up alive, just because they are not profitable. Cows are tortured and mutilated before being put into stalls that they barely fit into. Their babies (the calves) are tortured and killed so that momma cow’s milk can be mechanically pumped for human consumption rather than have her nurse her young. Piglets have their tails cut off shortly after birth, and many become ill from infections and lack of nutrition. The sick ones are beaten and slammed on the floor til they slowly die. The Ones that make it are destined to a restrained life in captivity until slaughter time.

As if these indignities were not enough, many of them are further subjected to being slaughtered while still alive and conscious. Stunning methods, such as electrified water or stun guns, fail to render the poor animal unconscious, so they hit the slaughter floor (often literally) awake, aware, and in a grievous amount of pain. So next time you complain about the pain heartburn after having a bacon cheeseburger, realize it is nothing compared to that that pig and cow went through to get to your plate.

Intro to CAFOs

Everyone likes to eat, and out appetite is increasing. Burgers, chicken, pork chops and such are all classic American comfort foods. What’s not comfortable are the conditions in which the animals that provide us with our food are kept. Worse still, are the disastrous side effects of these factory farms on the animals and the communities. In this blog I will discuss the industrialized farming system known as CAFOs, which stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, and the negative effect their practices have on American communities.

Gone are the days of cattle roaming the fields and chickens scurrying in the yard, and the natural cycle of farming. These factories pack the animals in tightly, in a shuttered windowless building, with no room to move. The definition of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a single CAFO can hold 1000 cattle, 2500 large swine (over 55 lbs.), 10000 smaller swine (under 55 lbs.), 55,000 turkeys, 125,000 chicken or 82,000 laying hens. Daniel Imhoff, author of The CAFO Reader states that these animals have been reduced from living creatures to mere production units, bred and altered to meet the needs of their confines, not those of the animals. No sun, artificial feed, and standing in their own waste are all part of the deplorable conditions these poor animals are subject too.

These CAFOs also have negative effects on the health of the animals as well as the people that work with them and live in the surrounding communities. These close confines create and ideal environment for the spread of disease and therefore mortality. This has been combated with the widespread administration of antibiotics. Imhoff writes “The states of Iowa and North Carolina, each administer more antibiotics for animal production than the entire human population of the U.S. uses for medical purposes.” This in important fact to know because this diminishes the potency of out medicines, and it has given way to new infectious disease-causing micro-organisms. Much of these illnesses come from the waste these animals produce. The high concentration of animals creates a grotesque amount of waste. A 100 acre CAFO produces the same quantity of waste as 100,000 city inhabitants, but instead of controlled monitoring sewage plants, the waste is dumped in “lagoons”. This produces run off that gets into the soil and ground water, and essentially poisoning the surrounding communities. Recent studies show that they produce 18 percent of greenhouse gases, and one study by World Watch Institute suggests 51 percent, all of which contribute to global climate change.

We all need to, and enjoy eating, but we need to mind the true cost of our appetites. As the Center for Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University states the current system “presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health, and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise for food.” As the consumer we need the start putting quality ahead of quantity, both for our own good and for that of our animal friends.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201202/meat-eaters-downplay-animal-minds

Meat Eaters Downplay Animal Minds

When people eat meat, they downplay the minds of animals.

Published on February 15, 2012 by Art Markman, Ph.D. in Ulterior Motives

The decision about whether to eat meat has a moral dimension to it. The animals that we use for food are complex creatures. Deciding to eat them means accepting that they will be killed so that you can eat them.

That is not to say, of course, that people grapple with this decision at every meal, but in some way everyone has to make some decision about whether to eat animals. And before I go any further with this discussion, I should mention that I have been a vegetarian for about 10 years now for a combination of economic, health, and moral reasons.

An interesting question about eating meat involves how people grapple with the issue that many animals people eat are reasonably intelligent creatures. An interesting paper in the February, 2012 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Brock Bastian, Steve Loughnan, Nick Haslam, and Helena Radke suggests that when people eat meat, they tend to downplay the minds of the animals that they eat.

In one simple study, the researchers asked (meat-eating) participants to rate how willing they were to eat a variety of animals ranging from houseflies, to fish, to chicken to elephants to gorillas. They also rated the how strongly each of these animals had a number of mental abilities such as feeling hunger, fear, and pain, and having self-control and planning abilities. There was a systematic relationship between the animals people choose to eat and their beliefs about the minds of the animals. People were much less willing to eat animals that they believe have complex mental abilities than to eat animals that do not have complex minds.

Of course, this alone might just mean that the animals that people choose to eat are the ones that are not so smart. In another study, meat eaters were asked to think about cows and sheep. Some of them thought about these animals living an idyllic life on a farm. Others thought specifically about these animals growing up on a farm and then being killed for food. Later, they also rated the mental abilities of the animals. When people thought about the animals as food, their ratings of the mental abilities of the animals were lower than when they thought about the animals living on a farm.

It isn't just thinking about animals being used for food, though. In one final study, all of the participants had to write about the process of raising and butchering animals for food. All of the participants thought they were going to do a food sampling task after writing the essay. Half of the participants were told they would be eating fruit during the food sampling, while others were told they would be eating beef and lamb. Finally, participants rated the mental abilities of cows and sheep. The group that was about to eat meat gave much lower ratings of the mental abilities of cows and sheep than the group that was about to eat fruit.

