United Nations 8 Millennium Goals: Way off target

It’s been ten years since the United Nations Millennium Goals to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger were proposed. So how are we doing?

The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals were up for their ten year review at this week’s UN summit in New York. First drawn-up at the Millennium Summit in 2000, the goals include eight international development promises that all 192 United Nations member states have agreed to. Up front is the goal that every state should work to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger in the world, by 2015. However, the review session has reminded us that, two-thirds of the way through our allotted time, we are not on track.

“Most of the goals are increasingly unlikely to be met by their 2015 deadline,” frowned the Financial Times. The FT argued that this was because the goals were always unrealistic (“Achieving universal primary education and halving the proportion of hungry people in 1990 was a daunting, if not impossible, task.”) But also, the donors have become increasingly slack on fulfilling their promises: “While France and Britain have significantly increased the value of their aid … Germany and Italy have allowed it to fall precipitously. The latter should honour their pledges.” The FT also suggested that “Rich countries should press on with trade liberalisation, principally by reopening the Doha round.” Trade is much better for development than aid, said the FT.

It is difficult to disagree with the idealized goals in themselves, especially, as the Economist pointed out, since they “have become a kind of secular scripture for NGOs”. However, the Economist found that the fault lay with the fact that “the metrics used to determine success or failure are of questionable use”. Benny Avni writing in the New York Post also argued that it was the means rather than the intended ends which were at fault and noted: “The only reduction in poverty since 2000 came thanks to the increasingly free economies of nations like India and China.”

The New York Times, however, laid the blame for failure clearly at the feet of “rich nations” rather than their unrealistic ideals. “The global recession set many countries back. But rich nations — including the United States — have not contributed the money needed”. The Times found it “disappointing” that President Barack Obama made no hard commitment in his UN speech to increase development aid, arguing that he should lead by example: “The legalistic claims by some of his aides that the United States never really signed on to hard aid targets sends precisely the wrong message. If Washington isn’t willing to fully ante up, there is little hope others will.”

However The Times, was joined by Business Week in praising Obama’s argument that it was in the economic interest of the US to help developing countries. “In our global economy,” he said, “progress in even the poorest countries can advance the prosperity and security of people far beyond their borders, including my fellow Americans.” Obama continued to remind us that helping others was “rooted in America’s enduring commitment to the dignity and potential of every human being,” as well as beneficial to the US economy and national security.

Obama also spoke optimistically about the goals achieved so far such as advancing education, reducing cases of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and improved access to drinking water. This was a far cry from former Prime Minister to the UK Gordon Brown’s speech to the summit which, according to the Guardian, called on us to “face the shameful truth that corrosive indifference by rich nations was in danger of leaving millions in poverty in Africa for another 100 years.”

The review summit has produced an extra $8bn in pledges, from governments and the private sector. An amount which the Guardian sullenly noted was “still not enough to meet the goals.” However, Bill Gates injected some carefully-chosen words of encouragement into his UN speech: “Disappointing is not dispiriting.” He said, “It is not surprising we do not get perfect grades so I disagree with those that only focus only on the disappointment and try to spread around blame. People are not motivated by blame – people are motivated by success and we have had many successes.” Chin up!

Original Article

A Peaceful Diet and a Peaceful Economy would eradicate poverty and world hunger.

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

Why is Africa (and the world) still hungry?

The 2010 Global Hunger Index (GHI) (published 11th Oct 2010) shows that eight out of the nine countries where hunger is increasing are from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Produced by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide, the annual index is calculated for 122 developing and transition countries.

This year’s study shows that twenty-nine of them, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, have levels of hunger described as “extremely alarming” or “alarming”.

The study shows that the Democratic Republic of Congo had the biggest increase in hunger levels which rose there by 65%, while Ethiopia, Ghana and Mozambique have all shown an improvement over the last ten years.

Some countries achieved significant absolute progress in improving their GHI. Between the 1990 GHI and the 2010 GHI, Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Vietnam saw the largest improvements. Original Article

The 2010 Global Hunger Index report reveals that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life – from conception to age two – is critical to tackling global hunger.

According to the report, malnutrition among children under two years of age is one of the biggest challenges to reducing global hunger. It can cause lifelong harm to health, productivity and earning potential. (source: Concern Worldwide)

With the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal to “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” by 2015, woefully behind schedule and with upwards of 35,000 people – over 30,000 of which are children – dying every single day of the year through starvation, (source: www.starvation.net) we at The Peaceful Planet believe we have the solution to cure the global issues of extreme poverty and hunger with the combination of our Peaceful Economy and Peaceful Diet.

The Peaceful Planet principles may be seen as “radical” – but in the year 2010, isn’t it grossly obscene that tens of thousands of people are still dying needlessly every single day.

A radical change in thinking is needed right NOW to replace the current (corrupt) global monetary system and to the totally inefficient, and cruel, animal-based diet we are consuming, which is damaging to not only the health of humans and non-humans but also to planet Earth itself.

Help us to spread the message that there IS a permanent solution to world hunger and poverty by telling your family and friends about us and by posting about us on Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace etc.

2010 Global Hunger Index Map

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

Gary Francione’s Thoughts on Veganism and 2011

It is the obligation of all who embrace veganism to educate others in creative ways about the fundamental moral truth of not exploiting the vulnerable.

We must all become teachers of nonviolence in our homes, social circles, schools, workplaces, and communities. We start teaching by our own example.

Ethical veganism is nonviolence in action; it is dynamic harmlessness. It requires that we reassess and reject the insidious ideologies of domination that we have been raised to accept as “normal.” A world that moves toward ethical veganism will be a world that moves toward greater peace and justice as a general matter.

If we stop treating animals like animals, we will stop treating other humans like animals.

Let us resolve to stand up against all forms of discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, speciesism) and just say no.

Let us resolve to make the world a more peaceful place in 2011 and let us each do our part in that effort. I will continue throughout 2011 to do Commentaries focusing on the various forms of positive, creative, nonviolent, grassroots vegan advocacy that are emerging and developing in many countries and in all sorts of communities. We should all learn from these advocates!

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do. You will never do anything else in your life as easy and satisfying.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2011 Gary L. Francione

Original Article

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

The Starch Solution

John McDougall MD, presentation at the VegSource Healthy Lifestyle Expo 2010.

This truth is simple and is, therefore, easy to explain. You must eat to live. The human diet is based on starches. The more rice, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and beans you eat, the trimmer and healthier you will be – and with those same food choices you will help save the Planet Earth too.

The Starch Solution. What is it? According to John McDougall MD, it’s the answer to many of the world’s health, hunger and environmental problems.

It’s also the title of a fascinating talk by Dr. McDougall, which we are bringing you below on video. The Starch Solution is about how the human body is adapted to eat a predominately starch-based diet, with fruits and veggies added.

In his talk Dr. McDougall shows how every large successful culture throughout history has flourished on an unprocessed, largely starch-based diet, not a meat-heavy one.

The modern widespread heavy meat diet is relatively new in history, a dangerous experiment in human health with little precedent.

Original Article

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

Making The Connection

“Making the Connection” is a new film which invites you on a journey – together with a chef, a farmer, an MP, an athlete, a dietician, a poet – to explore an exciting lifestyle which combines delicious, healthy food with tackling many of the global challenges facing us today.

Will you make the connection and become part of the solution?

“Making the Connection” is a 30 minute film produced by Environment Films . The DVD is freely available from The Vegan Society for media professionals and public showings. ‘Making the Connection‘ is also online in eight chapters.

Chapter 1: Food

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

Plant-Based Diets are Healthier and May Prevent Cancer

Prof. Emeritus T. Collin Campbell, nutritional sciences, attempted to dispel myths about the importance of meat and dairy proteins for a healthy diet Thursday, in a talk titled “A Convocation in Nutrition.”

Campbell, co-author of The China Study, and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic detailed the scientific evidence for the benefits of plant diets, citing the diet’s positive results for everyone from former President Bill Clinton to those suffering from degenerative diseases.