These studies suggest that people who choose to eat meat have to grapple with the moral dilemma of eating an animal with a brain whether they realize it or not. Because of the importance of eating to our lives, we think about food animals as less complex than other animals. This effect is particularly strong in the context of meat eating.

Of course, this mechanism is not special to eating. There are lots of situations in life that cause different goals and moral values to come into conflict. Eating a piece of chocolate may conflict with a diet. Buying a new car may conflict with the desire to save for a new home. Research that I did with Miguel Brendl demonstrates that, when one goal becomes highly engaged, we change our attitudes about things that would conflict with that goal to make them less attractive.

Follow me on Twitter

And on Facebook

Check out my new book, Smart Thinking (Perigee Books)

from: http://www.momables.com/does-my-grocery-sell-meat-with-pink-slime/
(video on site)

Does my grocery sell meat with pink slime?

Posted by Laura on March 11, 2012 Leave a Comment

All packaged beef must claim “beef” as their ingredient. The USDA has classified pink slime as “beef” because it comes from beef; and therefore, it does not have to be listed on a label. Deceiving, right? I’m sure you are wondering, which stores sell ground meat with pink slime? Below is a list of 7 major grocery chains that answered ABC News’ request for further information in their investigation.

ABC News emailed the top 10 grocery chains in America and seven responded:

1. Costco – Does not use pink slime. “Anything that we sell at Costco we want to explain it’s origins, and I personally don’t know how to explain trim treated with ammonia in our ground beef,” Craig Wilson, vice president of quality assurance for Costco, told ABC News. “I just don’t know how to explain that. I’m not that smart.”
2. Publix – “We have never allowed the use of LFTB (pink slime) in our meat. It’s 100 percent ground beef with no LFTB.”
3. H-E-B – “All our ground beef sold at H-E-B is 100% pure with no additives.”
4. Whole Foods – Does not use pink slime.
5. Safeway – “We rely on the federal government to help guide us on food safety issues. USDA has been clear in its judgment that Lean Finely Textured Ground Beef is a safe source of nutrition. However, we are reviewing the matter at this time.”
6. Ahold (Stop & Shop/Giant) – “Stores operated by the divisions of Ahold USA do carry ground beef made with Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings (BLBT), also called Finely Textured Beef (FTB). Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings (BLBT) is beef and is absolutely safe for consumption. To make the product, beef companies use beef trimmings, which are the small cuts of beef that remain when larger cuts are trimmed down. These trimmings are USDA-inspected, wholesome cuts of beef. This process has been an industry standard for almost 20 years. Alternatives to the conventional ground beef supply, in the form of Certified Angus Beef and Nature’s Promise ground beef products, are available to customers in stores across all of the divisions of Ahold USA. These products do not include the use of BLBT. Customers are being encouraged to ask any meat associate should they have any questions or would like to be directed to meat that does not include Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings. Our labeling is in compliance with USDA regulations. BLBT is USDA tested and approved ground beef and therefore does not require labeling.”
7. Kroger – “We do not use finely textured beef in our fresh ground beef. … We are routinely presented the finely textured beef as an option, but have always refused.”

In addition to Whole Foods, Tops Markets told ABC News it does not use “pink slime.” -List Source ABC News.

What’s the problem here? That some of these stores don’t see anything wrong with using the pink slime because it is a practice that has been allowed and deemed safe by the USDA. And what about Walmart? Does Walmart put pink slime in its ground beef? I am still waiting to hear the answer and I’m sure many of the 200 million people that shop at their stores weekly are too. What can you do? As mentioned in the post, What Is Pink Slime, if the beef is not stamped USDA Organic you have no way of knowing for sure the source of its contents.

Pink Slime Found In 70% Of Supermarket Ground Beef In ABC Investigation (VIDEO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/pink-slime-supermarket-ground-beef_n_1332429.html

The price of beef has risen dramatically in recent months and years. That's led many consumers to shift away from steaks and towards cheaper hamburgers and meatloaves when they've had a hankering for cow. But record highs mean that even ground beef is getting pricier. What's a supermarket, looking to keep the price of ground beef competitive, to do? Use the cheapest possible kind of ground beef: the much-reviled "pink slime."

According to a recent "ABC World News" report from Jim Avila, 70% of ground beef sold in supermarkets contains the ammonia-treated sludge, which is the the product of a method for salvaging meat scraps from otherwise unusable parts of a carcass.

Avila was tipped off to the startling figure by a whistleblower at the USDA -- who says he has quit his job out of disgust with the product.

The level of usage is consistent with a 2009 report on pink slime by the New York Times. The paper wrote that "a majority" of ground beef in America contained the substance, which is manufactured by a company called Beef Products, Inc.

Since then, fast food companies have discontinued their use of the product en masse. Pink slime is still in the mix of the ground beef used in school lunches, however.

If you want to avoid pink slime altogether, then, and don't want to eat at McDonald's, you may have to buy your own meat grinder. Or stop eating hamburgers.