The two explained that these diets not only minimize the potential risks of developing chronic diseases, but also hold the potential to reverse some of the damage and heal the body even in fairly late stages of degenerative diseases.

Campbell showed the audience of a clip of Clinton with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sept. 25, where the former president explained that he had lost a considerable amount of weight on a plant-based diet, including a daily protein supplement and the occasional fish meal. Clinton cited Campbell’s The China Study as crucial reading for helping along his weight loss. While Campbell and Esselstyn applauded Clinton for his adamant stance on having “no dairy” in his diet, they suggested that his protein supplement was unnecessary and the occasional fish could be just as harmful as the occasional cigarette.

In his talk, Campbell explained that the entrenched beliefs in science when he was younger were that meat-based protein was an essential component of any diet. Campbell even fed Filipino children meat in an attempt to eradicate malnutrition in their country while in the early stages of his career.

As Campbell saw studies correlating protein consumption with development of cancer, he began to question the nutritional orthodoxy that based diets around the intake of protein.

“I don’t want you to leave here with the impression that protein is a bad thing,” Campbell noted.

Many of his nutritional studies found that the ideal proportion of protein consumption in one’s diet is approximately 10 percent — any more and instances of cancer development increase dramatically. Campbell also cited studies that linked consumption of dairy with different types of cancer.

In addition to the different links between protein and cancer development, other studies seemed to show that “cancer is a geographically localized disease,” Campbell said, where the geographical regions that report higher instances of cancer are those that have diets high in protein.

Campbell summed up by saying that nutrition is holistic, a concept which is “anathema” to most scientists’ method. He noted that he often fell victim to the rigid scientific mentality himself, looking for a single causal force for cancer when in fact, there are multiple mechanisms.

“We missed the big story,” Campbell said about his previous way of conducting scientific research and one that he believes is still prominent today.

Dr. Esselstyn began his lecture by deriding the current medical system’s tendency to resort to “quick fixs” like surgery or medication to reverse underlying conditions, explaining that plant diets have been shown to heal such complicated illnesses as heart disease and coronary artery disease.

“Nothing with a mother. Nothing with a face,” Esselstyn said as he rattled off a list of foods to avoid and foods to include in an ideal diet. Esselstyn noted oil, fish, fowl, meat, dairy and caffeinated coffee as common foods to avoid.

“The only people who really don’t want to see me succeed … is the government, the USDA. Every five years they make a wonderful pyramid that is laden with foods that guarantee that millions of Americans will perish,” Esselstyn said.

As anecdotal evidence of the virtues of plant-based diets for protein consumption, Esselstyn cited the example of Joe Rollino, the legendary Coney Island strong man. Esselstyn said Rollino only ate a plant-based diet his entire life. Up until earlier this year when he was killed by a delivery van, Rollino was still living healthy at 103 years old.

Esselstyn recommended going “cold turkey” when switching to a completely plant-based diet.

Original Article

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

World Vegan Day

The 1st November is World Vegan Day and marks the start of World Vegan Month.

Tell your family & friends about the benefits of a Peaceful Diet for the planet, for humans, and for all animals for each and every day of the year!

Are GMOs Vegan?

This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Peace Is Coming For You.

What Are GMOs? Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs), also called Genetically-Engineered Organisms (GEOs) or Frankenfoods, are novel biological organisms created using recombinant DNA technology. These transgenic chimeras are created by inserting foreign DNA into the existing DNA structures of plants, animals, and other living organisms. GMOs are present in approximately 70% of the food available at retail markets in the U.S. The GMOs approved and offered for human consumption in the U.S. include: Corn and all corn derivatives (corn oil, HFCS, maltodextrin, etc.), Soy and all soy derivatives (soybean oil, soy protein isolate, soy lecithin, etc.), Cotton and all cotton derivatives (oil, fabric), Canola (oil), Sugar Beets (sugar), Papaya (very few), Squash (very few). Upwards of 80% of corn, soy, sugar beets, and canola, grown in North America is genetically-engineered (GE). This means that if a product has corn, soy, cottonseed, canola, or beet sugar in it – and is not organic or labelled non-gmo – it’s probably GE. Potatoes, tomatoes, wheat, rice, sweet potato, cassava, salmon, pigs, goats, trees, mice and numerous other organisms have been or are being engineered. GE salmon is awaiting approval for human consumption right now.

Why Do We Engineer Organisms? There are many purported reasons for developing genetically-engineered food crops. Ending world hunger is one of them. But any semi-informed person knows we grow enough food to feed everyone on the planet and more right now, and the real reasons anyone is starving are political. Other purported reasons for creating franken-foods are to make them more nutritious, to increase crop yields, to reduce the use of pesticides, or to manufacture pharmaceutical drugs. However, none of the GMOs proffered thus far have been developed to do anything but manufacture pesticides, or resist herbicides which are sold by the same companies developing the GMOs. The real reason GMOs exist is to make multi-national corporations – corporations that have been profiting from the destruction of humans’ and other animals’ lives and the ruination of the environment for a hundred years – richer, at the expense of, well, humans and other animals, and the environment.

Who Is Responsible? Most of the GMOs produced come from the same people who brought you Agent Orange and DDT: Monsanto. Monsanto also gave us the GMO rBST, also called rBGH or by the brand name Posilac. rBST is a growth hormone given to dairy cows to raise milk production. In Monsanto’s own words, the “use of Posilac has been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus…digestive disorders…enlarged hocks and lesions (lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee…” But biotech is big business and there are many other players. Because of the deep-pockets and heavy-handed lobbying of these corporations, safety testing of GMOs has not been credibly carried-out. Thanks to the revolving doors in government and bribery of congress, GM foods are “generally recognized as safe” through “substantial equivalence” and are not required to be labelled as being different from non-transgenic foods. (Learn about GRAS) Monsanto carried out it’s own studies, without independent peer-approval, and submitted them as evidence of the safety of their product. Convenient.

What Does GMO Corn and Soy Have To Do With Non-Human Animals? Of the little safety testing that has been done on existing GMOs, either by biotech corporations or independently, most has been done on non-human animals. This is problematic for two reasons: 1) non-human animal testing is morally unnacceptable and 2) testing on non-humans to learn about humans is bad science. It tells us nothing about humans. Even scientists advocating for safety-testing GMOs on animals admit it tells us nothing. Just because a mouse or chimp reacts a certain way to a substance doesn’t mean this data can be extrapolated to humans. Most novel biotech products and processes are tested on non-human animals. Often the new product is non-human animals. Remember, these biotech companies aren’t just in the food business. They develop medicines, vaccines, industrial agents, chemical agents, etc. Human DNA has been spliced with non-human animal DNA to try and develop a working non-human animal model for human vaccines, among other things.

Cows, steer, sheep, pigs, and other non-human animals are (ab)used by these companies for cloning research, and now these cloned animals are entering the food supply. Goats have been engineered to produce drugs and spider-silk in their milk. Rabbits, pigs, mice and other non-human animals have been engineered to fluoresce, or glow in the dark. These companies work with a host of toxic chemicals and are required by the FDA to test novel drugs and other products on non-human animals before they are approved. Many of these tests are done by third-party labs, including Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). From Sourcewatch: “HLS is among the world’s largest contract research laboratories. It operates two facilities in England and one in East Millstone, NJ. At any one time there are 70,000 animals imprisoned within these 3 facilities including dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, rabbits, fish, mice and farm animals. HLS kills approximately 180,000 dogs, cats rats, rabbits, pigs, and primates (marmosets, macaques, and wild-caught baboons) every year in tests for household cleaners, pesticides, weedkillers, cosmetics, food additives and industrial chemicals. HLS kills an average 500 animals each day for tests “only reliable 5-25% of the time”, one HLS record contends.” Other tests on non-human animals are done after-the-fact – independent studies conducted using non-human animals – to expose the [human] health risks associated with eating GMOs. While the efforts are laudable, the methods are laughable. Testing on non-human animals will only tell us about non-human animals. If we want to know if GMOs are safe for humans, we need to test on humans. (Note: Although nothing about humans can be gleaned from testing on non-human animals, logic will tell you that if a mouse shows no ill-effect from non-GMO corn, and shows ill-effect from GMO corn, that corn is not “substantially equivalent” and should not be “generally recognized as safe”. Hamsters born sterile and with fur in their mouths after the grandmother and mother eat GMO corn does not bode well for the safety of GMOs, or the safety of the hamsters.)

Even from a pro-non-human-animal-testing welfarist perspective, these biotech companies’ practices are ethically dubious. From PubMed.gov: “The public discussion on the introduction of agro-genetic engineering focuses mainly on economical, ecological and human health aspects. The fact is neglected that laboratory animals must suffer before either humans or the environment are affected. However, numerous animal experiments are conducted for toxicity testing and authorisation of genetically modified plants in the European Union. These are ethically questionable, because death and suffering of the animals [sic] for purely commercial purposes are accepted. Therefore, recent political initiatives to further increase animal testing for GMO crops must be regarded highly critically. Based on concrete examples this article demonstrates that animal experiments, on principle, cannot provide the expected protection of users and consumers despite all efforts to standardise, optimise or extend them.”

Who Else Has Addressed This? The Vegan Society, creators of the word “vegan” and certifiers of Vegan Society-approved non-human animal-free products bearing the Sunflower Logo, have adopted this policy concerning GMOs in light of the use of non-human animals in the production of GMOs: “In keeping with its vegan ethic, the Vegan Society is totally against the use of animal genes or animal substances in the development and production of GMOs. The Vegan Society believes that all foods that contain, may contain, or have involved GMOs should be clearly labelled. In addition any product must also meet the Society’s Criteria for Vegan Food. Products carrying the Society’s trademark can contain GMOs, but must be clearly labelled and comply with the definition above.” Also: “The development and/or manufacture of the product, and where applicable its ingredients, must not involve, or have involved, testing of any sort on animals conducted at the initiative of the manufacturer or on its behalf, or by parties over whom the manufacturer has effective control.” As far as we can tell, the Vegan Society is the only mainstream vegan organization which has stated a policy regarding GMOs publicly.

What Does It All Mean? Many vegans choose to refrain from buying cosmetics or bath products that have been tested on non-human animals. Many of those same vegans regularly choose to support companies which use GMOs, which have been tested on non-human animals, and are developed by the same companies that make the same cosmetic or bath products that many vegans refrain from using. This is logically inconsistent. GMOs are NOT VEGAN! If we choose to abstain from consuming products tested on non-human animals, we must choose to abstain from consuming products containing genetically-engineered organisms.

What Else? Besides the fact that GMOs are about as vegan as Spam, hand in hand with the testing carried out on animals are the resulting safety issues concerning GMOs – issues every eater, not just vegans – should be concerned about. Here is a list demonstrating both points: 1) that existing GMOs have been, and continue to be tested on animals, and 2) that evidence shows that GMOs are extremely hazardous to the animals being tested, including humans! From nongmoproject.org:

•Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach ulcerations

•Liver, pancreas and testes function was disturbed in mice fed GM soya

•GM peas caused allergic reactions in mice

•Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity

•GM potatoes fed to rats caused excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition

•Rats fed insecticide-producing GM maize grew more slowly, suffered problems with liver and kidney function, and showed higher levels of certain fats in their blood

•Rats fed GM insecticide-producing maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and showed alterations in blood biochemistry

•Old and young mice fed with GM insecticide-producing maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cell populations and in biochemical activity

•Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown), and, most significantly, reduced fertility

•Mice fed GM soya over their entire lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in their liver

•Rabbits fed GM soya showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart

• Sheep fed Bt insecticide-producing GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system of ewes and in the liver and pancreas of their lambs

• GM DNA was found to survive processing and to be detectable in the digestive tract of sheep fed GM feed. This raises the possibility that antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes can move into gut bacteria, a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer can lead to antibiotic resistant disease-causing bacteria (“superbugs”) and may lead to Bt insecticide being produced in the gut with potentially harmful consequences. For years, regulators and the biotech industry claimed that horizontal gene transfer would not occur with GM DNA, but this research challenges this claim

• GM DNA in feed is taken up by the animal’s organs. Small amounts of GM DNA appear in the milk and meat that people eat. The effects on the health of the animals and the people who eat them have not been researched.

•Human volunteers fed a single GM soya bean meal showed that GM DNA can survive processing and is detectable in the digestive tract. There was evidence of horizontal gene transfer to gut bacteria. Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes from GM foods into gut bacteria is an extremely serious issue. This is because the modified gut bacteria could become resistant to antibiotics or become factories for Bt insecticide. While Bt in its natural form has been safely used for years as an insecticide in farming, Bt toxin genetically engineered into plant crops has been found to have potential ill health effects on laboratory animals

•In the late 1980s, a food supplement produced using GM bacteria was toxic, initially killing 37 Americans and making more than 5,000 others seriously ill.

Several experimental GM food products (not commercialised) were found to be harmful:

•People allergic to Brazil nuts had allergic reactions to soya beans modified with a Brazil nut gene42

•The GM process itself can cause harmful effects. GM potatoes caused toxic reactions in multiple organ systems. GM peas caused a 2-fold allergic reaction – the GM protein was allergenic and stimulated an allergic reaction to other food components. This raises the question of whether GM foods cause an increase in allergies to other substances.

There are also environmental issues such as cross-contamination, cross-pollination or evolved-tolerance resulting in “superweeds”, increased herbicide use, decreased yield, soil contamination…the list goes on and on. For a full background on the myriad concerns of GMOs go here.

The bottom line is: there is substantial evidence that consuming GMOs supports – and relies on – non-human animal cruelty; that GMOs are hazardous to humans, other animals, and the environment; and that removal of these products from market is necessary to ensure public safety until safety can be assessed using scientifically sound methods, i.e., no non-human animal testing. If we are committed to empowering ourselves to make compassionate and healthful decisions about who and what practices we support, we will avoid GMOs whenever possible.

How do we avoid GMOs?

Go Vegan – If you’re not already, go vegan. GMOs are mainly used as non-human animal feed in the U.S., so refraining from supporting the inherent cruelty involved in using animals as resources is also the best way to avoid supporting GMOs. Two carrots with one chop.

Buy Organic – Buying organic is the easiest way to avoid GMOs. Even non-GMO produce can have GM corn-based wax, such as peppers and apples. Vitamins used to enrich non-organic foods are most likely GM, also. Things we wouldn’t think of like (non-organic white) vinegar, maltodextrin, or vegetable capsules for vitamin supplements are mostly made from GM crops. And that cotton shirt, or those denim jeans? It’s GM unless it’s organic.

Look For Products Labelled “Non-GMO” – Many companies label their products “Non-GMO”. Some aren’t labeled but a quick e-mail, call, or internet search will probably be helpful.

Grow Your Own Food – Growing your own food has numerous individually-and socially-empowering benefits, including knowing where your food comes from and how it was grown. Biotech companies own an increasing share of organic seed companies, though, so source the seeds properly.

GMOs are quite ubiquitous these days, so completely avoiding them is near impossible. But with a little due diligence, most of the GMOs available can be avoided. It’s also important to call or write the companies using GM products and tell them our concerns. If consumer pressure can get the high-fructose corn syrup out of major ketchup brands, we can pressure the companies we support to use products that aren’t tested on animals, harmful to our health, or ecologically destructive.

In a system that puts profits before people, we vote with our dollars, and we need to pay attention to what – and who – we’re voting for.

Our Mothers told us when we were kids, but we need to remember as adults: Don’t take food from strangers!

For More Info:

Watch “The World According To Monsanto”

Read “Seeds Of Deception” By Jeffrey Smith

Go to Non-GMO Shopping Guide and GM Crops -Just The Science (pdf)

Original Article

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

Dr Dean Ornish, animal welfarists, and vegan turncoats.

After former US President Bill Clinton recently revealed his new life-saving dietary lifestyle, we take a look at one of the physicians who advised him when he was in office, animal welfarism, and also some non-ethical vegans who appear to be eschewing the vegan way for the wrong reasons.


Our Peaceful Diet principle is based on the belief that a Plant-Based Diet and Abolitionist Veganism are integral in our quest for world peace.  Abolitionist Veganism advocates (such as ourselves, Gary Francione, Gary Yourofsky, etc.) "promote the total abolition of all animal exploitation and rejects the
regulation
of any animal exploitation".  Conversely, Animal Welfarists (such as the money-spinning PETA organisation and it’s wealthy President, Ingrid Newkirk) take the position "that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as far as possible, short of not using the animals at all", and they maintain that they aim to reduce animal suffering – before being "humanely" slaughtered! Ms Newkirk, recently stated that "anybody who witnesses the suffering of animals and has a glimmer of hope of reducing that suffering can’t take the position that it’s all or nothing. We have to be pragmatic. Screw the principle.” (more info here). Sorry Ms Newkirk, it is all or nothing and it really saddens us that the likes of PETA have sold their soul, and principles, for the "dollar".

Similarly, it also saddens us that the likes of Angelina Jolie, Lierre Keith, and Denise Minger, have become plant-diet "turncoats".  These former "vegan food faddists", have all recently, and vitriolically, criticised their former "vegan" diets stating that they never felt so ill and being vegan nearly killed them!  Just what were these women eating?  Clearly they had malnourished themselves with not enough of the right foods and/or too much of the wrong foods and have only themselves to blame.  It’s clear to us that people who are vegan for "health" reasons only, are "in it" just for their own welfare and will probably keep hopping from one fad diet to the next.  "Ethical" vegans, we maintain, are in it for the long haul – and not just for the good of themselves but, equally, for the animals and the planet.

It was fascinating therefore, and ironic, to watch former US President Bill Clinton recently reveal that he’s adopted a plant-based diet for to help reverse his coronary heart disease (after undergoing stent procedures earlier this year because one of his coronary arteries had blocked again following quadruple by-pass surgery in 2004) and to actually save his life and yet, Angelina Jolie, Lierre Keith, and Denise Minger, very strangely thought the exact opposite would happen!

It would most probably appear that (and quite commendably) Mr Clinton has decided on a plant-based diet (which is almost 100% animal-free – but he eats small amounts of fish now and again) at the behest of his vegan daughter, Chelsea and also, after doing his own research, "discovering" the work of Dr Dean Ornish and Dr Caldwell B Esselstyn. We’re big fans of Dr Esselstyn, who’s long-term research into the benefits of a 100% animal-free, plant-based diet, are exemplary to say the least.  As for Dr Ornish, we did respect his work but, after watching his interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN recently regarding Bill Clinton’s new dietary regime, is he now a plant-based diet "turncoat"?


Watch the video and then read on…

Dr Ornish was appointed as one of President Clinton’s official physicians as early as 1993 and, in the 1996 revised edition of his New York Times Bestseller "Dr Dean Ornish’s Program For Reversing Heart Disease" (his "Reversal Diet" had no animal products at all except egg whites and nonfat dairy products, and no added oils or other concentrated fats – and NO FISH) , it states that " Since 1993, he (Dr Ornish) has been consulting directly with President and Mrs. Clinton on their diet, nutrition, and lifestyle and with the White House chefs on making food served there more healthful and nutritious".  Also, in 1996, Dr Ornish published a book called "Everyday Cooking with Dr Dean Ornish (150 Easy, Low-Fat, High-Flavor Recipes)" advocating a meatless, plant-based diet – not totally animal-free, the diet was vegetarian and included low-fat/non-fat dairy products and eggs but NO FISH.

Dr Ornish’s "dedication" in this book is as follows: "This book is dedicated to President William Jefferson Clinton and Hilary Rodham Clinton". So, President Clinton already knew of Dr Ornish’s plant-based Reversal Diet from 1993 onwards but clearly took no notice whatsoever of his own physician. Why didn’t Dr Ornish insist, as medical advisor to the most powerful man on the planet, that he follow his dietary guidelines which may have prevented his quadruple by-pass operation in 2004?  Maybe you can lead a horse to water…

On page 11 of his book "Everyday Cooking with Dr Dean Ornish (150 Easy, Low-Fat, High-Flavor Recipes)", Dr Ornish states "In virtually every study that has come out, including ours, the majority of people who have coronary heart disease who follow conventional dietary recommendations – less red meat, more fish and chicken, take the skin off the chicken, four eggs per week, et cetera – get worse.  Their arteries become more clogged over time. They may get clogged more slowly than if they made no changes, but they still worsen."  NO FISH.

On page 316, he writes "Why isn’t fish on the Reversal Diet? Although fish can be low in fat, it is an animal product and does contain cholesterol.  A 3-ounce serving has from 40 to 70 milligrams of cholesterol. (A typical restaurant portion is 6 to 8 ounces.) Three ounces of boiled shrimp have about 166 milligrams of cholesterol. Some are touting the benefits of certain fish because they contain omega-3 fatty acids, but you can get these essential fatty acids from dark leafy greens, soybeans, and soybean products (such as tofu) without the harmful cholesterol". NO FISH.

Fast Forward to Dr Ornish’s interview with Wolf Blitzer. Dr Ornish now clearly states: "I also recommend that people take 3 or 4 grams a day of fish oil because the omega-3 fatty acids can be so protective …studies have shown that just 3 or 4 grams a day of fish oil can reduce your incidence of sudden cardiac death by up to 80%; they can reduce your risk of prostate and breast cancer; if you’re a pregnant woman or breast-feeding, it can raise your child’s IQ"   Maybe so – but this is not a fish benefit issue, this is an omega-3 fatty acids issue – which Dr Ornish clearly stated above in 1996 can be obtained from plant sources. So why has Dr Ornish changed his mind that fish sources of omega-3 fatty acids are now better than plant sources?  Surely, "omega-3 fatty acids" are "omega-3 fatty acids" are "omega-3 fatty acids"!  The source should not make any difference whatsoever. 

Dr Ornish would now appear to be a sort of "welfarist turncoat" – the "Ingrid Newkirk" of the plant-based diet doctors and the likes of Dr Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr John McDougall would appear to be the "abolitionist" champions.

We haven’t read all of Dr Ornish’s books and we don’t know at what stage of his research he decided to put fish back on the menu, we just feel that Dr Ornish’s Spectrum diet is a step backwards and is merely a "personal" welfare diet (which is very important!) – but what about the health of the planet as a whole? 

This is why we truly believe that a Peaceful Diet is the only diet to benefit everyone and everything on planet earth.

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change

International Day of Peace

Today is the United Nations’ International Day of Peace (also known as “Peace Day 2010“) and is a global call for ceasefire and non-violence. This year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is calling on young people around the world to take a stand for peace under the theme, Youth for Peace and Development.

To celebrate International Day of Peace, there will be many global events broadcast live online throughout the day at Peace Day Global Broadcast.

International Day of Peace coincides with a summit of world leaders in New York to accelerate progress towards the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. The 8 Millennium Development Goals were established at the Millennium Summit of world leaders during September 2000 in New York and all United Nations member states agreed to achieve these goals by the year 2015. Sadly, the Millennium Development Goals would appear to be way behind schedule if we take their first goal to “Eradicate Extrteme Poverty & Hunger” as an example. They have just five years left to accomplish this goal but they’re already back-tracking because of the global financial crisis.

Whilst we support International Day of Peace, we truly believe that The Peaceful Planet offers a superior alternative to creating peace on earth. The Millennium Development Goals do not address the slaughter of upwards of 56 billion animals each and every year, so how can true world peace ever exist when humans murder so many innocent non-humans? A Peaceful Diet addresses this major issue and would also eradicate world hunger. Poverty, too, would be eradicated by 2015 if we implement a Peaceful Economy.

Join The Peaceful Planet and help us to create a global movement to bring about world peace on EVERY day of the year.

Peaceful Creativity + Peaceful Diet + Peaceful Economy + Peaceful Interaction + Peaceful Living
The Peaceful Planet
It’s Time For Change